Hello

I am used to using tapes now my major work being weddings how do i store my footage, with tapes you put the tape away and pull it out in two to three months to begin work on that project

What would be the best way to store the footage of the memory sticks on hard drive a little risky to keep it on there for that long or store it back on tape when i get home i am confused

this is the one thing bothering me about tape less workflow

Rob.

depends on the format in which u wish to archive,

You cold easily acquire the footage in XDcam good quality at hdv resolutions, then do a simple transcode from the PC back to tape in HDV format.. Youd need a HDV deck though..

Another opiton is to use BlueRay discs (XDcam specifically) and then use those discs as you would any HDD. This is more expenisve but much more efficient.
By editing directly with the files (through programs like vegas) you can edit using proxy's then do yoru final render in full res once the edit is complete. In trun, you wouldnt even need to have that footage on HDD at all..

BUT.. in al honesty for price and performance, you can easily grat a 1TB disc array with a Raid1 mirror set up and work from there. This way if anything were to go wrong with a HDD, you havent lost anything

I will be using this cam for wedding once the market for high end HD picks up, for now HDV is perfectly sufficient for weddings.

Hi,

I too am a wedding videographer. I will likely be creating a mirrored raid with my apples.

I am in the same position as you. Only I don't wait a few months to start on the project. I within about two weeks as we have an in house editor. Delivery is in about 4-6 weeks.

I am not too nervous about having drives fail at all. I have been working my drives very hard and have not had any issues at all.

Using the pro res format I hope to reduce the file size and therefore the amount of projects on the drives will go way up.

There are some direct to disk back up options that have been talked about at length here. That seems to have the longest shelf life but the cost of entry is about 2K us.

The media seems cheap enough. I wouldn't freak out too much about having drives fail in that time period. When was the last time a drive failed on you? How old was it?

At the current prices for drives you could throw them away every year :)

Mike

Hard drives are pretty robust, but at a minimum I would keep a second copy on a secondary firewire drive that you keep off-line.

We copy our raw footage from the the Firestores to a raid array, and then a do verified copy to a removable firewire drive on our file server. Last but not least, we burn a blu-ray copy of the footage.

Once we go solid state, the workflow will be the same.

as stated with the cheap cost of big HDs you could buy a bunch of 750 or 500 gig HDs and archive them the footage offline or get a disc burner from sony and burn a bluray archive OR burn a couple of dvds to store them. Personally for me, IF I make the switch it'll be some HDs and after a year or so I wipe ithem clean. In my experience after about 6 months they aren't going to ask for anymore copies so why tie up the HD with footage that isn't needed. Now corporate stuff, yeah I keep it on forever. But that's just me. Tapeless workflow has me pretty excited-first time in a long time I might add ;-)
Don

Ok so copy the raw footage over to an external drive (lacie, G-tech ) from there copy onto a blu-ray disc also for storage meaning i have two locations where the same footage is kept.


Sounds good a little more expensive but safe

Robert

Hi all,

What Blue-ray writer and media do You use? Do You trust Blue-ray writing totally in todays development stage?
How many SxS cards You will take to one full day wedding ( sometimes I need to shoot during 12 hours, about 6-7 months of footage with one camera only)? Does it mean I need 6-7 cards? In Sandisk prices it means 7x900=6300USD. With coming EX1 we need promote our job for groom and bride as a new very High quality job with little extra charge until all investment buys back.
For conference coverage work situation is little easier. Mostly one session last 2-3-4 hours and during break I have time to transfer footage into computer and clean cards.

Sulev

The recording time varies on the quality setting that you have on the cam. There are current posts that tell how long the recording time is in what setting and on what cards.

Memory serves ( no pun inteneded) two 8 gig cards can do 90 min in Full quality HD which for conferences is probably overkill.

Check around you will get more details of the recording time in this forum.

The capability to record longer then mini dv tapes without interruption was a major factor for me. Long ceremonies with one cam get really nerve racking when you know you won't have enough time :)

MRW

The 8 gig cards 35mbps will do about 20 minutes-the 16 gig cards about 40 the 32 gig about 80 and the 64w when and if they really do come out will be about 160. Remember the camera has 2 slots that are hot swappable so double the time. Also remember that it can shoot at 25mbps which will also increase the time on each card. A 16 gig card at 25mbps gives 56 minutes-a 32 will double that and a 64 will double that. Length of time recording to me at least is not an issue.
As for archiving onto bluray, since Sony offers 3 cameras that use bluray discs to record to already with another one coming they already have the issue taken care of. A bluray disc and a burner - burn an archive and you're done. OR burn to a DVD OR keep the footage on HDDs and again since those have become so inexpensive it's hard not to reason using that system. Of course everine will have a different take but frankly to me the archive issue is a non issue as is the length of time you can record. I do a lot of seminars and generally they break about every 2 to 3 hours max. Lots of time to dump off the footage to a laptop with a big HDD and go on from there. OR have some extra cards. YMMV ;-)
Don

The 8 gig cards 35mbps will do about 20 minutes-the 16 gig cards about 40 the 32 gig about 80 and the 64w when and if they really do come out will be about 160.

