View Full Version : Question regarding raw footage...
Stephen J. Williams December 1st, 2009, 06:11 PM I'm not going to lie... I HATE when a client asks me for the raw footage on DVD's. For one I don't like to show work that I haven't taken the time to properly edit out the shakes, bad camera movements, poor audio, color, and whatever else comes when you press record before you grab your shot.
In the past (and also for this one client).... I have provided raw footage upon request for no additional charge. But this is the last time.
I just thought about it... I'm in the middle of working on another wedding. I have to put everything on hold and tie up my computer for 15 hours (estimated) to render the raw footage and transfer to DVD.
What do you guys charge? I know this has been discussed but I also wanted to vent a little.
I mean after weeks of creating a short form edit of 45 minutes, then plus another 35 minutes of deleted scenes. There's not much else to see but poor camera work in my opinion (i hate saying that but it's true).
Steve
James Workman December 1st, 2009, 06:15 PM Simply state in your contract that you do not provide raw footage without an extra charge. And then make that charge high enough to discourage your customers from bothering with it.
If you painted someone a picture, you wouldn't be expected to also provide all the sketches you made......
Perrone Ford December 1st, 2009, 06:26 PM I am SO glad I don't do this kind of work.
So being me, I'd offer the following.
Free of charge SD copy. Timecode burn top center. A clean copy doubles the price of the package. If they want it, make them pay for it.
Nothing says RAW footage like a timecode burn. If they complain, ask, "You didn't expect me to do another 15 hours of work for FREE did you?"
I have zero patience for crap like this.
Don Bloom December 1st, 2009, 06:43 PM Stephen, even when I supply the uncut unedited version (RAW footage) of my short form edits I get crazy and hell, it's a part of the package. Now mind you, it's the ceremony and reception only, no creative parts. So here's what I do. Since I start with a long form timeline anyway, I cut out the floor, ceiling, belly buttons and boobs. Then I render to AC3/MPEG2 and burn 1 copy of the footage. That's 1 disc for the ceremony and 1 for the reception. I make it a single play movie, auto start, BUT have a placard stating the same as what I print on the face of the DVD which is a statement that the footage is not edited, not CC'd and no audio sweetening has been done.
I figure the value at $150.00 and go from there.
Doug Bennett December 1st, 2009, 06:58 PM what are the deleted scenes? You can't have 35 minutes of bloopers...
I'll often have speeches or interviews that get excluded from the edit. But then I'll include them in separate chapters.
I can't imagine anyone really wanting raw footage. If they can get it free I guess. But that's a lot of work if you have 5 or six hours of tape. If it's a multicam shoot they want tapes from each camera? Even though one may have no audio?
When you are selling a short-form edit you need to reassure the client that one way or another they will get all the footage they would want.
Perrone Ford December 1st, 2009, 07:04 PM I'd put the belly buttons and boobs back in and charge $1500!
Don Bloom December 1st, 2009, 07:55 PM Heh, maybe a new package for me. I can call it the B&B, only an extra $1500. Hey my buddy Perrone said it'd be OK!
O|O
\__/
Don Bloom December 1st, 2009, 08:50 PM Doug, the reason I include the RAW, is my short form runs 40 to 50 minutes.
So take a Catholic mass ceremony. right aroung 60 minutes. Nope, I cut to about 9 to 11 minutes but I got tired of the calls that mom and grandma wanted to see the whole thing so I started adding the RAW, but I did add in my prices for it.
I don't do deleted scenes or bloopers either.
As for the RAW footage I give them the A camera stuff only, no B or C cameras, audio from the A cam only and since I start with a long form TL it's isn't a big leap to render and burn it. For the reception which in short form edit might be 20 minutes but in long form might be 2 hours is also no big deal to render and burn. Keeps em happy.
Stephen J. Williams December 1st, 2009, 09:24 PM Thanks guys for all of the input....
Doug... 35minutes was an exaggeration. It was probably closer to around 20. Deleted scenes are not my bloopers... Just clips that don't build to the story in my timeline. They end up adding up. In my mind it's more valuable then the raw footage. It's been properly treated in post production.
