Today my boss came in my office and asked me if I would have any interest in shooting a commercial for the university this summer. Last summer they hired a video production company to put one together but this year (after seeing some of my work over the last year) my boss asked me if I would be interested in giving it a try. It looks like I'll have a budget for renting cameras and equipment and my boss already has a vision for what he wants the commercial to look like.

I guess my biggest concern is that I've never been a part of a huge production (or really any sized production besides just myself) and had this much pressure on me for a video.

Anyone have any advice for me?

I currently have a GH4 and a full frame canon camera with a 70-200 2.8 II IS, 100 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4. I don't plan on using the GH4 or my canon camera, but maybe use the lenses. I am planning on renting a camera but I'm not sure exactly I should rent. My boss sounds like he doesn't want to spend more than $1,200-$1,500. I'm sure I can talk him into more, but that's just what he initially said.

If it helps, his vision for the commercial is all sit down interviews with little or maybe no b-roll.

Thanks everyone!

Cool down. Take it easy. Break down the job into parts and you will realise that the work is the same. The more you plan, the better it becomes.

You may like to talk with your boss more about his vision. May be before going to him, you do some thinking as to how you want to approach it. Hiring crew and equipment etc is never a problem. The problem is knowing clearly what you want to do. So list down/sketch/storyboard and soon you find that the entire commercial flashes infront of your eyes.

Let us know how it goes. All the best.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

If you have gear you're comfortable with that will do what you want it to do, use that, don't rent gear. If you are relatively new to the business (sounds like you are, sorry, I don't know your backstory), I'd rather have you shooting with 100% familiarity with your gear than with gear that's 50% over your head that you have 0% familiarity with. Especially when your budget is $1500, I would not blow $500 on gear rental.

If anything, I'd see if you could get a lighting director and some lights to come help you for $1k and makeup/hair for a couple hundred bucks. It's possible I stand alone on this next point, but I'd rather have $100 worth of sandwiches and sodas brought in at lunch than have a $100 oddball lens that I will rent and use for one shot. Lunch makes everybody happy, and happy people work better.

I used to get called to shoot an important spot from time to time for my boss, and have a budget of some kind to stick to. If you need to rent lights, and they're going to cost $500 to rent but you could buy them (or something similar) for $1000, that was always an easy way to flesh out the kit without using my own budget. Bosses love good value.

I agree with Sabyaschi. You got this.
If it helps, his vision for the commercial is all sit down interviews with little or maybe no b-roll.
This is a terrible idea. Talk him out of this.

Thanks for the advice guys.

I currently have these lights (Bescor LED-700KB Bi-Color 2 Light AC/DC Kit LED-700KB B&H Photo). Would these work for a professional interview setting? I mean that's the reason I bought them, but if they aren't great then maybe I will look into renting some.

In regards to the video itself, I'm going to try to throw a few different ideas my bosses way and see if any of them stick. He specifically mentioned having a slider shot that moves while the person is talking, which I don't have and would need to rent (if he's 100% sold on that).

He came in my office yesterday and was telling me about how they spent $40k on a commercial last year and he feels like we could do it in house this year. I wish he gave me a little bit of a budget to work with, but trying to do all of this for barely $1000 seems a bit overwhelming. Like I said, I currently have a gh4 and I just don't know how good that will look on a TV commercial for a university. He said he wants it to look cinematic and the GH4 doesn't really have that look. I'm trying to talk them into letting me get a metabones adapter (I have lots of canon glass) which would help, but it's still not going to be the same as getting a high end professional camera.

I feel kind of nervous about it, but anytime I've felt this way in the past, it's just pushed me to get better, so I'm excited. I just don't want to let anyone down when they are putting this much trust in me.

He said he wants it to look cinematic and the GH4 doesn't really have that look.

Ask him to define "cinematic", I bet he can't, just use a flat profile, use a fast lens and add bars on top and bottom of the video, light the scene appropriately, introduce some motion with a slider and bam instant cinematic look.

Is the Canon glass yours, or the school's? Do not mix personal gear with work gear. Ask for a metabones and a couple of lenses, but don't bring in your own gear.

I have been out on my own for 6 years now, and in the beginning I used to really stress about making something look a certain way. I'm mostly past that. The client wants a look. Talk them through it. I'm with Noa, ask him what "cinematic" means, and whatever he responds, break that down more. Then look at techniques that will achieve that. If you need gear, make a list and tell him what it'll cost. If he doesn't want to pay that, start scratching stuff off until you get to his number. You may not achieve the look he's asking for, but you did the best you could with his budget. The rest is not your problem.