The figures I've seen are 'at least' 50 minutes of full-quality footage on one 16 GB card, or correspondingly more time at the lower quality settings. So two 16GB cards would give you 100 minutes of full-quality footage or at least 2.5 hours of HDV quality, and two 32 GB cards (when available) will double those figures.

The EX1 probably won't be particularly popular for weddings compared to less expensive HDV cameras which are gradually taking over for this type of work, but I know several high-end wedding videographers who are very interested in the EX1. It's the most promising answer to the shortcomings of other <$10K HD cameras for event videography, and there's nothing else on the horizon to compare unless someone's keeping something secret. Of course we won't know how good the EX1 really is until we see some sample footage from final shipping units, but the specs suggest it could be the best video camera ever made in this price range.

I don't know how popular it will be for weddings as a "standard" but I will say that it does interest me more than any other HD camera I've seen up to now.
I like the tapeless workflow and the real lens aspect as well as the small form factor BUT as you said, we won't really know until some folks start using it for real in real conditions.
I'm hoping though that the preview specs translate into real world specs and the camera is all it's cracked up to be. It's something I think the video world could use.
Don

I don't know how popular it will be for weddings as a "standard" but I will say that it does interest me more than any other HD camera I've seen up to now.
I like the tapeless workflow and the real lens aspect as well as the small form factor BUT as you said, we won't really know until some folks start using it for real in real conditions.
I'm hoping though that the preview specs translate into real world specs and the camera is all it's cracked up to be. It's something I think the video world could use.
Don

In many ways, it's going to produce quality on par with, sometimes a bit better than the big brother XDCAM HD units. I really don't see any way in the world you'd be disappointed with the output of the EX. If you look at programs currently airing that were shot with XDCAM HD, that should give you a good idea of what to expect.

-gb-

How many SxS cards You will take to one full day wedding (sometimes I need to shoot during 12 hours, about 6-7 {hours}of footage with one camera only)? Does it mean I need 6-7 cards?

If you want to shoot up to 7 hours of footage at full quality on the EX1 without stopping to transfer any of it, you'd need at least eight of the 16 GB cards for that. But why buy that many memory cards when for less money you could buy half as many plus a nice laptop and just make sure to find time to transfer some of your footage during the event? Surely during a 12-hour shoot you'd have enough downtime somewhere to pop open a laptop and transfer some data from the cards? If not then the EX1 plus enough memory cards would be rather pricey, and you'd be better off buying HDV cameras for that scenario.

I spent over 15 years in the top end wedding market and always took twice the amount of tape needed as belt and braces plus a second camera as a back up. Can I ask why do you consider the EX suitable for weddings apart from it's low light capabilities. Apart from broadcasters and electrical shops selling LCDs etc. no one has HD in their house as yet. Apple have no HDDVD or Blue Ray workflow in DVD Studio Pro-4 nor has Toast so I must assume the PC has software to produce HD DVD videos. I used to do 2-3 weddings a week and depending on the service and speeches could take 5-9 or more mini tapes and latterly we were producing 2-3 camera weddings I can't imagine how you are hoping to mix and match the Sony EX with lesser footage nor the amount of cards needed for 2 weddings on the same day. Once again I am assuming you are wanting to produce the best quality and drop it down to DV/DVCAM for a SD DVD or a DL DVD.

As you say George: "...no one has HD in their house as yet."

"I can't imagine how you are hoping to mix and match the Sony EX with lesser footage" - who mentioned doing that?

And again: "Apple have no HDDVD or Blue Ray workflow" and "I am assuming you are wanting to produce the best quality and drop it down to ........ a SD DVD".

Yes, for now maybe, but for how long?

Can I ask why do you consider the EX suitable for weddings apart from it's low light capabilities.

That's the number one reason high-end wedding videographers are interested in this camera, and if it's good enough in low light they'll find a way to deal with any other issues. As far as delivery is concerned, that's feasible now using Blu-ray burners, authoring software and discs which are readily available for PCs. By one estimate there are already 1.5 million Blu-ray players in use in North America in the form of the Sony Playstation 3, plus however many more standalone players are out there. And there are reportedly several hundred thousand HD-DVD players in use plus an unknown number of Apple TVs: add that all up and there are at least 1-2 million households in the US with HD playback capability already installed in their home. Plus many people can play HD content in WMV-HD format on their computer if they're inclined to do so, and at least one wedding videographer claims that most of his recent customers have opted for a WMV-HD disc.

