So, I'd love to get a tilt/shift lens. I think it could be great in video for reception dancing, and could create something like the dreamlike effect that Luke Oliver has in his videos (see sample section). And it would be great in photo to be able to connect particular foreground and background objects without overall deep depth of field.

However, I also think most brides could care less.

In a movie, one of the goals of cinematography is to be invisible -- most of the time, you're supposed to subtly add to the story, but without drawing attention to technique. Every camera movement should be motivated.

In contrast: wedding aesthetics. There's a huge market for brides who want showy, technique-obvious videos; or, to put it another way, images that Uncle Bob can't easily produce, which their friends might not have, and which therefore have "professional" stamped on them.

Here's a random list of things that I think make a difference to most brides, and visibly add to "production value" from a bride's point of view.

-- Shallow depth of field
-- Timelapse
-- Slow motion
-- Sliders, steadicams, jibs
-- Drones

They're big, obvious differences in look from home videos.

And here's a list of things that I don't think add to production value from an average bride's point of view, or which I don't think they care about:

-- Motivated camera movement.
-- Consistent look to a scene. Does she care that you just went from well-exposed shot to silhouette then back again? Or colour to black and white? Nope. Because the silhouette and black and white are "cool".
-- Shaky tripods/rough pans. Does she care about the difference in result between a $2,000 video tripod and an $80 photography tripod? I doubt it.
-- Sharp lenses. I'm sceptical brides care about the difference between prime and zoom, and am pretty sure they don't care about the difference between Samyang and Canon L.
-- Matching cameras. You used an FS700 and a three 5D2s on a shoot. The colours don't match -- shock horror! Meanwhile, the couple don't even realise, on watching the finished product, that you used more than one camera.
-- Good audio. There's no doubt that fuzzy sound takes away from a short form video, and that crystal clear sound adds. All things being equal, good audio is preferable. But I don't think all things are equal. I think a wow image more than makes up for poor audio -- as the work of some well-known Filipino videographers seems to testify.
-- Full coverage of a ceremony. I don't think most brides care if every second is recorded or not. They're after the "main bits". And in terms of showing friends, the 15- and 5-minute videos are what they'll show; full coverage is irrelevant.
-- Gimbals, if you already have a steadicam.
-- 4K downscaled to 1080.
-- 720 upscaled to 1080.
-- High ISO noise.
-- Dynamic range.
-- Good colour science.

Hi Adrian

Apart from a tiny percentage who want the best video yet and are prepared to pay $8K for a production crew, we assume that the bride has far more technical knowledge than she actually has! With most brides, one has to be very careful that a skilled shallow focus shot of the bride in focus and the groom out of focus thru shallow DOF isn't seen as .."Why is my husband's face all fuzzy"

If they look pretty and the dresses that were a delicate salmon pink turn up as orange on her TV then she is happy. Remember she is not pixel peeping like we do, so she's just as happy with an SD DVD compared with a 4K UHD presentation (there is a good change her pimples won't show up on the SD copy but will look sharp as a tack at 4K ... why do you think photogs will often soften the image to get a dreamy look as well as hiding all the blemishes!

More than anything else the content has to be good and this is way, way more important than perfect resolution ... if you have a technically perfect video in every way but miss the bouquet toss when her sister catches the bouquet then you are dead! Yes, sorry coverage is very important but no you don't have to get everything ..as long as you film everything you say you are going to film then she will be happy.

Yeah, we get way too technical and fussy with our technical aspects but in the end we still have to keep the bride happy to get a good end result so I still think content is the most critical of all aspects to consider.

Chris

I think those are all really great points Adrian and Chris. I've found (oddly enough) that when I show a bride her video, it's very rare that she will mention anything about a technical issue (i.e. something was slightly overexposed, too much noise in the image, cameras don't match perfectly, etc). If the bride has a revision for me, it is just to ask if I can add in a shot of a family member, or add in some more footage from a particular event.

However, I have found that potential brides have occasionally pointed out technical aspects in some fasion as they are looking closely at all the different videographers trying to decide which one to use. I had one potential bride (who did not book me) flat out tell me that my videos did not look HD and asked if we could shoot with cameras that looks more "HD" if she booked us. After explaining to her that all our footage is shot in 1080p HD and sending her the spec sheets of our cameras I never heard back (I'm kind of glad because from our 4-5 emails she seemed like she would have been difficult to work with).

