I shot this wedding Dec 3 with a Z1 and FX1 in HDV. I cut it in HDV then tranfered it to DVCPRO HD 720 and added the titles. Then I export it as a Sorenson 3 for the web.
It looks good when downloaded with a Mac, but can you downloaded and view it on PC? If you can, How does it look?

http://www.dvtvproductions.com/MOVIES/Weddings/M&E_Sorenson3.mov 150 MBs

I was able to download and play this on a PC laptop with the latest version of Quicktime installed, but the download took longer than I think many people would accept for a web-based wedding demo. As far as image quality is concerned, some scenes looked good but others were only so-so, especially in terms of dynamic range and brightness (or lack thereof). Some of this may be due to limitations of the HDV format, but I wonder if any of this is also due to the process you used. Try comparing your sample to mine at the following link using less than half the bandwidth: I don't think you're getting much from the extra bits. (But maybe others will see something I don't.)

http://www.videomem.com/weddings/gordon-lacey/highlights.wmv

I am pleasanlty happy to see the results. The evening shots were seem to have held up pretty well. I also can imagine the interior of the church played hell with white balance issues, and I thought it was resolved decently. How did you white balance and fix your exposures. THis raises my expectations of the FX1 I bought.

Chris Barcellos

I am on a PC and was able to watch it, I thought the picture looked great. But why were you using a light at the ceremony? It didn't look like using a light was necessary. At one point there was a shot of some women in the crowd, and it didn't look like you used a light for that shot, but it came out fine. So I'm wondering why you felt it was necessary to use a light for the procession, even the bridal prep stuff.

(What was the wattage of the light you were using, by the way?)

And how did these cameras do at the reception?

Thanks for posting this clip, very helfpul.

I am pleasanlty happy to see the results. The evening shots were seem to have held up pretty well. I also can imagine the interior of the church played hell with white balance issues, and I thought it was resolved decently. How did you white balance and fix your exposures. THis raises my expectations of the FX1 I bought.

Chris Barcellos

We actually set all 3 cameras at 3200K pre-set. I didn't color correct it but if I needed to color correct it would have been the same with all the cameras instead of color correcting each one separatelly.

I was able to download and play this on a PC laptop with the latest version of Quicktime installed, but the download took longer than I think many people would accept for a web-based wedding demo. As far as image quality is concerned, some scenes looked good but others were only so-so, especially in terms of dynamic range and brightness (or lack thereof). Some of this may be due to limitations of the HDV format, but I wonder if any of this is also due to the process you used. Try comparing your sample to mine at the following link using less than half the bandwidth: I don't think you're getting much from the extra bits. (But maybe others will see something I don't.)

http://www.videomem.com/weddings/gordon-lacey/highlights.wmv

On a Mac it actually starts playing in about 10 secs. The way to do it on a PC is:

Open QT then go to File>Open URL and type the page address and it starts playing as it downloads.

On a Mac the WMF has to finish downloading before it starts playing, so your small file takes longer for me.

As far as quality a laptop is always darker. I have a 720 LCD HD monitor and iit looks good in it. The only area that I see less detail is outside that it was totally dark and on the final Sorenson 3 compression it looses a lot. To tell you the truth the only WMF that look good on my Mac are the ones at full size HD.

I am on a PC and was able to watch it, I thought the picture looked great. But why were you using a light at the ceremony? It didn't look like using a light was necessary. At one point there was a shot of some women in the crowd, and it didn't look like you used a light for that shot, but it came out fine. So I'm wondering why you felt it was necessary to use a light for the procession, even the bridal prep stuff.

(What was the wattage of the light you were using, by the way?)

And how did these cameras do at the reception?

Thanks for posting this clip, very helfpul.

As a general rule you always use a light to fill the shadows under the eyes. I was using a 50 watts with a diffuser that cuts it to below 25 watts. On the opposite side my other cameraman was using another 50 watts without a diffuser that is why you notice it. It was a little over powering but it also gives it a 3D effect. Another thing that no one has made a comment is that we had to use gain and 1/30 sec. I personally like the feel of the 1/30sec speed and it helps with the low light levels.

Wow, the second camera had a 50 watt lamp without a diffuser? That must have been uncomfortable for anyone in the line of fire! 50 watts with a diffuser is the most I would use at a wedding, and lately I've been trying to get by with 20 watts (diffused) to be less obtrusive.