By the way, it might be feasible to mix an EX1 with HDV cameras for wedding videography purposes, and you'd just have to be careful about how you approach that. I could see using an EX1 with two HDV cameras at the ceremony and primarily use the EX1 at the reception, where it's often not necessary to have more than one camera running - especially when the lights go down and you're just shooting people dancing. If you're making any real money doing wedding videos the EX1 is looking like an ideal camera for the HD future, if you can bring yourself to spend the money for one (or two).

Yeah i have to agree with Kevin on this. Based on what I've read about the camera I think it will be a great cam for weddings. As for low light do we really know what the capabilities are? I can't see it being any worse than the Z1 and frankly with the 1/2 inch chips I have to think it will be better-certainly no worse. I also agree that for a ceremony you could intercut with an HDV camera do a bit of color correction and level correction and be right in there where the average consumer wouldn't see any real difference.
While HD may be slower to come into play outside of the U.S. and while less than 50% of the population of the U.S. own an HD tv and fewer still have a way to play a BluRay or HDDVD both seem to be building and with the pricing today of HD tvs more and more people in the U.S. are in fact going to them. I think in the next couple of years we are going to see a hugh upswing in not only the number of people that own HDtvs but the number of people that will have the ability to play either BLuray or HD-DVD.
Remember also that the footage can be downrezed to SD for delivery.
Of course I still want to see some real footage from a real world job before making a decision but on the surface the XDCAM EX seems to be the right camera at the right time.

Just my thoughts
Don

Hey if you have faith in this new tapeless technology for doing weddings well good luck to you...I always strived to give my brides and grooms the best pictures. You remind me of a former self starting out 20 years ago with all that enthusiasm. I got out of weddings 15 months ago to concentrate on corporate work but it's good to here the up and coming WedVids like yourselves taking the challenge of HD with such a positive edge.

For me swapping cards isn't that much more difficult then running to the corner of the room to swap batteries. In the time it takes me to pop off the battery on the camera and into the charger and put the new one on and power the camera back up I could have started one SxS card transfering to a laptop or other stand alone transfer device.

The thing to think about the cards is that it is a one time cost. If you shoot 2 or 3 weddings in a week then you make enough money to buy 6 or so cards. Once you have them you will always have them. Your initial cost into the cards may be all you ever have to put into the camera ever again.

Well, one other way to look at this is bringing a laptop to a wedding is just one more thing that could get stolen.

Especially if you work by yourself, which I do.

...this new tapeless technology...It ain't new. We've gone through these *exact* same discussions before, almost word for word in fact, when we first started talking about Panasonic P2 here in 2005.

You can't SHOULDN'T charge DV prices for XDCAM EX HD wedding. Multiple cameras is something to think about but the workflow for a single camera is easily manageable.

Two 16GB cards at 50 minutes each at 35mbps or 70 minutes each at 25mbps should be enough for the ceremony and that's probably going to be your longest stretch of non stop shooting.

Your assistant dumps off one card much faster than real time to a laptop or to the XDCAM burner when that finally happens. You can shoot continuously.

For the reception you or your assistant can also dump off one card while you're shooting on the 2nd.

By the time you're done with the wedding, if dumping to hard drive, you're also done inputing for edit. That can save you a day. If going to XDCAM, everything is safely on a fairly indestructible disc (I'd much prefer this method).

BTW having stuffed dumped to drive as you go also makes the same day edit a bit more viable since the ceremony is in your computer in a jiff.

You REALLY want multiple cameras, you can hire shooters who also have the camera at 1/2 day rate to shoot the ceremony only.

You're not talking low budget wedding here NOR SHOULD YOU BE.

Delivery for your couple with an HD TV set but no means to playback the edit? You deliver not on HD DVD or Blu Ray (which they probably can't play) but on AppleTV (for $299) which can play 720p.

At the minimum for a 1 camera wedding you've got camera, 2 16GB cards, assistant with MacBook(Pro) who can check and confirm xfer before wiping the card. You offer delivery on a brand new AppleTV as part of the package.

Price accordingly. Invite prospective couples WITH HDTV to come over and view your demo on your HDTV with AppleTV and you may well get some bookings in that strata.

It ain't new. We've gone through these *exact* same discussions before, almost word for word in fact, when we first started talking about Panasonic P2 here in 2005.

Sorry I should had said "tapeless new for Sony".

And I agree with Craig if you are planning to do HD weddings the price should reflect the extra cost and post production time needed to put it all together.

Has anyone done a 2 camera HD production and tried to edit in FCP-6 Multicam, would love to know if it works with such large file data ?

George, if you mean HDV, the file size is the same as DV. The long GOP structure means you'd need more computer horsepower to decode and that means spending more money on CPU and ram.

