Often mentioned but I've never seen a 20 minute one...I think what we do is cinematic but that is pretty subjective... Would love to see one from other folks instead of 3 minute highlights.. Cheers!

We've shared several of our cinematic features on here in the past.

Have patience ... we'll be sharing another one very soon. d;-)

Comes down to bandwidth and our busy life styles. No one wants to see a 20min long clip, people want a bite size clip they can quickly watch to get the general idea. You will lose your online audience if you go with a 20 min clip and very few people would actually watch something that long.

Nicholas is correct, but I think there is something else at work too. People like to show off only their best stuff so that they look good ... which is easy to do in a 3 minute highlights. Very, very few are willing to show a full short-form edit because of how difficult they are to produce without flaws.

We don't take that approach. We even shared a short-form from the most difficult wedding day we've ever shot .. just because.

HUm, it makes me wonder...

When the client receives his DVD/bluray, what he'll see? I say, what is the rule? Have the entire cerimony with minor adjustment cuts/inserts or a creative editing.

Shoot and finalize the whole cerimony as it is can be boring even to the couple, yet it becomes the legacy of this particular time.

What do you do?

And, talking about highlights, it's the same thing as some feature films trailers and teasers: sometimes you whatch everything and dont need to waste time watching the whole thing.

Don't have a problem showing more than a 2-3 minute highlights clip online, as I like to show my potential clients the quality is consistent throughout. Whilst this may not appeal to the insiders who want a quick fix, they are not my potential clients.....Most of us here can all make a great preview, trailer.... I like to extend that to the actual full length wedding too!

John makes a good point. There is no difference between a 3 minute highlight and a 20 minute highlight. The difference is between the "wedding video" and the "wedding highlights" . Brides are paying for a wedding video, videographers are showcasing highlights, total disconnect here.

You're right Kren, it is subjective. I used to just produce what I think of as a purely documentary edit, in addition to the highlights. But I've just started to offer what I call a cinematic feature - about 20 -30 minutes long. Really though, I think it's as much documentary as cinematic, if not more so. But since you asked, here's my first attempt at it:

This is a password protected video on Vimeo

Password is "feature".

John makes a good point. There is no difference between a 3 minute highlight and a 20 minute highlight.

I completely disagree. It's much easier to fill a 3-5 minute time with awesome shots and editing .. than it is to fill a 20 minute time. Producing a stellar feature is many times more difficult and time-consuming than producing a stellar highlights video.

You're right Kren, it is subjective. I used to just produce what I think of as a purely documentary edit, in addition to the highlights. But I've just started to offer what I call a cinematic feature - about 20 -30 minutes long. Really though, I think it's as much documentary as cinematic, if not more so. But since you asked, here's my first attempt at it:

Excellent job, John. Great use of natural audio to direct the edit.

I completely disagree. It's much easier to fill a 3-5 minute time with awesome shots and editing .. than it is to fill a 20 minute time. Producing a stellar feature is many times more difficult and time-consuming than producing a stellar highlights video.

I'm with you on that. I work mostly solo, and am finding that even bringing back 3-4 hours of footage, it's difficult for me to sustain a cinematic edit for 20-30 minutes. And it's not just about the volume of footage you bring home, it's about having the right shots for your storyline. I used some shots in my cinematic edit, that I probably would never consider for the highlights, but really I didn't have a choice. And I had a few good shots that didn't make it in, because they really didn't fit with the story. I can tell this kind of edit will change (and hopefully improve) the way I shoot.

And thanks for watching Travis.

Accepted. There is a 17 minute difference between a 3 minute highlight and a 20 minute highlight. Each added minute makes the job more of a challenge.

A wedding video isn't necessarily longer than a highlights video. Just as a movie trailer may be longer than a short film - but no-one confuses the two.

Ask a bride "Is that your wedding video?" she will reply

"Yes This is my wedding video" or "No this is highlights from my wedding video".

You did very good.
I think the 20 min cinematic version is something that can add allot to the entire package.
In a way it really shows the story as well your creativity.
I think that the highlights and the 20 min cinematic clip are not alike and should be both in the final product.

A few years ago we started perfecting our cinematic features so that they would be the 'wow factor' of our packages (instead of the highlights). We now use the cinematic feature as the core element and the highlights videos are add-ons. Everyone wants the cinematic feature, but they want the highlights too. So it becomes a great way to achieve an add-on sale.

Increasing your profit is all about creating demand for something on a scale that people will stretch for.

Great job John!

Way to go John! that must have taken quite the effort...it usually takes me about 10 hours (and lots of agony) to come up with a 3-4 minute highlight clip so this is the bee's knees :)

Thanks for watching guys!

Hi John...good work. It appears from watching this clip you invested a lot of time to produce the final edit.
Can you tell us how much time YOU spent?
Is there a secret to pushing out this edit in a reasonable time.
I love the concept.

Nice edit mate. What camera did you use?

[QUOTE=John J. Arnold;1473982]You're right Kren, it is subjective. I used to just produce what I think of as a purely documentary edit, in addition to the highlights. But I've just started to offer what I call a cinematic feature - about 20 -30 minutes long. Really though, I think it's as much documentary as cinematic, if not more so. But since you asked, here's my first attempt at it:

Hi John...good work. It appears from watching this clip you invested a lot of time to produce the final edit.
Can you tell us how much time YOU spent?
Is there a secret to pushing out this edit in a reasonable time.
I love the concept.

Thanks Tom. I'm guessing I spent a solid 20 hours on it, maybe a little more. I'm not the fastest editor in the world, for sure. I basically choose the best sound I've got, roughly try to arrange it so that it forms some sort of narrative, and then build the edit around that, adding the shorter natural sound breaks and music montages. Not sure if this is the most efficient way; I'm still trying to get my head around this kind of edit and the workflow because it's so different from what I had been doing.

Nice edit mate. What camera did you use?

Thanks for watching Simon. I shoot primarily with an HMC150, although I've got a few GH1 shots in there, and the second camera on the ceremony was an XHA1.

As promised, we've shared one of our cinematic features in the samples section. Here's the link:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-video-sample-clips-gallery/471631-shane-stacys-cinematic-feature-serendipity-studios.html#post1476822

Hey Travis, Nice work! Liked how you handled the ceremony and used natural sound.

Thanks for watching, John!