Regarding the 1/30 shutter speed, I didn't watch closely enough to notice that, but I can see the consequences of this setting in my own HDV footage and try to avoid it for any scene where I expect a lot of motion. Even for someone just waving their hands the effect of the low shutter speed can be distracting, but if that's what it takes to get a usable exposure then it's nice to have the option. Just don't overuse it.

If you think that 50 watts is uncomfortable what would you say about 2,000 watt during the reception? Oh, plus the 50 watts on camera light. LOL
I guess that wealthy people like to be in the spot light 'cause I get almost $6K for those weddings and I did 3 of those this month.
When you have been doing this for as long as I have you know what pays the bill and what is really uncomfortable.
A 20 watts light in a dark place is more uncomfortable than 2K watts correctly placed.
Also, I just downloaded the file as previously explained (PC Pention II 400 from early 2000) and it downloaded as fast as it did on my Mac. It sure looked dark on the LCD computer screen and it had a hard time keeping up with it.
I keep my HD LCD on the Mac balance to the Color Bars to make sure that what I see is what my customers get.

If you think that 50 watts is uncomfortable what would you say about 2,000 watt during the reception? Oh, plus the 50 watts on camera light.

I can almost understand 2K watts properly placed to light the entire scene, but 50 watts undiffused right in someone's face? Ouch. I started out using a 10 watt undiffused light and quickly stopped because it made people visibly cringe on camera -- do you not have that problem with the 50 watt light?

Three to five watts has always been the limit for me for an onboard eye light.

Now, tell me if you saw the video, How many watts do you think that the church had coming down from the ceiling coming straight down?
A simple guess is about 20 150 watts lights. That is 3K watts. What would a 20 watts light do?
Light drops in intensity in exponential proportions. For example a 100 watts light gives you X/1 lumens at 1 foot distance at 2 feet it gives you X/2 lumens at 3 ft it gives you X/4 at 4 ft is X/8. So a light at 4 ft needs to 8 times stronger than the light at 1 foot to be equal. you would need an 800 watts light to give you the same amount of light of the 100 watts light at 1 foot distance.
Another thing to consider is the reflector’s efficiency diffusing the light. Watts is power consumption not the amount of light that it gives. A 50 watts Frezzi gives you a different amount of light from other lights.
I let my customers know ahead of time is that what they like about my videos (quality) require lights. That is what photography means, painting with lights.
Going back to what you guys saw in the web demo, I can tell you that the difference in light is about 1 f-stop which is ideal. I my regular computer monitor it looks about 4 f-stops difference. In the actual video you can see the light balance through out the scence.

Is what Doug telling us that to get a decent shot in an old church in HD, with standard lighting, you are going to have to supplement with lights. I'm not sure that would be needed with my VX2000. Doug- what were you shooting before the HD, and with what ?

Chris Barcellos

I only used the 50 watts light for the isle that is a about 2 f-stops darker than the Altar. At the Altar I had 0 db Gain but at 1/30 sec speed. Some of the shots I used 24CF and 30 CF. I was just testing the capavilities of the FX1 that I had gotten a week before.
I shot the same way I would shoot with my JVC 500 or 300 with the difference of the lower speed capabilities.

As a general rule you always use a light to fill the shadows under the eyes. I was using a 50 watts with a diffuser that cuts it to below 25 watts. On the opposite side my other cameraman was using another 50 watts without a diffuser that is why you notice it. It was a little over powering but it also gives it a 3D effect. Another thing that no one has made a comment is that we had to use gain and 1/30 sec. I personally like the feel of the 1/30sec speed and it helps with the low light levels.

Hi Douglas,

Very nice footage. Clear and sharp. Do you always use lights when video taping inside? Have you found this to be necessary whenever using your HD cams?

Thanks!
Dave

Now, tell me if you saw the video, How many watts do you think that the church had coming down from the ceiling coming straight down? A simple guess is about 20 150 watts lights. That is 3K watts. What would a 20 watts light do?

Ah, sounds like you're talking about fill light at the ceremony as opposed to lighting a dark scene at the reception -- which as you said can be uncomfortable for guests with as little as 20 watts. So you're saying you shot the main ceremony footage without any additional lighting at 1/30 shutter speed and 0 db gain, and only used the extra lighting as people were exiting down the aisle? That makes more sense now.