If you mean DVCProHD, I'm sure there are people shooting on the HVX200 (but changing those short run P2 cards must be a pain). Again a reasonably powered computer can handle that. That's a file 4 times the size of DV though BUT doesn't require as much "horsepower" to decode as HDV as it's all I frame. In that case the money is going to fast hard drives. In either case both HDV and DVCProHD can be handled by Intel iMacs as well as MacPros and G5 PowerMacs.

The above does beg the business question. Why does it seem so many folks are shooting weddings in HDV and NOT changing a significant premium. Whether it's more computer power or hard drive space along with, downconvert time for SD delivery, GOP render time, HD monitoring for color correction, your costs go up significantly even if the price of the cameras haven't.

One of the things in common between HDV, DVCProHD, XDCAM EX is that the cameras, relative to the quality, aren't that much more than DV/DVCAM. In every other area your time and expenses go up in some form or another.

This leads to another question relevant to the XDCAM. How does an XDCAM EX wedding videographer compete with those underpriced HDV wedding videographers? Can your potential clients see the difference? What other marketing highlights can help you pull the extra dollars you much charge for an XDCAM EX workflow?

Maybe we need to do a comparison of HDV vs DVCProHD vs XDCAM worflow?

Here are the specs for Apple TV:

Video formats supported
H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): Up to 5 Mbps, Progressive Main Profile (CAVLC) with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps

(maximum resolution: 1280 by 720 pixels at 24 fps, 960 by 540 pixels at 30 fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats

iTunes Store purchased video: 320 by 240 pixels or 640 by 480 pixels

MPEG-4: Up to 3 Mbps, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 720 by 432 pixels at 30 fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats


It looks to me that unless your shooting 24p, the Apple TV will sell your camera short on resolution and bit rate.

The Apple TV sounds like good marketing though.

The above does beg the business question. Why does it seem so many folks are shooting weddings in HDV and NOT changing a significant premium. Whether it's more computer power or hard drive space along with, downconvert time for SD delivery, GOP render time, HD monitoring for color correction, your costs go up significantly even if the price of the cameras haven't.



I'll bite.

You can only raise prices to the level that people will pay them. I have seen people charging $3,000-$4,000 using PD or DVX cameras. To me they are overcharging for that level of equipment.

There should be a price increase for HD, but you can only justify it if people are willing to pay for it.

This is why I have not gone to HD production yet.

People like to idea of HD, but when you tell them how much more it can cost them, then SD starts looking better in their eyes.

In some ways, the EX is a bit of a bridge for me.

I use 1/2" DV cameras now.

The HDV lineup never attracted me. Maybe the 1/3" chips.

The EX will hopefully produce an image that is good enough for the corporate/produced work and it can also be used for weddings.

The produced work will pay for the cameras and the weddings will go up in quality, and some in price.

This is the way I am justifying the EX for my uses.

Tim is correct but you have to market yourselves beyond the cowboys...send out a glossy full colour brochure with a DVD get a professional VO telling your client how good you are, the equipment you are using etc. and giving them options in this case...(Remember not to confuse them with video wording they do not understand).

Standard digital wedding from church to the cutting of the cake = £800

Hi definition digital wedding from the church to the cutting of the cake = £1200

But you must explain in plain english what they are getting for that extra money.

In my business, as in most I have been in, there are those who know how to market and those who live in fear of change.

The latter gets eaten. The move to HDV for me yielded a 20% increase in price immediately. Those whom I had consulted with at the time said I was out of my mind and that people would not care or know what HD meant and I was wasting my time and money.

This was close to two years ago. I effectively sold/marketed the upgrades, capitalized the business with HD cams and doubled revenue vs the previous fiscal year. Net result I made $ more with less time invested. My computers render overnight while I sleep, not a huge set back given the rewards in my book.

The process was not cut and dried to be sure, but what is? Reading researching and participating in forums like this have been great help.

The advantages I see with this cam and format that will pay more than HDV and tapes are thus (for me):

1) No more tapes to buy, heads to go bad, or gaping hole into the body of the cam where moisture, dust etc can climb into etc. More reliability, less actual cost per hour.

2) Faster transfer to HDD and an NLE that may allow a same day edit. Thus providing another income stream. Not to mention possible future jobs from the audience or coordinators, musicians, planners, who will be blown away by a same day edit.

3) Just showing up with pro looking gear. Appearances do count and if you look like a nut with an old PD you will start off on the wrong foot. Even uncle Bill has an HD camera... where did you get this guy?

4) I hope once the numbers get cruched to achieve a lower cost per hour of shooting/storage/editing/render/archive time vs my current flow.

5) If the couple wants the raw footage they will pay extra for it and that should pay for the archiving hardware.

6) This probably should be #1 but the increased quality of the image in all lighting conditions, the expanded creative tools like the DOF, and the frame rate for time lapse, etc. that will allow me to just ... create more better :) Even if it is just for my own head.

My thoughts.... as scattered as they may be.