I know this seems like a big spot, but he picked you because he's seen your work and he thinks you can do it.

While I understand the reasoning of not using personal gear with work gear, I really just want to make quality videos and if my canon glass helps me do that, then I'm all for it. I feel like the work I do here could help me get a job at a bigger organization or university in the future, so I want to make sure I'm doing the best work I can.

So from my understanding, the suggestion here is to simply use my GH4 with my lenses and see how it goes? I just want to make sure this is the best option for me. I like the idea you gave Mike about giving the, a list and then showing him what it will cost and then slowly mark off the list until we get down to a price he can stomach.

Just so you know where we are, below is the commercial that was made for us last year....

86,400 - YouTube

And below is a couple videos that I have done. They are a bit different so I'm a bit nervous about trying to replace a full production so I guess that's why I'm making sure I'm asking as many questions as I can to fully understand what will be expected and what I can do to make this video as good as it possibly can be. I feel confident behind a camera, but doing a commercial is something different.

Winter at UC - YouTube

Autumn at UC - YouTube

NCAA II Game of the Week: University of Charleston vs Concord - YouTube

What camera was used for these videos?

I used the GH4 for those

I don't know if this will put your mind at ease or not, but here it is anyhow.

Last year your boss paid $40k for a spot.

If he hires you to shoot the spot and uses students instead of actors, he will essentially pay $0 for a spot.

If you screw it up in a huge and epic way, and he is forced to hire last year's firm, which is truly the worst case scenario, he is out $40k which is exactly what he was out last year, and what he has budgeted for this year.

Now, what are the chances that will happen? Even if he was 90% certain you'll screw it up, that still leaves him with a 10% chance that he'll save $40k. I don't know you or your abilities, but after looking at what's above I'd put it closer to 75% that you'll get something usable and 25% that you might have to hire it out after you're done.

Ok, now on to content.

Ask your boss:
Who is your audience?
What is your message?

The spot produced last year has an audience and a message. Your spots are montages of pretty video. They don't have strategy.

Once you achieve a strategy for the new spot, your work will be half done.

My secret to success is audience/message/strategy. I am not the best shooter/editor in my city. However, I am the one guy who will push back on audience/message/strategy. So my spot that is not as well shot or edited as my competitors will have better results.

I used the GH4 for those

Seriously, you need to believe more in yourself, your work is good and otherwise your boss wouldn't have asked you, just use your gh4 and you will be fine, it's a very capable camera. Maybe get a decent slider and hire lights. I have the edelkrone sliderplus with both the action and targetmodule, perfect for very controlled motion.

Your camera skill level is just fine. Don't worry about gear. As others have said determine the message, plan, execute and do a creative on message edit. Do pay attention to audio. If you don't have good audio equipment and the commercial is audio heavy then I would rent gear. Or better yet there is probably someone on campus you might find that is good at it.

So before I had come to this message board, I had mentioned to my boss about renting a c300 mark ii. He was on board with the idea, but after coming here, I'm leaning toward just getting a metabones adapter for the GH4 and using my canon glass for the shoot.

I talked with him about it and he still seems to be leaning toward getting the C300. He likes the look of the camera. I feel like he has a lot to prove to his bosses because he took a leap of faith in saying that our department could do a commercial in house so he wants to make sure it looks as good as it possibly can. He's pretty new, so he wants to show that he's an asset and he's doing is part. I totally see where he's coming from in that regard so I am not going to argue with him. I have considered asking for a raise here in the near future and if I happen to help save the university close to $40,000, then I would have more ammunition and confidence to ask for one, so I definitely want to make sure this video is as good as it can be.

All of that said, if my boss decides that he wants to rent the C300, what else do I need? His thoughts on the commercial (whether I like the idea or not is a completely different story) is basically full of interviews. So should I rent a Cine lens? I considered getting the Canon 85mm cine lens. Should I get another one as well? I have a this (Sony ECM-55B - Omni-Directional Lavalier Mic ECM55B B&H Photo). It's only a $300 mic, so should I rent a better quality one? I don't want a mic showing in the commercial so should I use a boom or still use a lav, but just hide it? I'm not sure what most people do for that.