As far as the shutter speed is concerned, I don't see signs of that in the footage even going back and looking closely for it -- which surprises me based on my own results. Did you shoot all the footage in the CF modes?

Hi Douglas,

Very nice footage. Clear and sharp. Do you always use lights when video taping inside? Have you found this to be necessary whenever using your HD cams?

Thanks!
Dave

Thanks Dave,

My background is in photography since I was 14 and I am now 48. In photography little flaws are more noticeable since they are still. Even in bright sunlight you use a flash to fill the unwanted shadows.

With video it is a little bit harder to fill in sun light but you can use reflectors. I am talking video in general. I wouldn't take a reflector to a wedding, but I could for a love story.

I guess the simple answer is Yes, I love rich colors the film like look of contrasty scenes.

Did you shoot all the footage in the CF modes?

Not all of it, but if you look at when the the Maid of Honor & MOB are seating you can see a subreal effect. I didn't take notes but I think it was CF30. I use CF 24 for the dancing (not shown). Just by using 1/30th sec. on a tripod you get nice subreal effect wihout getting stroby. (Is that an english word?)LOL.

I viewed your video on my Dell 24" display connected to my G5 2.7 through a cable modem. It was viewable immediately with no pauses whatsoever, and it is by far the best looking video I've ever seen on my computer screen. I can't come close with my VX2100.
Your video quality is an eye opener. Excellent work !
Chris Sabold..

Doug,

Nice work. You did great on the production end of it. The lights you used were an absolute must. Image quality is the bottom line and the lighting you had was just what you needed. It looked the way it's supposed to look.

Nice encoding as well. That was really good.

Ben Lynn

I viewed your video on my Dell 24" display connected to my G5 2.7 through a cable modem. It was viewable immediately with no pauses whatsoever, and it is by far the best looking video I've ever seen on my computer screen. I can't come close with my VX2100.
Your video quality is an eye opener. Excellent work !
Chris Sabold..

I am glad you enjoy it Chris.

Imagine what it looks like at full res. It is not even manipulated in post except for a slow motion when she is looking right into the camera.
HDV with my old computer is really slow, but on yours it probably flies.

Have played with HDV on your computer? If you have, what was your opinion?

Doug,

Nice work. You did great on the production end of it. The lights you used were an absolute must. Image quality is the bottom line and the lighting you had was just what you needed. It looked the way it's supposed to look.

Nice encoding as well. That was really good.

Ben Lynn

Hello Ben,

I wish I could take credit for the lights, but all I used was a 50 watts on camera at the isle. That is my favorite church to shoot becuse the lighting is usually good. The only time a year that is bad is during summer and only when the sun comes in directly through the stain glass window. You can't really get a good skin color during that time.
Encoding is another thing that I can't take credit for. In the past I have tryed to make files smaller, WMP, etc. Now I just use Sorenson 3. I only make adjustment to image size, the rest is up to Sorenson 3.

Whatever works!

A major point on the lighting is that you used it almost extensively. Everything about the day looked dark since it was a winter time wedding. Had you not had the on-camera light going then you would have had grainy, dull video rather than sharp, crisp video. It made a huge difference on the processional. Using the lights gets you the image quality your expected to have.

In order to keep the file size down you could always shorten the length of the clip. It only took a few minutes to download however and I didn't find that bad.

Ben Lynn

Yes, that is usually the way that DV videos without lights would look. I must tell you tho that these HDV cameras with the gain at 12db you can't see grain and the color are still good.
For my customers I usualy give them a short version about the same length of that demo (about 10-15 mins.) that includes everything. This demo I made in about 15 minutes of cutting. I am so behind editing (5 month) that I don't have time to make a demo. I havent update my demo for the last 2 years. I show custmers other B&G actual wedding videos.
With so many huricanes and the holidays I don't think that I'll ever catch up.

By the way is anyone here coming down to Florida for the 4ever group convention? I am thinking about it.

Hi,wat NLE did u use? Could u share a little on the workflow?

I used FCP 5.0.4 capture FW HDV 1080i. The rest is being cover at the begining of the thread.

Got it. Thanks!