Mike

I'm going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here! Surely the most expensive part of any wedding video is not the technology but the skilled professional shooting the video. To hike up the cost by 50% just because it's HD doesn't entirely add up. The cost of HD edit equipment is no more expensive these days than SD. Agreed you may need a better monitor but monitors are so much cheaper than they used to be. While an EX is more expensive than say a V1 or Z1 I can't see it justifying such a large increase in the final price, after all you can hire an F350 for £180.00 per day.

In broadcast TV the price difference between an SD production and an HD production when using the same crew is about 20%-30%. It's the crew that eat up the bulk of the budget. Now a top notch DOP is going to cost 5 times the cost of an average camera operator and a well shot piece will always look better than a badly shot piece, HD or SD. With the DOP what you are paying for is skill and experience, something that really is worth spending money on, not some mass produced piece of kit.

So IMHO to mark up your rate by 50% just because your using the latest kit seems excessive to me. If I were looking for a wedding video I don't think you could persuade me that HD is worth 50% more. Maybe you need to revise your SD rate upwards, this would make the HD rate appear more realistic. People know that technology is getting cheaper and cheaper so they don't expect to pay a significant premium just to have the latest mode.

The shooter is where the money. In my case I am the DOP and just about everything else. I went with a 20% increase for my most purchased package.

I must say that we did more than just jump into HD. We marketed all of our services more effectively including SEOs and a better web site.

Our business model in particular will benefit greatly from a speedier ingest to the NLE as that happens during waking hours.

The guests (possible future bookings) that saw the HD camera shooting the event made mention of thier being impressed. What that paid off is also unknown.

We are not going back to SD. I assume what the SD proponents are saying is "why jump onboard now?" I guess that is a valid question but for me it has been why not now? This cam can shoot the fullest possible deliverable content. It should be good to go for as long as the DV cameras have been around. I don't see another move above 1080p for at least 10-15 years on the consumer level. Our target audience. Even then the software will surely be able to upconvert a killer 1080p signal.

Many will agree that a 1080p flat panel tv is more than good enough for screen sizes up to 60+"

So, why wait? For the cam to come down $1k? Ok, then wait.

Mike

So, why wait? For the cam to come down $1k? Ok, then wait.

Mike


Well I have waited because:

-the delivery medium is not ironed out yet

-most of the HDV cameras do not perform well in low light

-why buy a new camera only to deliver in SD

-people do not like black bars if they can be avoided

-a lot of people will not notice if you are using an HD camera at the event

-HDV cameras are 1/3" chippers

I will buy the EX because it has better specs, shooting progressive will increase my product quality with slo-motion, and the EX will intercut with the 330/350 when I eventually get the big cam version for a longer lens/pro look.

In the grand scheme of things, $7,000 is not a lot for a camera that can look this good.

Quote Mr Chapman "So IMHO to mark up your rate by 50% just because your using the latest kit seems excessive to me."

Firstly I found out years ago that my camera equipment was not the reason people got a wedding video...It was how impressive your demo DVD was and the wow factor of the clients entering the bridge of the Star Ship Enterprise (Edit Suite) that clinched the job. My attitude was if I am that good they will happily pay for it and it worked 90% of the time...what you have to remember is that someone who has gone through a professional training and worked for video companies and television has a far higher knowledge base than someone who is self taught, sadly 85% of the wedding video industry if full of chancers...or cowboys...so my point is if you stand head and shoulders above the competition and pitch to the right clients you will command your prices. My main exception to Mr Chapman's comments are if you produce a wedding in HD all your costs will increase even to the end user getting a £15 (cost to you) Blue Ray disc, if I were still in the wedding game I would happily charge 50% more and be charging £40 (Or more) a pop for an HD DVD. Having thought about it I would not offer 2 packages SD and HD I would record in HD charge accordingly and project myself towards the cream of the wedding market who are not bothered about the price...rather than showing their friends how good their wedding DVD is in full HD. You could offer the end result in 2 flavors SD £25 or HD £40 but make sure the cover is as good as you would buy in the shops I latterly took a 13MP camera to get some stunning pics of the bride and groom to make sure the DVD cover was as good as the DVD inside.

Alister, I think you're underestimating the additional costs if you're comparing to DV.
HD Monitor, card to pass the signal through, render time for GOP structure (time IS money. . . savings on import time though), XDCAM burner for archive (although comparable to a DVCAM deck), cost of delivery (blu-ray and/or HD-DVD burner or having to add an AppleTV to package), downconvert (time IS money) if you're delivering on SD.

Take all your additional costs, measure against the number of jobs and a target ROI of one year (before you see profit you need to cover your additional costs). For some folks it may be 20%, for others 50%. Keep in mind that you may be SHRINKING your target market if you're focusing on HD delivery. It may mean fewer but higher priced jobs.