C300 has a crop factor of 1.6 which would make that 85mm a 135mm equivalent, which is kinda long for my taste. 50mm would be better.

Again, I'd focus on stuff you can guilt him into buying that will still be useful. Renting will be gone after the day is over. 50mm prime is within your budget. Your 44B is a fine mic, but a wireless lav would put your interview subjects more at ease. There's something you can use again.

All of that said, if my boss decides that he wants to rent the C300, what else do I need?

Have you ever shot with a c300? If not, are you sure you can get the best image out of this camera with no experience using it? Renting costs can also add up very quickly depending on how many days you need it.

On a job this important I would only use a camera that I know inside out which in your case would be the gh4, I think your boss forgets that the end result for a major part depends on the person behind the camera and eventhough the GH4 is not a c300II you can still make it look like a high end production.

Your 44B is a fine mic, but a wireless lav would put your interview subjects more at ease.
If we're talking about fixed interview situations, I disagree with that. A mic on a boom with a stand will give better quality sound and no likelihood of clothing rustle, and avoids the need to hide any cables within the interviewees clothing. I'd argue such is more likely to unsettle an interviewee than seeing mic stand and boom.

It becomes simply a matter of "please sit here", and once seated the mic etc should be out of their line of vision. Far less invasive than having to run cables behind clothing, and better audio quality as well.

If it has to be a personal mic then I'd also just tend to do it cabled - not radio - to avoid any worry of batteries going flat or RF interference. Radio mics are the way to go if the subject will be moving or a way away, but if static it's better to simply cable.

Have you ever shot with a c300? If not, are you sure you can get the best image out of this camera with no experience using it? Renting costs can also add up very quickly depending on how many days you need it.

On a job this important I would only use a camera that I know inside out which in your case would be the gh4, I think your boss forgets that the end result for a major part depends on the person behind the camera and eventhough the GH4 is not a c300II you can still make it look like a high end production.

Yea that's kind of what I'm afraid of. I've given him my concerns (and even mentioned that I've gotten a second opinion on a message board full of people I trust, you all) and he still seems to be leaning toward the c300. If that's the case, the plan will be to do as much as I can to make sure I know the camera in and out before we rent it. I want to know it well enough so that when I get it, I have no questions. I assume that will include watching a lot of tutorials on youtube and vimeo. I told him we need to rent it for a week. We will shoot this commercial in probably a day or two. I'll use that extra time to shoot a small project or so to make sure I know how to use it and hopefully that will help work the kinks out.

I mentioned that I was thinking more long term than just the commercial and if we just buy the metabones XL adapter instead, we can use that years down the line, but I don't know. I guess we will see what his final decision is here soon. I'll make sure I keep everyone updated as time goes on in this thread. Maybe it'll all come crashing down on me and my troubles will help some young videographer years from now haha.

If we're talking about fixed interview situations, I disagree with that. A mic on a boom with a stand will give better quality sound and no likelihood of clothing rustle, and avoids the need to hide any cables within the interviewees clothing. I'd argue such is more likely to unsettle an interviewee than seeing mic stand and boom.

It becomes simply a matter of "please sit here", and once seated the mic etc should be out of their line of vision. Far less invasive than having to run cables behind clothing, and better audio quality as well.

If it has to be a personal mic then I'd also just tend to do it cabled - not radio - to avoid any worry of batteries going flat or RF interference. Radio mics are the way to go if the subject will be moving or a way away, but if static it's better to simply cable.

I tend to agree with you David.

The original idea was to use a boom, but then I wondered if the quality would be better on a lav. I definitely didn't want it showing up in the shot, so I had planned on hiding it, but I definitely don't want to risk the chance of clothes rustling the mic. Any suggestions on what mic I should use for a boom? My boss is willing to rent some nice equipment for this so don't worry about price lol

C300 has a crop factor of 1.6 which would make that 85mm a 135mm equivalent, which is kinda long for my taste. 50mm would be better.

I actually didn't even think about the crop factor of the c300. I assumed it was full frame. Good call. Looks like the 50 will be the way to go. I currently own the Sigma 50 1.4 and absolutely love it for stills. Wonder how good it would look compared to a cine 50mm?

The original idea was to use a boom, but then I wondered if the quality would be better on a lav.
Absolutely, definitively no! Expect quality to be noticeably better on a boom. I did once do a trial with both at the same time and switching between them the difference was very obvious. That's before we even start to think about clothing rustle. And when it comes to hiding mics it all starts to depend on what they're wearing, but you can expect a deadening, apart from the increased risk of clothing rustle.