Steve
Chris Harding December 2nd, 2009, 07:56 AM Hi Guys
What amuses me is that the B&G are highly unlikely to have edit software (or the computer) that will handle HD footage. What I will do if they seriously want some footage to "play" with is give them my rendered MPEG2 video files (My DVD's are menu driven with each event having it's own MPEG2) That way they cannot see any bloopers and also Windows Movie Maker will probably handle the SD clip without any issues too. That usually satisfies any curious clients and they are more than happy and , of course. it's not really raw footage!!
I only supplied one client with the actual tapes when I was still shooting MiniDV and he complained bitterly that there were "wobbly" bits in it. If you explain that there IS a charge as you have to transfer raw footage to multiple DVD's that seems to put them off!!!
Chris
Doug Bennett December 2nd, 2009, 08:49 AM Most times you say "shortform" edit you raise the question of what happens to the discarded footage.
You have to assure them that all of the footage they want to see is on the DVD.
You can't throw out 30 minutes of speeches from close family and friends simply because it doesn't fit the pacing of yr movie. But you can edit it into a separate chapter. Likewise ceremony, interviews etc. Dancing is the main thing that gets thrown out in my weddings.
The better edit job you do with the dancing the more likely you are to hear "I wish you had included more dancing". To which my reply is "No you don't".
Chris Davis December 2nd, 2009, 08:58 AM Hi Guys
What amuses me is that the B&G are highly unlikely to have edit software (or the computer) that will handle HD footage.
No doubt they are requesting raw footage for archival purposes, and are probably more concerned with what they can do with it in ten to twenty years, not now. In ten years, every B&G will have software and hardware that will handle HD footage - probably on their iPod.
I think you guys are too caught up in "now" and aren't considering how this seemingly useless footage would be cherished in 50 years. Have none of you discovered a lost box of 16mm film in your parents/grandparents attic? Have you not experienced the thrill of seeing just ten seconds of footage of your 30 year old grandfather? I have and it's almost emotionally overwhelming.
You may not consider that fleeting shot of two teenagers dancing to be important, but someday they will be somebody's parent/grandparent and somebody is going to want to see that.
I have a drawer full of tapes from weddings. I'd love to get $150 for each set since they're doing me no good now.
Danny O'Neill December 2nd, 2009, 09:24 AM Sometimes we get couples asking for the raw footage so we made it a chargeable extra. We provide them with the m2t files straight out of the camera on a hard drive for a hefty charge. we also include the 30day trial version of Vegas you can download from the Sony site. Often these are people who are in the business themselves or who want it just to keep it safe.
Occasionally we get a bride asking for it every second on a million DVD's but we simply refuse to offer this. We dont at any point indicate this is even an option. Sometimes its because the bride believes every last second of their day was the most magical thing in the world. Possibly because the edit looks like this and they think "Hey, I bet every other minute of footage is like this" but of course the edit is nice and polished. No shots of feet or out of focus heads. We try and discourage them from this as we know seeing the footage could ruin their memories of the day. Theres always a relative who is tired and doesnt want to be there who just scowls at the camera ;)
If they pay, they can have it.
Stephen J. Williams December 2nd, 2009, 09:42 AM Danny...
I agree 100% with what you wrote in your second paragraph.... In the future I will charge money for the raw DVD's. Even-though I have no desire to do it... Hopefully the price will persuade the B&G's not to go ahead with the "IMO" useless footage..
Steve
Jim Snow December 2nd, 2009, 11:12 AM I think you guys are too caught up in "now" and aren't considering how this seemingly useless footage would be cherished in 50 years. Have none of you discovered a lost box of 16mm film in your parents/grandparents attic? Have you not experienced the thrill of seeing just ten seconds of footage of your 30 year old grandfather? I have and it's almost emotionally overwhelming.
You may not consider that fleeting shot of two teenagers dancing to be important, but someday they will be somebody's parent/grandparent and somebody is going to want to see that.