Tim, you say AppleTV is selling short. The fact is there are LIMITED CHOICES for delivering HD. Adding the cost of the HD burner (possibly both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray since you don't know which your customer has) and/or including a player for them is very expensive. Just about the CHEAPEST way to deliver HD is to compress to H.264 with your current compression tools and add an AppleTV to the cost. It's the least expensive add on if your customer already has an HDTV.

If you needed to buy new equipment now.... would you buy SD cams?

What price do you put on your own personal vision?

Why do the best mechanics buy the best tools?

I value my work and want to "paint" with the best materials regardless of if the bride is nuts or not. I extract joy from shooting and therefore want to use the best tools I can afford.

Mike

Tim, you say AppleTV is selling short. The fact is there are LIMITED CHOICES for delivering HD. Adding the cost of the HD burner (possibly both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray since you don't know which your customer has) and/or including a player for them is very expensive. Just about the CHEAPEST way to deliver HD is to compress to H.264 with your current compression tools and add an AppleTV to the cost. It's the least expensive add on if your customer already has an HDTV.


Craig, I said the AppleTV will sell your footage short.

960 by 540 pixels at 30 fps in my mind is not HD, it is slightly above SD.

The Apple TV is only 720p when you output at 24 fps, which does not always fit a live event.

The AppleTV is a great idea, I just wish it had higher framerates for HD.

But this just argues the point about using an HD camera and being rather early in the game when the only way to deliver the final product is a wireless router that plugs into the client's television that costs $300.

Not trying to be fussy here because I want to buy a couple EX's the day they come out!

The above does beg the business question. Why does it seem so many folks are shooting weddings in HDV and NOT changing a significant premium. Whether it's more computer power or hard drive space along with, downconvert time for SD delivery, GOP render time, HD monitoring for color correction, your costs go up significantly even if the price of the cameras haven't.

Given that good HDV cameras don't cost much more than good DV ones, and that computers have gotten much more powerful with larger hard drives over the past few years, and that there are several ways to deliver HD content of which the most expensive costs under $1000 now, the total cost of producing in HD isn't significantly more than producing in DV was a few years ago. What's tough is figuring out how to get from DV to HDV if you already have DV gear, and that will be harder the longer you wait because the resale value of DV cameras will surely drop as HD becomes more commonplace. As for why some wedding videographers don't charge much more for offering HD, that's partly a function of how much customers are willing to pay for the upgrade.

"You can only raise prices to the level that people will pay them. I have seen people charging $3,000-$4,000 using PD or DVX cameras. To me they are overcharging for that level of equipment."

I beg to differ... Videography is already second fiddle to photography, and even the big nams in photography, such as Ron Harris (playboy, Penthose etc) shoots with a "sub" professional camera (Canon 20d)
Its not the gear, its HOW YOU USE IT...
in all honesty i you were buying a table, would you care whether or not whether a circular saw was used or whether a jig saw was used? NO, in the end, its the final product which differentiates you from the rest of the clones
Overcharging? IMO, theres no such thing, considering many MANY wedding photographers charge these rates and more.
Why NOT up the ante of our service by charging premium rates? Why NOT bring teh art of what we do the general public by creating quality work?
Id rather see top notch SD in 4:3 as oposed to crap in HD... Many MANY brides are of teh same mentality

"There should be a price increase for HD, but you can only justify it if people are willing to pay for it."

Agreed, however with the lowballers out there buying cheap HDV cameras and charging peanuts simply to get their feet in the door, it makes it even harder to sell.
Videography is difficult to sell as it is, but this jsut nails the coffin considering video is not a priority for many people.
As for price, well, it all comes down to your market demographic.

As for delivery, there have been options out there now for over 2 and half years.. in fact there have been options since the advent of HDV... even before that actually...

You can have all the kit in the world and still produce rotten DVDs, this thread is missing a very important point...good productions from weddings to TV drama need skilled operators both filming and more importantly very good editing skills....This means having a flair and being able to stand out from the crowd, 10 EX cameras used at 1 wedding by amateurs would produce a nightmare so don't be under any illusion that having an EX will suddenly make you a better operator in fact listening to my colleagues in broadcast who have more experience with hi end HD filming the main problems seem to be "TOO GOOD".
So what do I mean by this...focus needs to be spot on, a tad off and your shot is in the bin, then something no one has mentioned HD is fine if you have a skin perfect model or TV presenter who need far more time with the make-up artist...but if you don't do Hi-end weddings to start off with and film run of the mill weddings your bride and grooms will not thank you for showing their badly covered plooks and various skin problems which is why they call HD "TOO GOOD"...and old saying comes to mind "WARTS AND ALL".

... and that there are several ways to deliver HD content of which the most expensive costs under $1000 now, the total cost of producing in HD isn't significantly more than producing in DV was a few years ago. ...