Personal mics have their place when you have to have a fairly light kit, and with a radio transmitter when the shot needs to be wide or from far away. But for a static interview, I'd prefer a boom on stand every time if possible. (They also tend to handle head turns etc better. Just make sure the stand can't get accidentally kicked by their feet, the stand tends to transmit that up to the mic very well! :-) )

Personally I use a Sennheiser 416 ( Sennheiser MKH 416-P48U3 - Short Gun Microphone - for Broadcast, Film, Radio and Television (http://en-uk.sennheiser.com/short-gun-tube-microphone-camera-films-mkh-416-p48u3) ) but I'm sure there are alternatives.

Any suggestions on what mic I should use for a boom? My boss is willing to rent some nice equipment for this so don't worry about price lol
Make him buy you a shotgun, don't rent one. Sennheiser MKE 600. The indy film folks use Rode NTG2. Either is fine.

If your personal preference is a shotgun on a boom, then use that. If your personal preference is a lav mic, use that. I guess I sort of agree with David that, side-by-side, the shotgun will sound better than the lav mic. I don't generally watch TV commercials side-by-side, I watch them as they roll past on the TV, and I have never thought "I bet they shot that with a lav mic. Fools."

You are going to have a LOT to worry about on shoot day. Every piece of equipment you've not used before is a potential point of failure. Stay as close to home as you can.
I actually didn't even think about the crop factor of the c300. I assumed it was full frame. Good call. Looks like the 50 will be the way to go. I currently own the Sigma 50 1.4 and absolutely love it for stills. Wonder how good it would look compared to a cine 50mm?
I can't say you'd see the difference between the Sigma 50 1.4 and a cine 50mm, but I'm the guy recommending a lav mic, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

I can't repeat enough how I've been in your shoes before, and every move I make would be to steer the big guy to buy stuff I can use all year long and not rent stuff I will have to take back in 5 days. Use your 50mm 1.4 and insist that you need a 85mm to go with it.

I just looked at lensrental price for a C300 for a week, it's $900. My $0.02 is I would sooner have a second brand new GH4 (that you are a pro at) for $1300 to use all year long. Show him some examples and tell him how great a reverse angle would look in these interviews.

That C300 will blow away your GH4 in a side-by-side test. If you don't plan on showing the TV commercial side-by-side with the same spot shot on a C300, shoot on what you know.

Better sound won't make people think that the film sounds better. They will think it looks better. Sound is subliminal .

If you can, take some stress off yourself by finding someone who knows what they are doing to handle the sound. Leaving you to focus on the rest of the shoot.

Try to get a runner/assistant to help deal with the unexpected. You don't want to be having to find a glass of water when your interviewee starts croaking.

Use a boom as well as a lavaliiere. That will give you some redundancy in case something goes wrong. It also gives you a choice of recordings - sometimes one works better than another. Go for the best kit. Good sound equipment is cheap to rent.

Use the camera that you know best. This is not the time to be learning how to use a new camera. Try out any new techniques and equipment before the shoot.

Absolutely figure out why the film is being made. Focus completely on making it do the job as well as possible. Plan everything.

If you have done all this you can enjoy the shoot. If you enjoy it everyone else will too and that will be reflected in your film.

I guess I sort of agree with David that, side-by-side, the shotgun will sound better than the lav mic. I don't generally watch TV commercials side-by-side, I watch them as they roll past on the TV, and I have never thought "I bet they shot that with a lav mic. Fools."
No, but there is such a thing as "audibility" which becomes important when people are listening in less than ideal conditions, or when someone's speech is a little difficult to understand. (people in the UK will remember all the "Jamaica Inn" fuss....?) And all else equal, the higher the quality, the better the audibility. By and large people don't notice the sound - except when there's a problem.

But it's not just for sheer quality I'd say go with the boom - it's the absence of worry about clothing rustle, no mic or cables visible, and not having to interfere with the subjects clothing to hide cabling.

Regarding the boom and lav - use both. Maybe the lav picks up clothing noise. Maybe the talent moves off axis from the boom. Maybe one of the channels overloads. Maybe one sounds better than the other due to the echo in the room. I assume that your recorder has at least two channels, right? Choose the best in post.