2014 was my first year shooting short form videos so I will have to wait and see over the next couple years just how much of a difference it makes to potential clients when I use upgraded equipment and have made improvements to my shooting and editing. I know that when I only shot long form videos with my Panasonic HMC150s I rarely got anyone even asking for samples as they would book me trusting that I knew what I was doing. Now that I've been offering the 5-7 minute videos shot with large sensor cameras, it seems that I'm attracting new types of clients who are looking at LOTS of videos online and comparing them with mine.

Let me know if you think this is accurate because as I mentioned this is my first year shooting short form videos so my sample size is limited.

-- Full coverage of a ceremony. I don't think most brides care if every second is recorded or not. They're after the "main bits".

My experience is different, I have been offering the complete ceremony as a paid option the past years and every single bride paid for it, they all wanted to have full coverage of that ceremony eventhough they know they might only look at it once.

So, I'd love to get a tilt/shift lens.
I also wanted to get a tilt/shift lens! :) But only for personal projects, my steadicam stays my main "can do it almost all" attribute at a wedding, I can mimic crane and slider moves as well with it and while it never will look as good as the real thing it gives me enough versatility to provide some "wow" shots to draw the attention of new clients.

I think a wow image more than makes up for poor audio
I have seen these "well-known Filipino videographers" videos and while visually they are brilliant it's their audio that's often lacking in quality, as I see it bad audio takes the entire production value down, no matter how great it all looks, but it can be that you can get away with brilliant video and bad audio but not with good audio and bad video. Brides might care more how it visually all looks?

-- Good colour science.

This is the only placement of yours I outright disagree with.

It might be the most important thing ever, but people do notice good color. Particularly skin tones. I think that's a big part of why Canon DSLRs were to popular back in the day. They had a really nice color nice that was a cut above most video cameras. Panasonic always did colors well, too.

I really obsess about my safety camera colours not matching right with my main camera, and sometimes even if I spent forever colour correcting the 2 its never quite there, but no matter how dissatisfied I am with it I have never had a bride say "those colours dont match", have you?

And here's a list of things that I don't think add to production value from an average bride's point of view, or which I don't think they care about:

-- Motivated camera movement.
-- Consistent look to a scene. Does she care that you just went from well-exposed shot to silhouette then back again? Or colour to black and white? Nope. Because the silhouette and black and white are "cool".
-- Shaky tripods/rough pans. Does she care about the difference in result between a $2,000 video tripod and an $80 photography tripod? I doubt it.
-- Sharp lenses. I'm sceptical brides care about the difference between prime and zoom, and am pretty sure they don't care about the difference between Samyang and Canon L.
-- Matching cameras. You used an FS700 and a three 5D2s on a shoot. The colours don't match -- shock horror! Meanwhile, the couple don't even realise, on watching the finished product, that you used more than one camera.
-- Good audio. There's no doubt that fuzzy sound takes away from a short form video, and that crystal clear sound adds. All things being equal, good audio is preferable. But I don't think all things are equal. I think a wow image more than makes up for poor audio -- as the work of some well-known Filipino videographers seems to testify.
-- Full coverage of a ceremony. I don't think most brides care if every second is recorded or not. They're after the "main bits". And in terms of showing friends, the 15- and 5-minute videos are what they'll show; full coverage is irrelevant.
-- Gimbals, if you already have a steadicam.
-- 4K downscaled to 1080.
-- 720 upscaled to 1080.
-- High ISO noise.
-- Dynamic range.
-- Good colour science.

She may not care about those individually but if you get most of those right then your productions will stand out. They may not know why they like it more but they will like it more.

It might be the most important thing ever

More important then sound, focus or exposure ? :)

More important then sound, focus or exposure ? :)

I think there was a 'not' missing in that sentence, otherwise it doesn't read correctly.

"It might 'not' be the most important thing ever, but people do notice good color."