It's not about "ways" but "market penetration" of playback. While there are a fair number of HDTVs out there, and even that's not in the majority yet, very very very few consumers have HD-DVD, Blu-Ray playback. This means that one buys an HD workflow and all the additional gear PLUS the downconvert workflow and you end up delivering on SD. All that additional expense on your end as the producer for what may be a slightly nicer downconvert, is NOT a good business model IMHO.

XDCAM EX users will be competing against HDV videographers who, I believe, are underselling their work. Dealing with the additional gear expenses plus the render time with the GOP costs time and money.

There's NO way the costs are under $1000 additional when you consider the HD Monitor for color correction, the card to play from computer to monitor, the time for render and downconvert OR the additional expense of actually delivering HD.

Well, one other way to look at this is bringing a laptop to a wedding is just one more thing that could get stolen.

Especially if you work by yourself, which I do.

Having the laptop stolen would be painful enough. But as for losing the clips that were transferred to it...

Hi George,

Who are you calling a cowboy and amatuer?

I wouldn't describe anyone here like that, including you.

I mentioned that I want the best tools I can afford to create the best images possible. Regarding the EX that includes the DOF control, lens etc.

In my case, again, I moved to HD and crushed my competition with amazing images, demos, and marketing therefore seized a major portion of market share. The old guard just sat back and yelled "I have 1/2" chips!!!!"

How does that translate to a bride and groom? Better than we shoot HD?

We are talking about high end weddings right? Would you say that these same people who are in this bracket may be the upper crust that would be the first to have all the cool toys? Blu-Ray, HDDVD, plasma etc.

Mike

Quote Mike "Who are you calling a cowboy and amatuer?" This has no specific reference to anyone here...the cowboy in UK terms is someone who does a disservice to an industry by pretending to be good, get paid and has no after sales service...they are less than the dirt off my shoe and get us all a bad name. An amateur is someone who aspires to be a professional but lacks the flair and edge of the pro and does not get paid for their work. There is nothing to be ashamed of being an amateur and I have seen some very good amateurs. Hope this clears things up.
Sadly in the UK the wedding video market is riddled with cowboys and people who think they know what they are doing as is the photographic side of weddings. Weddings attract the cowboy element as their subjects are easy prey..."How much is yir videos" and "how long do we get for that" these were frequent phone call questions and I would be polite by asking them their date and tell them "sorry but we are booked that day". That is how the cowboy survives.. A better analogy of the cowboy is low budget, no skill and a wedding DVD your 3 year old could have done better.
We have various "pro bodies" in the UK, some better than others who endeavor to "make good" some of the lesser skilled cameramen and women when they would be better served teaching the bride and groom how to weed out the cowboy element. How often do you loose a wedding video to Mr No budget only because the wedding couple have phoned round looking for the "best price" when as happens in the photographic side they all charge similar prices £1000 upwards so the choice is down to preferences NOT PRICE.

You can have all the kit in the world and still produce rotten DVDs, this thread is missing a very important point...good productions from weddings to TV drama need skilled operators both filming and more importantly very good editing skills...in fact listening to my colleagues in broadcast who have more experience with hi end HD filming the main problems seem to be "TOO GOOD"..

George: all the points you raised have been mentioned many times before, and people making high-end wedding videos shouldn't have any problems with those issues. In fact the EX1 is the camera some of them are counting on to distinguish them from HDV shooters, especially in terms of low-light capabilities. And as far as showing too much detail is concerned, there are ways to deal with that - including not zooming in on the bride's nose hairs. In two years of shooting HDV I've only had one older bride where I was significantly concerned about how her wrinkles looked and had to soften a few clips, which wasn't a big deal. When shooting in HD it's easy enough to soften detail as needed, whereas shooting in SD you can't improve detail when you might want to do so.

There's NO way the costs are under $1000 additional when you consider the HD Monitor for color correction, the card to play from computer to monitor, the time for render and downconvert OR the additional expense of actually delivering HD.

What I was referring to with that figure was the cost of upgrading to Blu-ray disc production, which is the best way of delivering HD wedding videos at this time. If you have any recent version of Adobe Premiere you can buy the upgrade to CS3 for $299, then buy a Blu-ray burner for $500-600 and be ready to go for under $1000. For those who have already invested good money in HD cameras new editing hardware and software and so on, spending this last $1000 to be able to actually deliver HD properly to customers is a reasonable investment. But if all the costs of converting to HD don't fit your business model or your clients' interests, then by all means keep producing in SD.

I don't do weddings unless specifically asked to but I've always found low-light to be the biggest challenge.

I'll take an SD image over an HD black screen any day. I've also noticed that HDV cameras seem to loose a lot of their resolution with the gain up. I was told that it is to do with the noise reduction processing. I wonder how the EX will compare.

F10 sensitivity should just about scrape by for weddings, although I'd prefer at least another stop on that.