Are the interviews indoors or outdoors? If outdoors, you want a tube-interference shotgun (such as the Rode NTG3) and a wind-protection blimp. If indoors, you want a simple hyper- or super-cardioid like the AT4053b. If on a stand, you can even use a big, heavy studio large-condenser dialog mic as there's no boom operator to tire. And, yeah, use a wire, if seated.

Regarding the lens, your 50mm is probably fine. The main reason you would want a cine lens is for focus pulling or smooth iris adjustment. For sit down interviews, it should be set-and-forget.

Great point above about having a runner - or assistant producer. That person can ensure that the talent and next location are ready, people have signed releases, "bouncers" are ready to keep traffic from walking through, etc. Having separate director and DP/camera operator roles can be good too as one person sets the tripod, lighting, exposure, etc, while the other focuses on the actors. Hiring a grip truck with muscle helps as you can say, "move the light back a few feet" and it just happens. Finally, don't forget hair and makeup. They might not cake things on for this job, but they'll look for stray nose and ear hairs, blemishes, and check that the clothing doesn't have a distracting spot. They can add a bit of powder if you get a reflection from a balding head.

Spend some time at the rental shop. Get to know the people there. Ask to test the camera in their shop on a day when it's not rented out. Ask them questions when you get stuck. Do this mid-day as it can get busy early and late with pickups and returns. If you don't get in the way of paying customers, they should be happy to serve you and to convert you into a paying customer - especially with the school's name to back you up.

Also, ask them about crew. They'll likely have a list of contacts and recommendations for you to hire.

The key is to keep yourself from being the delay in the production. That will allow you to avoid stress and to see the big picture. It will also help you deal with the talent in a calm and grounded fashion. This is *so* important. Two of my most polished presenters (non actors) are two of the worst I've ever seen on screen. One gets overly intense and self aware on camera to the point that he gets creepy. The other becomes overly aware of his words and gets tongue-tied. But ask them to present themselves to a group and they are tops! (On the other hand, I know an intense introvert who delivered a ten minute technical talk to the camera flawlessly in one take. Go figure.)

So in the end, your most important job might be as counselor/psychologist/motivator for your talent. Assuming you do a decent job on picture and sound, the delivery on-screen will be the difference between a hit and a dud.

Okay, working with the actors is the second most important job. The most important is a good script/concept. Know your single message and deliver it. If anybody says, "we have three messages we want to deliver", tell them that they will need to pick one message - and that they should plan to make at least two additional commercials. :)

My boss sounds like he doesn't want to spend more than $1,200-$1,500. I'm sure I can talk him into more, but that's just what he initially said.

If it helps, his vision for the commercial is all sit down interviews with little or maybe no b-roll.

Thanks everyone!

I'm willing to bet my 12th toe that he didn't get that video last year for 1500.00. If he did he got a deal. My advice is not to cheapen yourself. You should get paid for the time you invest. As other's have mentioned, it's important to schedule out a list of shots etc before you give a price. Otherwise, they'll be squeezing blood out of the proverbial turnip.

Be careful out there, take care of your business.

I'm willing to bet my 12th toe that he didn't get that video last year for 1500.00.

He spend $40k on it.

He came in my office yesterday and was telling me about how they spent $40k on a commercial last year and he feels like we could do it in house this year.

Thanks again to everyone for the advice.

It looks like we will be shooting this at a studio here in town, which really puts my mind at ease. They have lots of lights, soft boxes, etc that I will be able to use which will be nice. I'm headed down there today to take a look at the space to get a better idea of what we can expect when we go to film.

He wants to shoot on the week of March 14th, which seems a bit quick as my boss still doesn't have a script and hasn't even really nailed down a complete idea. I have a feeling I'm going to be the one who is putting everything together even though he is the one who told the administration we could do it in house. I'm looking forward to the challenge, but I just don't have a ton of experience in this type of setting.

He spend $40k on it.

Thanks Gary, I was reading to fast apparently.

He wants to shoot on the week of March 14th, which seems a bit quick as my boss still doesn't have a script and hasn't even really nailed down a complete idea. I have a feeling I'm going to be the one who is putting everything together even though he is the one who told the administration we could do it in house. I'm looking forward to the challenge, but I just don't have a ton of experience in this type of setting.
The timeline always seems kinda tight. Especially for this spot, I think you'll be fine.