And here's a list of things that I don't think add to production value from an average bride's point of view, or which I don't think they care about:

-- Motivated camera movement.
-- Consistent look to a scene. Does she care that you just went from well-exposed shot to silhouette then back again? Or colour to black and white? Nope. Because the silhouette and black and white are "cool".
-- Shaky tripods/rough pans. Does she care about the difference in result between a $2,000 video tripod and an $80 photography tripod? I doubt it.
-- Sharp lenses. I'm sceptical brides care about the difference between prime and zoom, and am pretty sure they don't care about the difference between Samyang and Canon L.
-- Matching cameras. You used an FS700 and a three 5D2s on a shoot. The colours don't match -- shock horror! Meanwhile, the couple don't even realise, on watching the finished product, that you used more than one camera.
-- Good audio. There's no doubt that fuzzy sound takes away from a short form video, and that crystal clear sound adds. All things being equal, good audio is preferable. But I don't think all things are equal. I think a wow image more than makes up for poor audio -- as the work of some well-known Filipino videographers seems to testify.
-- Full coverage of a ceremony. I don't think most brides care if every second is recorded or not. They're after the "main bits". And in terms of showing friends, the 15- and 5-minute videos are what they'll show; full coverage is irrelevant.
-- Gimbals, if you already have a steadicam.
-- 4K downscaled to 1080.
-- 720 upscaled to 1080.
-- High ISO noise.
-- Dynamic range.
-- Good colour science.

It's always hard to know what the Bride and Groom values in their video. I'm sure much of the time, some of my fancy shots just go unnoticed. However I get a feeling of job satisfaction in creating them and part of the reason I tolerate the long hours, lengthy car journeys and the occasional difficult clients & other Wedding vendors. I think sometimes we do underestimate how much the Bide and Groom do notice though. When chatting with them, some of the questions and comments to me show they do pick up on technique as well as content.

Well, we all have to remember, there is a difference between the things they actively notice, and those that still effect them, or have an affect on how the video connects with them. If you feel something genuinely adds to the quality of the work, to the story, even if its subtle or unconsciouly, then it can still be worth it.

I agree with most of the list, with qualifiers. Doing something because its "cool" seems a poor idea. Doing it because its the right tool....

Whether they notice shallow depth of field or not, it can still be used with a tight zoom of each of their faces so that during their vows, the viewer is pulled into that moment completely.

Good editing can help make sure to keep the viewers connection to the space and people.

Drones can give you a great attention getting shot, or could be used like a slider, to transition spaces. Doing it just to use it will be poor storytelling.

So many good points in this thread, especially what seperates the paid professional from uncle bob who can do it for free.

I would say multicamera, jib, steadicam and slider shots take the number #1 spot followed by super slow motion over things like shallow depth of field because uncle bob can't get those angles without bringing an arsenal of additional equipment. Shallow depth of field is easily available on prosumer camcorders now (like the Sony VG10 very affordable) so any enthusiastic family member can shoot an event with a prime lens stuck on it.

For me, more important than any of these things by miles is content. I always ask brides when meeting them for the first time what it is that they are looking for from a wedding video and it is always content so I've purposely been throwing in a few tech questions and it's always met by indifference.
All the best gear in the world won't cut it if the content isn't there .
I think us guys tend to get obsessed with gadgets and technology....I don't bother with DOF as a means to an end because it takes one bride to complain that so and so is blurry. Once you have to explain your shots, it's a headache.
I've seen some highlight reels where every shot had shallow DOF and the content was barely there. It looked impressive sort of but it had no substance. I think shallow DOF has it's place but tends to get overused to the point that it becomes an irritant.
Good audio IS very important, more so than vision...it's a golden rule in every film-makers manual. You can get away with a bad shot but bad audio just says 'amateur'.

For me, more important than any of these things by miles is content. I always ask brides when meeting them for the first time what it is that they are looking for from a wedding video and it is always content so I've purposely been throwing in a few tech questions and it's always met by indifference.
All the best gear in the world won't cut it if the content isn't there .
I think us guys tend to get obsessed with gadgets and technology....I don't bother with DOF as a means to an end because it takes one bride to complain that so and so is blurry. Once you have to explain your shots, it's a headache.
I've seen some highlight reels where every shot had shallow DOF and the content was barely there. It looked impressive sort of but it had no substance. I think shallow DOF has it's place but tends to get overused to the point that it becomes an irritant.
Good audio IS very important, more so than vision...it's a golden rule in every film-makers manual. You can get away with a bad shot but bad audio just says 'amateur'.