Chris, That is some of the wisest advice ever posted in this forum. We all tend to be self-centric and "now" focused but the video is about "them" - and their posterity. Imagine for example, being able to see a video of your grandmother dancing as a teenager who you only knew in a wheelchair. It would be priceless and precious no matter how much of an "outtake" it was.
Craig Terott December 3rd, 2009, 05:43 PM I'm not going to lie... I HATE when a client asks me for the raw footage on DVD's.
Don't provide raw footage. Photographers don't. They trash most of their mistakes in-camera, yet we are somehow obligated to put all ours on display? I think not.
Denny Lajeunesse December 5th, 2009, 06:13 PM I have yet to shoot a wedding but I do a lot of event video. Concerts being one area. When we have a multi-cam shoot going and I am on stage handled or with my Steadycam/handheld mini-crane (DIY) I usually just leave the cam running for the entire shoot (HMC150 so storage not an issue). I do not particularly want the client to see all the footage that is on there of me running around or cam at the floor or shakey till I et up the shot. It looks like crap. The edited version always looks golden. Why would I want to ruin that?
The ONLY time I have given raw footage for an event like that was when we were hired at the last minute for a work for hire to cover a band of 35 minutes. The client is an AES sound engineer with video editing experience and this was for his personal band. I did a rough multicam edit with TC burnt in on my own volition so that he could see what we could do (which he viewed before viewing the raw footage).
This may in fact lead to a major gig in the spring shooting a music video for a rather large name musical act. :) (We'll see... this is the music business..lol)
I could see why with weddings the client might want the raw footage "in case you missed something", but I think if I did it wouldn't be completely raw. I would edit out any blurred shots, shots the floor, ceiling, etc, etc. I would also charge for my editing/rendering time for this semi-raw footage.
Philip Howells December 5th, 2009, 09:48 PM I agree with Craig - we quote for producing a finished programme and have never sold the raw footage.
I have once quoted for it when asked by a friendly photographer for a competitive quote against two others, both offering it as an option. Our quote for raw was much higher, but the client chose the cheapest hobby outfit anyway.
According to the photographer the couple hated the video - serves them right!
David Barnett December 5th, 2009, 10:04 PM Sometimes its because the bride believes every last second of their day was the most magical thing in the world. Possibly because the edit looks like this and they think "Hey, I bet every other minute of footage is like this" but of course the edit is nice and polished. No shots of feet or out of focus heads.
I agree with this. I think most B&G's who ask for it think the whole unedited shoot will come out this good. Or they can just lay it down to their favorite songs & watch it. Not realizing how when it's unedited it usually get boring after about 10 minutes.
I think most expect they will either watch it, or do something with it themselves (edit it). I bet most just watch half of it once & put it away for eternity.
Vito DeFilippo December 5th, 2009, 11:31 PM Raw footage is a pet peeve of mine. People don't understand what it looks like. No matter how much you tell them it's bad, but that's normal, it doesn't matter. They still expect it to look good.
This is not the 'bad' takes of a controlled film shoot. This is the out of focus, shots of the floor and ceiling, wrong white balance, etc, etc, that you get from a high stress run and gun event. It's painful to watch.
So when it looks like crap, hey, who looks bad?
You may not consider that fleeting shot of two teenagers dancing to be important, but someday they will be somebody's parent/grandparent and somebody is going to want to see that.
Chris, I understand your point, and agree on an emotional level. But wedding videography is a business more than a documentary effort. And if you release stuff that makes you look bad, I can only think that will make your business suffer in the long run.
Also, it's our job to take note of important family connections on the day, and do our best to pay attention to them on the shoot, and the edit. I don't know how many times I've come across a dance shot or whatever and said to myself "okay, I have to include this because it's the bride's grandmother/father/brother/cousin/etc."
The only exception that makes sense to me would be to offer a cleaned-up version of the raw footage for an extra fee. Take out the mistakes, add a time code burn in and be done with it.
We try and discourage them from this as we know seeing the footage could ruin their memories of the day. Theres always a relative who is tired and doesnt want to be there who just scowls at the camera ;)
This is a great point. What about those times when someone says something unkind, or the videographer swears under his breath, or whatever? Months later if you make a straight dub of this stuff, it could turn around to bite you in the butt.