OK...Looks like after talking to my boss about the logistics of shooting with a c300 for a week, he has decided it would be best to buy the Metabones XL adapter and scrap renting a camera. I think the part that made him nervous was the idea that we had to shoot everything within a 7 day timeline and he didn't feel comfortable with that. He now has 4 separate commercials he wants to try to do and he didn't feel like he could fit them all in during the week (go figure).

So now we will be buying the metabones adapter (yay!) and I will be shooting the commercial with that and my GH4. We will see how it goes!

Just to keep everyone up to date, I got the metabones adapter in and it's fantastic. It's so great to be able to use my Canon glass on my Gh4 and being able to get that extra light is amazing. This is a really great purchase.

In case anyone is curious. I'm closing in on finishing up the 1st of the 4 videos.

To refresh you all. This was shot on a GH4 with CAME TV Single for the moving shots (12-35mm), a Metabones XL Adapter with a 70-200 2.8 and I think there is a Sigma 35mm 1.4 shot in there somewhere.

Feel free to rip it to shreds. It needs to be as good as possible, so I want constructive criticism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRNLFzGYMA&feature=youtu.be

I really like the story, the vibe, and the music. The message is nice and clear: "Come here to pursue your dreams; we create meaningful friendships here."

The only thing that doesn't work as well for me is the interviews being in black and white over a black background. It's not in keeping with the smiling, friendly mood.

I had a similar situation on an interview/b-roll piece a couple of years ago. We shot over black, but the b-roll (which was in slow motion) was bright. Some felt that the slow motion was disruptive. They were wrong. What was disruptive was cutting from dark to white and back.

Try watching the piece without audio. It feels like everything is going great between coach and student. The moment the student appears in black and white, it feels like he's about to tell us that somebody died.

I'd recommend that you try the edit with color. The mood is colorful, so that would help integrate the footage. Another trick might be to move the talking heads to, say, the left side of the screen, do a smooth, curved mask and put some b-roll on the right. This still might not work given the black background, but there might be a creative solution to minimize the black background and make it feel natural.

Or you might try it with audio-only from the interview. You might need an additional shot at the end, such as the student (over a natural background) slowly turning to the camera and giving a smile. (Slow motion works great for those shots.)

I know that it would be painful not to include the interview footage (which was lit nicely), but sometimes an author has to cut their favorite character or scene for the overall sake of the book.

The mood of the story and audio is bright, colorful and joyful. Deliver that mood from the first frame to the last.

There are some seriously great shots in there. Good job. Very tv-commercial worthy.

I agree about the B/W interviews. I also agree that B/W interviews make it look like somebody died.

You need a shot of the kid playing soccer in a game.

There are too many shots of people standing around on a soccer field. The shots where there is no movement bore me. Overall, there are too many shots of people standing around and/or doing non-soccer related things on a soccer field.

The shot of Will at :03 is too long, and when he awkwardly looks away you lose my buy-in (and we're only 03 seconds into the spot).

The shot of Chris at :21 is too similar to the shot of Will at :03 and I actually thought you'd used this shot twice the first time through, but this might just be me.

I'd really like to see a shot of Will studying or in class or doing something school related.

Overall, it seems like you told the story of a kid who plays soccer for a school and showed no shots of the kid playing soccer and no shots of the kid doing school stuff

Agree with everything said so far. Also, you should only show us each interviewee (in color) against the black drop a single time and don't go back.

Storytelling at a high level is a deep challenge and a fantastic skill to acquire. The learning never ends!

Mike makes great points about the lack of action shots. Looking away at :03 is a great example of the micro-messages that each shot can contain.

And I like Gary's solution of single short shot of the interviews in color and not going back. It confirms who is talking and minimizes the over-black look without resorting to tricks in post. It's a nice, simple solution where a single clip serves its purpose.

The key message is friendship. Rather than add shots of a single player moving alone on the pitch, I'd strive for action shots that emphasize people interacting as friends. This can be on the field, in the classroom, or about the campus.

One thing to look for in edits is that the eye shouldn't move far across cuts. Your video keeps the focus point consistently near the center of the screen, which helps keep cuts from feeling jumpy. Action shots make this more challenging. Let's say the player shoots the ball from left to right. The next clip should have the focus point near the right as that's where the viewer looked last. This is where storyboarding can come in handy as you can plan clips that give you enough coverage. It's hard to keep track of the focus points when shooting in the moment.