The problem with any argument against depth of field is that those making the argument focus their attacks on those who use the technique badly or over use it. I've seen bad cases of handheld filming, zooming, colour grading, poor camera angles; yet to argue that these techniques shouldn't be used because they have been employed poorly by Videographers makes for a poor argument. Same goes for depth of field.
Now I've used depth of field as a technique in nearly all my videos without a single complaint from Brides. In fact this year I've made a point of using my prime lenses more to add some variety to my shots and give my filming a creative boost after a bit of complacency in my work last year. Far from reducing my content, I feel I've produced more of it this year. There were Wedding videos last year in hindsight I hadn't shot enough material; a situation not encountered once this year.
Judging peoples work from highlight reels can be unfair; my Trailers tend to favour my best shots, saving the valuable content for the Wedding Video itself. They're partly treats for the couple and partly promotional pieces.

Whilst content is important, technique is also important too. I run a Guestcam add on to my Wedding Videos. Some of those videos are full of content with behind the scenes shots, messages from Guests, full coverage of the Ceremony and Speeches. So why did the Bride and Groom hire me to film their Wedding and not just settle for the Guestcam. Perhaps because a little polish, a little style and production value adds greatly to the finished product. As long as style doesn't hinder the content, there's a place in my Wedding videos for depth of field, slider shots and other bits of technology I feel gives my videos a more polished look than something a guest could film.

I've got a feeling this thread is headed into a DSLR vs proper video camera discussion, because it seems like that's where many similar discussions go.

Before it gets there, I guess my main thoughts are that:
-- there is a big market for showy effects (but of course there's also a big market for plain recording that's done as cheaply as possible)
-- when spending money on equipment for that market, the smarter thing to do is to not sweat the small stuff, like tilt-shift lenses, but to think about what brides actually notice.

The things that count as "stuff that brides notice" -- I guess that's debatable. For instance, whether brides do notice good audio or not. I personally think there are many brides who are wowed by shallow depth and by slider shots, because they've told me as much. "Look at so-and-so's work. It's amazing." And you look, and it's formulaic, and there's technical problems all over the place -- bad focus and exposure and camera shake -- but it's full of slider reveal after slider reveal, and is shot as shallow as hell.

The background of where these thoughts are coming from... Well, to be honest, I'm someone who's spent far too much money on kit and who gets fewer clients than I'd like; and, in contrast, there's a number of Sydney companies that have done extremely well on the basis of spending money smart, putting the money where it makes a significant production-value difference.

Well I've owned the Canon 24mm f3.5 tilt and shift for at least 10 years and in all that time I've never used it at a wedding whether that be for stills or video.

My original reason for buying it was to correct converging verticals and for that its brilliant. However then came along software that could correct converging verticals and suddenly there was no point in carrying this extra bit of heavy manual focus kit; simply shoot the stills a bit wider and correct in post :- )

Again with stills you can achieve better front to rear depth of field by focus stacking rather than nursing a T&S lens or using a very small aperture (and suffering its diffraction in the process of).

Much of the T&S work I see is eye-catching mostly because it looks so unnatural e.g. tiny people in toytown settings seen from rooftop vantage points. Do you really want unnatural in wedding films?

Seems to me that we are often guilty of rationalising why we need a particular piece of kit or why we must use a particular technique (a technique so often used that it is actually "traditional" and NOT innovative or creative at all). But the truth is the wedding clients couldn't care less. The content and the capturing of emotion is where its at for them. Who ever gets any negative feedback from any client about anything other than the occasional question as to why a certain sequence that they thought you had captured is missing from the final product?

If all the kit and all the quack techniques give you personal satisfaction then great; its wonderful to be doing a job that we enjoy. But make no mistake - you ARE over-engineering the product for the target market.