I think most expect they will either watch it, or do something with it themselves (edit it). I bet most just watch half of it once & put it away for eternity.
Exactly. People ask for it because they expect more of a good thing. Then when they actually watch it, it is a big disappointment.
Denny Lajeunesse December 6th, 2009, 12:41 AM haha. That reminds me. I was shooting football for a friend of mine a few times. The gig was football. Client wanted raw footage of there son so they could look it all over and pick out what they wanted in his demo reel for College. No biggy. Not exactly rocket science from the booth.
Of course the mics are on wild sound and her husband comes up to the booth and is chatting to someone there (I didn't at that point know who he was) and mentions that the crowd is kinda dead and that maybe he should get his wife out there on the sidelines to do a stripper dance. "At least then those pole dancing classes she's been taking would be worth it.". All the men laugh. All caught by the mics. That was probably a fun time to be with the family when they were previewing footage. lol
Vito DeFilippo December 6th, 2009, 06:50 AM Ouch! I guess they're not married anymore.
Sarah Pendergraft December 6th, 2009, 11:17 AM We try and discourage them from this as we know seeing the footage could ruin their memories of the day. Theres always a relative who is tired and doesnt want to be there who just scowls at the camera ;)
If they pay, they can have it.
This is why we charge so much for raw footage... $500. It's not just the trouble in general, it's also the need (sometimes) to clean it up a little bit. We have had a few people pay for it. In one case we took the time to cut out a few moments in their raw where the bride & groom made fun of his dad (parents are divorced, dad has turned into kind of an odd case and they all joke about it). They may joke about him openly around siblings & mom's new family, but I doubt they want him hearing that.
We also had one couple who did unity sand in their ceremony and as they walk over to the vases the groom says, "my mom fu*k*d it up." If they had wanted their raw, I wasn't leaving that in.
A new question for you... we recently switched to the HMC150. A new client saw on our contract where we provide the raw on DVD for $500. She asked what we would charge if, instead of DVD, she just brought over hard drive or large thumb drive and we put the raw on that? Any input or thoughts? Would you give it to them as a generic file like mov? It would be very simple if we could just copy and paste the original files for them, but I'm guessing few clients would have use for AVCHD files. :-)
Chris Davis December 6th, 2009, 02:12 PM A new question for you... we recently switched to the HMC150. A new client saw on our contract where we provide the raw on DVD for $500. She asked what we would charge if, instead of DVD, she just brought over hard drive or large thumb drive and we put the raw on that?
I would charge the same amount regardless of media. I've actually had clients ask if they could get a break on the price if they provided their own blank DVDs!
I'm guessing few clients would have use for AVCHD files.Not true. Anyone can pick up a copy of Sony Movie Studio or other consumer editing program for $50 that will handle AVCHD.
Dave Blackhurst December 6th, 2009, 06:33 PM Well, considering how much computer horsepower it takes to properly play back AVCHD, that might be one way to avoid the issue <wink>. Although that will change with time of course, but it would be one heckuva jump drive to hold all the raw files from an AVCHD shoot... maybe a portable HDD.
I agree there are SOME things you'd never want to have see the light of day, but the majority probably is innocent and wouldn't be THAT bad... and it's one way to get rid of the archiving issue - hand it to the client and be done with it! I'm pretty sure the "they MIGHT watch it once" is a good approximation.
People don't really realize how much "ends up on the cutting room floor" even in a big budget production - there's a reason there's a huge list of peole on the credits, and only a fraction makes it into a final artistic statement, though I do enjoy "out-takes and bloopers"!
Denny Lajeunesse December 7th, 2009, 02:27 AM Ouch! I guess they're not married anymore.
No, she seems a good sport. Probably just chased him with around the house with her handbag.
Eugene Brown December 16th, 2009, 09:21 PM We never give out out raw footage period! It's in our contract! Like it was said earlier...photogs don't give out their raw photos do they? Why should it be any different for us?