Of course, one can purposefully move the focus points from corner to corner across cuts to make things jarring (like in the opening scenes of Persona), but that wouldn't be appropriate for the feeling of this piece.

BTW, not only is the dialog very good, but the audio quality sounds great as well. The timing of the audio edits feels just right. The student and coach come across very authentic in their joy. Those are the hard parts that make or break a story. Excellent job! Add the right b-roll and you will have a 100% professional result.

Thanks for the great advice everyone.

I'm going to go back in and change the interviews from black and white to color to help keep the mood uniform throughout.

I'm going to only cut to the student in studio once, but I still may go to the coach twice. I like the idea of cutting to him early in his lines to show who is talking and then at the end for the tag line. Does that make sense to do?

The shot of Will looking away Mike mentioned at :03, I'm going to adjust so that it doesn't show him looking away.

I did get some action shots of Will practicing, but unfortunately they don't have games any time soon so I can't get any in game footage. Even if I did, I'm not sure if I would use it. I would include the shots of him practicing, but I'm not sure if I like that. I can definitely be convinced though.

BTW, not only is the dialog very good, but the audio quality sounds great as well. The timing of the audio edits feels just right. The student and coach come across very authentic in their joy. Those are the hard parts that make or break a story. Excellent job! Add the right b-roll and you will have a 100% professional result.
I kinda tore the spot apart with my critique, and overall I agree with Jon, it's very good, and I didn't make a big enough deal of that. The editing and the mood of the music and the VO is great, and the spot overall is quite good. Always room for improvement. I've never put a spot on TV that I didn't think "now, if I had it to do over again..."

I did get some action shots of Will practicing, but unfortunately they don't have games any time soon so I can't get any in game footage. Even if I did, I'm not sure if I would use it. I would include the shots of him practicing, but I'm not sure if I like that. I can definitely be convinced though.

If he's practicing with the team, great - especially if there are shots of people smiling and interacting. If he's practicing alone, that's not as good - especially if it were a wide crane up shot! You don't want a theme about friendship but shots that show isolation. That could give opposite messages that can give the audience an uneasy feeling. (He wants friendship, but he's all alone... How sad... But he's smiling. Has he deluded himself? Something's not right...)

If you don't have more clips of the player, even clips of random students smiling and interacting could work if they are placed at the right moments.

How sensitive are we to the signs of friendship? There was a study where researchers played a one second laugh between friends and another between strangers and even people from remote cultures could tell the difference.

New Study: You Can Tell If People Are Friends By Listening To Them Laugh Together : Goats and Soda : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/11/473414068/ha-ha-ha-haha-the-sound-of-laughter-tells-more-than-you-think)

If you can get the team to scrimmage themselves with home/away jerseys, most viewers wouldn't be the wiser. Some long lens stuff of him passing and reviving the ball with a fancy move thrown in. I agree needs more "soccer" shots. Perhaps some slow motion XCU of ball dribbling/kicking/net swoosh anyone? Just ideas. Looks nice.

I kinda tore the spot apart with my critique, and overall I agree with Jon, it's very good, and I didn't make a big enough deal of that. The editing and the mood of the music and the VO is great, and the spot overall is quite good. Always room for improvement. I've never put a spot on TV that I didn't think "now, if I had it to do over again..."

Well I asked for constructive criticism. If I wanted someone to tell me how great it was, I would have asked my mom's opinion haha. Thanks for the advice though.

Below I included a revised version.

I made some revisions that were suggested here, but I don't think I will be able to get out and shoot with these guys again so I'll have to make due with the footage I got. I do have some shots of him practicing, but they are of him dribbling and practicing alone for the most part. I don't know how to fit those in. Suggestions on that?

Is this version better?

Chris and Will v2 - YouTube

I'd cool off the interviews a bit. They're kinda orange.

I'd cover the last bite with a campus shot with a lot of people in it.

Your mom says it's great and I'm wrong.

I'd cool off the interviews a bit. They're kinda orange.

That's putting it mildly. The skin tone is really off, and the faces are much too dark. You need to make them pop against the black. This is going to require some heavy grading, including the use of power windows on the faces (which shouldn't be hard because there's hardly any movement).

You need to significantly increase the brightness of the interviewees while not adding noise or color shades to the black background. I don't know how easy it will be to separate, but you could potentially end up having to key the b.g. too if you can't pull too much without it being effected.

Had a feeling about the interviews.

I'm not exactly sure how to do power windows, but I can try to look that up and see if I can learn real quick. Thanks!