I was reading an online exchange between some brides today who were discussing which photographer to go with, both of whom were quoting over £5,000. One rather let the cat out of the bag by saying that she had shown some of the pics to, quote, "people in the know, I work in TV" and these had confirmed the pics were of a high quality. In other words she had no idea herself and could have achieved the same level of satisfaction paying half the price if that had been a priority for her.

Pete

The things that count as "stuff that brides notice" -- I guess that's debatable. For instance, whether brides do notice good audio or not. I personally think there are many brides who are wowed by shallow depth and by slider shots, because they've told me as much. "Look at so-and-so's work. It's amazing." And you look, and it's formulaic, and there's technical problems all over the place -- bad focus and exposure and camera shake -- but it's full of slider reveal after slider reveal, and is shot as shallow as hell.

I'll assume those videos are short, 5 minutes or so. Have you ever asked those brides about the longer videos? Is that really all they want, a music video?

I'd be curious to know.

Who ever gets any negative feedback from any client about anything other than the occasional question as to why a certain sequence that they thought you had captured is missing from the final product?

Pete

One of my earliest Weddings, I got critique on my B & C Cameras not colour matching my A Camera - too pink. It went back and forth several times before I got colour that was acceptable to the Bride. I once had a complaint that I didn't use my slider; I was hired by the Groom in that instance. I've also been called up on camera placement. I had to explain the restrictions the church made, but basically my rear camera wasn't placed to her satisfaction. One Bride complained a table decoration was in the way during the Speeches, blocking a shot of the groom and her. I had been forced to move to another spot by the Venue Manager who wanted access to deliver the flowers & gifts at key moments. The Bride was none too pleased and complained to the Venue over this.

I've also been questioned several times by both Brides and Grooms on poor audio they've heard in other videos, particularly in the Speeches and concerned that I capture it well. Requests for cameras attached to vehicles have been made, I have one Wedding next year where I've been asked to get aerial shots and another asking for the whole thing to be shot in 4K - yep someone has a 4K TV. Wish I did.

I've come in late on this thread, but one thing I think is more important than any of the others mentioned, is visual flow.

Cranes, Jibs, Dollies, Sliders, Shallow DOF etc, might give you technical advantages over Uncle Bob, but give me a smart phone and give Uncle Bob all the high tech equipment, and my smart phone video will be more watchable. That's because after thirty years, I know what shots the couple will like, how long they need to be, what needs to be included and how to edit the whole lot together to hold their attention and keep them watching.

Without visual flow, you may be able to wow them for a few minutes with technical sparkle, but without the story and flow, it will have no real substance and no lasting value.

Roger

Adrian - you started a very interesting thread. I like it.

Yea, you started out with your wish for a tilt/shift lens …. but because you wrote about what makes a difference it has nicely segued into thoughts other than just the equipment.

In retail sales, it's a lot about "bells and whistles," and to some degree one could say that about the video products we sell, as well. What several have mentioned, or suggested, is the main important thing is the story.

I like Rogers post #19 about using an iPhone vs Uncle Bob is a good example, and he's not alone as several of the earlier posts have mentioned or suggested something like this. Let me pass along some figures I've read.

85% of a good movie is the storyline. This was said by someone like a producer or director and it was in a book about script writing. Okay, so maybe it's a bit biased toward script writers but as much as I like equipment and working with it, the statement struck a chord. One can argue the number but I know myself, if the story isn't good I'm switching channels or turning it off.

Another very large percentage (don't remember the number) of a good movie is the casting. Well, if it's a wedding video I don't know what to say. Maybe there's an exception.

2/3rds of a good video is the audio. This was a statement by a big name in movies (don't remember the name) in the book "How to Shoot Video That Doesn't Suck".

A video tells a story so what is the story? In the case of the wedding video, does it just document what happened? Is that a "story"? Would a wedding video tell a story about HOW it happened? Like, for example, how the couple met? What each person found interesting about the other? What attracted them to each other?

Could the story start earlier, maybe something like their bio, how they grew up, with baby through teenage pictures then leading into the wedding? Interviews with relatives or friends about them growing up?

Just writing this it seems like it'd be a lot but it doesn't have to be. It can be what one wants to make it. In the case of wedding shoots there is already a more-or-less standard approach so the prelude, if you want to call it that, could also have a "standard" approach. It would be a nice add-on to the basic package. Perhaps not even for "general distribution" but just for the couple.