Also, although it may save time on ingesting, my experience with P2 is that it takes LONGER by the time you have backed everything up securely. I also use my capturing time to create the DVD cases etc, so it isn't time wasted.

I think that the biggest asset of the Ex in terms of weddings is that it is small but still has 1/2" chips. I normally prefer to turn up to jobs with a full size shoulder mounted camera which really looks the part. At weddings, there is something to be said for being more discreet.

Blu-Ray burner doesn't do any good if your client doesn't have a Blu-Ray player. Most people with HDTVs haven't committed to either HDDVD or Blu-Ray playback. True, costs of the burner are now down around the $600 mark but at the moment it seems only those with Sony PS3s can play those discs. Then there are those who, if they've bought any player at all, bought HDDVD players.

I'm comparing price of SD delivery vs HD delivery. The entire HD workflow is both more expensive and possibly more time consuming . . . and the market one is selling to is currently smaller.

Commiting to the HDV camera is a very small part of the financial investment especially since one can stick to DV with nearly all HDV cameras on the market and jump only when the client is willing to pay.

XDCAM EX, the subject of this thread, is HD only so it's going to be a camera to get if one is going to commit to HD as your dominant workflow. Hence there'll investment in cards, XDCAM archival, HD monitoring etc. That's more than an extra $600 for a Blu-Ray burner for those who have BOTH HDTV and Blu-Ray playback. AND I would hope if you're doing multiple camera weddings you're not going to be paying those folks DV prices either.

The above additional costs are why I mentioned AppleTV previously. With AppleTV and your current compression software you can deliver to HD to ALL HDTV owners. That's a much bigger market that Blu-Ray or HDDVD players and might make the transition to an upscale HD target market worthwhile . . . since the cost of going with an HD workflow is several thousand dollars more before one even considers getting a burner yet.

What I was referring to with that figure was the cost of upgrading to Blu-ray disc production, which is the best way of delivering HD wedding videos at this time. If you have any recent version of Adobe Premiere you can buy the upgrade to CS3 for $299, then buy a Blu-ray burner for $500-600 and be ready to go for under $1000. For those who have already invested good money in HD cameras new editing hardware and software and so on, spending this last $1000 to be able to actually deliver HD properly to customers is a reasonable investment. But if all the costs of converting to HD don't fit your business model or your clients' interests, then by all means keep producing in SD.

The above additional costs are why I mentioned AppleTV previously. With AppleTV and your current compression software you can deliver to HD to ALL HDTV owners. That's a much bigger market that Blu-Ray or HDDVD players and might make the transition to an upscale HD target market worthwhile . . .

But the good AppleTV costs almost as much as a Blu-ray player and can't play mainstream HD movies, plus the AppleTV quality is apparently rather limited and rendering times for H.264 output can be extreme for full-length wedding videos. The AppleTV solution is one approach worth considering for those customers not willing to invest in other options, but as things stand now it looks like Blu-ray will be the preferred way to delivery HD wedding videos in 2008...at least for those customers willing to spend anything for some type of HD video player.

It will be interesting to see the market penetration of Blu-Ray vs HDDVD. I agree about the limitations of AppleTV but with folks reluctant to buy HD disc player, AppleTV is a stop gap since it doesn't add that much more cost to the workflow.

I'd prefer Blu-Ray but I think people are reluctant to buy players until the format war advances a bit further. It would make life easier if this began to clear up in early/mid 2008.

Here's numbers as of April (already old).
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/9316.cfm

Interesting that Blu-Ray movies had been outselling HD-DVD by 9:2
but the player sales seem to be much closer, 844,000 to about 708,000.

The article points out about online sales and Walmart not being included and the above player sales may not include PS3 sales.

But this recent article (Sept 8) seems to say HD-DVD is now exceeding Blu-Ray
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/42004

One important quote that has bearing on the XDCAM EX potential users.
". . . , it really looks like consumers are not that interested in high-definition video formats . . . Given that overall high-definition sales are at or near an all-time low, something needs to change to make this market viable in the long term."

One HD format or the other will eventually break out but all this continues to point out the problem of demand, delivery, HD profit margin vs cost for those looking at XDCAM EX for weddings.

And one more article TODAY about the divide
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070916/BUSINESS/709160327/1003

Interesting that Blu-Ray movies had been outselling HD-DVD by 9:2 but the player sales seem to be much closer, 844,000 to about 708,000.

It looks vague whether that was referring to players sold or movies, and I've seen a more recent estimate that there are ~1.5 million PS3s in use in North America. If the number of HD-DVD players is similar that would be ~3 million households who already have HD disc players, which would be remarkable considering how little time they've been readily available.

Agreed though that one should think carefully about cost versus revenue before buying a camera like the EX1 for shooting weddings. On the other hand, if you want to offer the best image quality you can (and who doesn't?), it's an intriguing camera for the price.