Philip Howells December 17th, 2009, 12:28 AM Actually Eugene, these days some do. Of those most only give away CDs/DVDs of JPGs but some also give away the TIFs or RAW files as well.
It's not the majority, who still sell albums/portaits etc, but it is a development.
The trend seems to have come from "old time" photographers whose labs used to do a lot of the correction work they now have to do. Since they're not earning extra money for doing the work, some here at least have confined themselves to charging for the attendance and the computer files - if that's what the client wants. It's further exacerbated by the album companies becoming accessible to the general public.
Travis Cossel December 17th, 2009, 12:35 AM I didn't have time to read through the entire thread, but I can recommend what we do.
We include 'deleted scenes' on the DVD. We also charge $850 to put the raw footage on DVD. The appeal of 'deleted scenes' and the weight of the charge for raw footage prevents us from ever having to give out the raw footage (other than what we include in the deleted scenes).
Eugene Brown December 17th, 2009, 09:38 AM Actually Eugene, these days some do. Of those most only give away CDs/DVDs of JPGs but some also give away the TIFs or RAW files as well.
It's not the majority, who still sell albums/portaits etc, but it is a development.
The trend seems to have come from "old time" photographers whose labs used to do a lot of the correction work they now have to do. Since they're not earning extra money for doing the work, some here at least have confined themselves to charging for the attendance and the computer files - if that's what the client wants. It's further exacerbated by the album companies becoming accessible to the general public.
I might have replied the wrong way! Let me say it this way Photographers don't give out images without editing them! The good photographers don't anyway! And by good photographers I mean photogs like these guys (http://www.grayphotograph.com)
Here's the thing! Yes there are videographers who give out raw footage, I've even found some videographers who just shoot the wedding and then send the raw footage to their clients. To each their own right?
Our reason for not giving out raw footage is this: 9 times out of 10 our couples end up showing their dvd to their friends and family and we usually get about 3 to 4 more weddings from just that! Before we had a clue about the little ways you can market yourself we gave out raw footage because honestly its not that hard to do.
We had a couple who had seen some of our raw footage and asked us, why that footage looked so different than the other footage? They went on to say that their video better not look like that:)
So from then on out we haven't included raw footage and don't give it out! We only want our best footage to be seen ya know what I mean?
I'm not trying to be that guy in the forum who stirrs up trouble, but I just wanted to share our reasoning:)
Philip Howells December 17th, 2009, 09:55 AM And well reasoned - Like most people here I regard my job as making programmes that people want to look at often, not just make the raw material. The problem comes when the occasional client asks for the raw material.
Kren Barnes December 17th, 2009, 04:02 PM We use to give the tapes to the B&G for free... now we charge them a $150 fee which we actually use half to buy the B&g an external hard drive. Since we have the actual raw files for editing anyway, it is simply transferring them to the external hard drive and giving that to the client. It is in HD and would probably never see the light of an editing program again :)
problem solved !
Dawn Brennan December 17th, 2009, 04:11 PM Kren,
I REALLY like that idea. I can't stand transferring them to DVD, because, like you mentioned, in most cases, even if they are paid for... they never do anything with it!
We normally sell the tapes as is for a smaller fee, but charge a whole heap more for the DVDs. While I don't like giving out the raw (unedited) footage because I honestly see no point, this solution works for all parties. Thanks for sharing!
Philip Howells December 17th, 2009, 11:58 PM I'll second that - an ingenious solution.
Eugene Brown December 18th, 2009, 08:28 PM We use to give the tapes to the B&G for free... now we charge them a $150 fee which we actually use half to buy the B&g an external hard drive. Since we have the actual raw files for editing anyway, it is simply transferring them to the external hard drive and giving that to the client. It is in HD and would probably never see the light of an editing program again :)
problem solved !
This is freaking Great!!! Wow!! Thanks Kren
Kren Barnes December 19th, 2009, 01:08 PM no problem guys! now if we can just get them to figure out how to attach the USB cable to their PC!
Kren
____________________________________________
www.verticalvideoworks.com
|
|