Just this morning I had a discussion with my wife about a copy (DVD video) I made of an old 8 mm film of my wife's relatives. She showed it to them yesterday and they absolutely loved it. We're talking about something shot around 1970 (44 years ago), (2/3rds is good audio - hey! this had NO audio (!)), but it brought back lots of memories. They all really loved it.

So, back to the story idea.

Guess my question is, "is the wedding JUST a documentary, or is it a story"? If it's a story, what IS the story? Note that even a documentary is a story but probably more like one of, say, like what a security camera might record.

If a wedding video is a story, wouldn't one want, shall we call it, the Prelude too?

Let me add one more thought - this is about the "equipment" part. If you're a guy videographer, probably the best "equipment" would be to team up with your wife, significant other, or another female. Hey, they see things differently. I don't care what anybody says - they are different. This is where I'd add on to what Roger Gunkel wrote about the iPhone. My wife sees "things" a lot different than me. These are the "little" nuances that make the big difference. (at least for me)

Adrian - thanks for starting this!

Without visual flow, you may be able to wow them for a few minutes with technical sparkle, but without the story and flow, it will have no real substance and no lasting value.

Roger

Hit the nail on the head.

Visual flow and content will ALWAYS beat technical sparkle.

This is the universal order to a good professional video in my opinion:

1. Content (a lovely venue, good looking, lively people all contribute towards the content as well as a bride crying etc)
2. Visual Flow (a good edit)
3. A steady image (that allows the viewer to see the subject properly)
4. Multi camera angles
5. Jib Crane, Steadicam or Slider Shots
6. Shallow depth of field

Hit the nail on the head.

Visual flow and content will ALWAYS beat technical sparkle.

This is the universal order to a good professional video in my opinion:

1. Content (a lovely venue, good looking, lively people all contribute towards the content as well as a bride crying etc)
2. Visual Flow (a good edit)
3. A steady image (that allows the viewer to see the subject properly)
4. Multi camera angles
5. Jib Crane, Steadicam or Slider Shots
6. Shallow depth of field

There's one other aspect I think contributes to a Professional video; appropriate use of camera angles. For example, a close up of the Bride's face when she's crying will carry the emotion more effectively than a wide shot. Seems obvious, but I've seen a few videos that have got the balance wrong.

One of my earliest Weddings, I got critique on my B & C Cameras not colour matching my A Camera - too pink. It went back and forth several times before I got colour that was acceptable to the Bride. I once had a complaint that I didn't use my slider; I was hired by the Groom in that instance. I've also been called up on camera placement. I had to explain the restrictions the church made, but basically my rear camera wasn't placed to her satisfaction. One Bride complained a table decoration was in the way during the Speeches, blocking a shot of the groom and her. I had been forced to move to another spot by the Venue Manager who wanted access to deliver the flowers & gifts at key moments. The Bride was none too pleased and complained to the Venue over this.

I've also been questioned several times by both Brides and Grooms on poor audio they've heard in other videos, particularly in the Speeches and concerned that I capture it well. Requests for cameras attached to vehicles have been made, I have one Wedding next year where I've been asked to get aerial shots and another asking for the whole thing to be shot in 4K - yep someone has a 4K TV. Wish I did.

Steve I reckon much of that might be where you were finding your feet and would be unlikely to happen now. For example colour matching. Guess I took that for granted in video because its such an old chestnut in the stills world. I always ensure that my two stills cam outputs match as far as possible but I know not to obsess over it. And thats how I treat video as well. If one cam is way cooler or hotter than another I'm going to adjust but I'm not going to try and make them exact copies - that would be over-engineering for the market even if there is some pleasure in achieving it.

Use of slider? Well you've pretty much got to deliver what you show, as I expect you do.

Compromised shooting positions? I expect you mention it on the day if its really necessary. Table decoration blocking VIP face - I expect you get permission to move it for the speeches. Those things make focusing problematic at the very least :- )

Audio quality - probably part of your presentation.

Requests for 4k,, shots from moving vehicles etc. They aren't negative feedback.

Makes sense to me anyway :- )

Pete