While I'm at it, mind taking a look at the next commercial in this "series" as well to see what could be adjusted with it? I put the website and our logo on the bottom to see which one looks best. My boss likes them both, but I don't know if they both need to be included in the final version. Suggestions on that as well would be helpful.

P.S. - you guys are awesome.

Mordecai and Eli - YouTube

I'd cool off the interviews a bit. They're kinda orange.

I'd cover the last bite with a campus shot with a lot of people in it.

Your mom says it's great and I'm wrong.

That's a nice idea of the campus shot at the end. I'll try that to see how it looks.

Second spot similar to the first. It's a decent spot, but trying to make a :30 out of four different locations of the same two guys talking to each other while wearing the same outfits is an exercise in futility.

I do video for a Fortune 50 company whose entire product line isn't tangible. All they have are offices all over the world with grey walls and tan desks and glass partitions. When shooting for them I have to be sure not to bring anything sharp, lest I give up mid-day and slit my wrists. You, sir, are shooting at a beautiful university with a student center and classrooms and football fields and pep rallies and dorms and pillow fights and whatever else uni students do. The story is that Mordecai and Eli forged a great relationship at UC, not that they only know each other. Eli has a right to do things outside of Mordecai. Show him studying. Partying. In class. Jogging. Running for class president. Moving in to the dorms. Graduating. Rooting for the football team. Still, show him and Mordecai having a great relationship, but show some other stuff too. You could even show Mordecai grading papers or something. Just something other than the two of them.

If you're going with the campus shot at the end of the soccer one, you can use the same campus shot at the end of this one. Consistency and all. Plus, it'd help diversify the visual storyline.

This is super duper minor but if I was titling them I'd call them by student name first. Eli and Mordecai.

I put the website and our logo on the bottom to see which one looks best. My boss likes them both, but I don't know if they both need to be included in the final version. Suggestions on that as well would be helpful.
One or the other, not both. If he insists on both, stack them on one side, don't put them on opposite sides. I prefer my bugs on the right.



P.S. - you guys are awesome.

We each want a 5% cut.

i have nothing to add to this thread, because this is already a great example of how excellent, helpful, and civil this forum is, and why its one that i frequent more often than most. Great work on both sides of the camera and computers.

cheers

Regarding the two logos, I would give a strong, "No."

Why? Think of movie making as storytelling. And think of the best storytelling - around the campfire. A great storyteller gives a clear sequence of events, one at a time. At most, they will say, "meanwhile..." when they shift to a parallel line, but it's still one thing to perceive at a time. We hang on every word. A distraction (Squirrel!) kills the mood and lowers comprehension.

One "bug" is okay as it's static and brands the piece. Two bugs makes it hard to know where to look and threatens to distract from the piece.

Think of a great scene. One person talks at a time. A dog barks. The man looks away. The woman moves her hand slowly toward the gun. Lighting crashes. The lights go out. We hear a shot. One thing at a time. The director knows exactly what sequence of events that the viewer will perceive. They direct our attention with shallow DOF, lines of convergence, color, contrast, motion, framing, and sound.

Consider these two ways of writing a name:

charlie BROWN
cBhRaOrWlNie

One thing at a time.

If you really want people to notice the name of the university and the URL, tell the story with one small static bug, Zoom into the logo at the end. Transition from the logo to the URL over white. The viewer will see the story, the logo, and then the URL. Direct the attention to what you want them to see. On the other hand, with story, logo, and URL all sharing space and time, you have no idea of the viewer's train of thought. And if they read the URL and try to memorize it during your story, they will have missed the story.

Having shot promotional and instructional pieces here at a research lab, I'm often asked to put multiple charts, data, and text on the screen at one time. And I often have to persuade smart, well-intentioned, senior people not to do this. After explaining the single thread concept, I find it's effective to ask how important the item is...

If the URL really matters, show it alone at the end. If it's not important enough to warrant a few seconds as a focal point, then it's not important enough to have on the screen during the story.

This might be the most important lesson I've learned for effective storytelling. My challenge is to clearly implement it in video, comics, music, presentations, leading meetings, writing and even just speaking.

Best of luck!

To punctuate Jon's point, there is no one who is sitting halfway through the spot, anxiously wondering "How on earth could I learn more about this fine learning institution?". They're waiting until the end.

Learning quite a lot about story telling from this thread ! nice.