Plays good on my PC. It does look sharp, to the point of looking brash or harsh. Kind of like one of my 2 1/4" cameras that are so sharp you really can't use the images without a soft focus filter in a beauty portrait setting like a wedding. With the added resolution comes the problems of being able to see everything.

Mike

Plays good on my PC. It does look sharp, to the point of looking brash or harsh. Kind of like one of my 2 1/4" cameras that are so sharp you really can't use the images without a soft focus filter in a beauty portrait setting like a wedding. With the added resolution comes the problems of being able to see everything.

Mike

I agree with you, the idea of the video is to show the capabilities of HD. The bride has such good skin that it looks retouched but on the guys you can see more than you would actually want in most cases. Remember that the footage has gone through a couple of compresion in order to be showed here(HDV 1080 60i cut then transfered to DVCPRO HD 720 60i titles added and the Sorenson 3 for internet compression)
For now I just record full resolution and soften in post as needed. I have seen some internet demos that people said it was to soft, but I like the natural look of soft but focused images. In the future I would lower the resolution in camera specially for TV commercial to give it that film look.

With the added resolution comes the problems of being able to see everything.

It's interesting that no one thinks twice about having their photograph taken with an 8 megapixel digital camera, but many folks are worried about what video will look like at 1-2 megapixels. Of course it's easier to touch up a single photograph than a bunch of video footage, but it's not like you can't modify video to mitigate this issue.

Light drops in intensity in exponential proportions. For example a 100 watts light gives you X/1 lumens at 1 foot distance at 2 feet it gives you X/2 lumens at 3 ft it gives you X/4 at 4 ft is X/8. So a light at 4 ft needs to 8 times stronger than the light at 1 foot to be equal. you would need an 800 watts light to give you the same amount of light of the 100 watts light at 1 foot distance.

A quick back of the envelope calculation I used to do with flash photography at events was to use "f-stop feet". If you know that your exposure is correct at f-8 and 8 feet then you have half the light at 11 feet and half again at 16 feet, so your flash exposure at 16 feet would be 2 stops open from f-8 or f-4. The inverse square law works for point sources, the falloff isn't the same for broader sources, e.g. with a large diffuser. So, similarly your lumens at 5.6 feet are half that for 4 feet and half again for 8 feet, half again at 11 feet, etc.

Try comparing your sample to mine at the following link using less than half the bandwidth: I don't think you're getting much from the extra bits. (But maybe others will see something I don't.)

http://www.videomem.com/weddings/gordon-lacey/highlights.wmv

I guess I'm one of those "who sees something" you don't. I think he's getting a lot from those extra bits. To my eyes, douglas' video was clearly HD and the clarity was impossible to ignore. (Kevin) I'm just trying to be honest so please don't be offended - except for a few stationary scenes, when the effects of compression weren't too bad, I think your clip could pass for 16:9 SD.

Not sure if you were looking for critique but ...overall I was not too impressed with this production because of the audio. There's more to videography than pixels and I really think you should have had a mic on the podium. There's no getting around it in my opinion.

my .02

She really does have good skin and nice makeup. It did make me think that for weddings resolution is low on the list of important elements. I really like the look of a soft filter with a very sharp lens as well. In still photography I have found the Nikor #1 Soft to be unparalled. I used to print all my color weding prints in the darkroom. The Nikor #1 Soft worked almost as well there but not quite. That leaves me wondering if using that filter at the time of shooting could have benifits for HD.

Mike

She really does have good skin and nice makeup. It did make me think that for weddings resolution is low on the list of important elements. I really like the look of a soft filter with a very sharp lens as well. In still photography I have found the Nikor #1 Soft to be unparalled. I used to print all my color weding prints in the darkroom. The Nikor #1 Soft worked almost as well there but not quite. That leaves me wondering if using that filter at the time of shooting could have benifits for HD.

Mike
I still have one of those soft#1 for my Nikons, but I haven't used them for years. I personally preferred a custom made one that I made out of black tooling material. That filters gives the feel of old lenses with low res. but still focus. The soft #1 has a little diffraction since that is what it does. The black tooling only blocks some of the light from reaching the film plane. The soft #1 would provably look good at the cake cutting making it look more romanic with some slow motion applied. Maybe I'll bring it out of photography retirement to work on my nest wedding video. ;-)

By the way I want to sell my Nikon F4 and FM-2 with lenses if you know of anyone that collects antiques. ;-)