please critique this wedding films

Hey guys, I'm an intern for Dakine Films and this is one of my favorite weddings that I have shot on. I know it's a bit long but tell me what you think

Katherine & Ryne | Hotel ZaZa | 01.26.13 on Vimeo

[Noa Put]

I found it visually very nice, good exposure, very natural color (I don't like these over saturated videos) and interesting compositions. The steadicam work was also excellent, as if it was on rails. Also the stopmotion venue prep thing was fun to watch, I always wanted to do something like this as well but never have the time for it as I work alone. How many people where involved in shooting this wedding. I would guess 3?

The only thing I didn't like and which was not on the same level as the video was the sound, that was the weakest point. I think if you advertise to deliver "handcrafted cinematic stories" I think the word "cinematic" doesn't have a place here, that might sound harsh but "cinematic" is also clear sound for me. What I deliver is not nearly as good as this visually but my sound is much better and I do documentary style. :)

[Victor Nguyen]

Thanks Noa, 3 people worked on this including myself. I'm glad that you liked the time-lapse of the venue because I think that's what set this company from others. We use in camera sound from DSLR which is not good but it's better than nothing. BTW, if you watched Still Motion latest wedding videos, they also use in camera sound which sounds terrible.

I want to be a production sound mixer in the future so don't worry, the audio quality will improve sooner or later.

[Byron Jones]

I agree with Noa both regarding the visuals and the audio. Just because StillMotion used bad audio doesn't mean the rest of us should. The time lapse was impressive...and who rode in the chopper for the city shots? I could not watch this without thinking how much the wedding and reception had to cost. All I can say is we have much different clientele. Would have liked to see up a bit closer during the ceremony. Overall I really enjoyed it.

[Noa Put]

Oh, I forgot to mention the chopper shots, they where awesome as well. :) What trew me off the most what the sound regards was when the dad did his toast, I hardly could understand him. I would capture my sound through the dj's installation and if that was not possible I would attach a recorder to the handle of the microphone. Especially if you are working with 3 on a high end wedding there is no excuse of not getting better audio. Just saying because during the dad speech everyone with an iphone could have made the same quality sound recording as in the video and that should be an area where you have to make a difference.

Also the first part where the dad gets his present it looked that this part was set up and prepared, since it seems it was known what would happen I also would have put a mike on the dad, it's only for the general ongoing stuff that you can't supply everyone with a mike and then you just use the onboard mike but now I see it as a missed opportunity that is the difference between good and excellent or you even might say the difference between "video" and "cinema". Now it seems you got lost in visually getting the most impressive shots, which you did but you forgot about the audio.

Also, I hope you don't take this personal as it is just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions. :) Good thing is if you manage to get the audio on the same level as the video then you have got a winner.

[Adrian Tan]

Hey Victor, thanks very much for sharing.

My overall reaction was that it's excellent. Exposures were good, and camera movements exceptionally smooth. Compositions -- often seemed to me that they were nicely tight, with little frame waste. It also seemed to me that you guys managed to do a lot with not much; it didn't look like much was going on in those bride and groom preps, but you covered it beautifully.

Initial aerial shots -- stock footage?

Reception set-up -- was that motion-controlled timelapse? It felt to me a bit like it distracted from the couple and the guests, since it goes for 1.5 minutes. But I appreciate that opinions can vary on this, and that it did look wonderful -- and I'm glad you guys are doing something different from most videos.

One thing I think is interesting: what makes something a jump cut rather than a smooth cut? To me, the coverage of the vows from 3:02 onwards was jump cutty, because the three angles are too similar. What do you think?

[Noa Put]

what makes something a jump cut rather than a smooth cut? To me, the coverage of the vows from 3:02 onwards was jump cutty, because the three angles are too similar.

I would consider that a borderline jumpcut :) all three angles are indeed very similar and don't add anything substantial. It doesn't really bother me though but I think just one angle (the center camera) would have been fine as well.

I am interested to know how the very smooth steadicam motion was performed, is there some post stabilization involved? Which type of steadicam was used?

[Victor Nguyen]

Originally Posted by Adrian Tan

Initial aerial shots -- stock footage?

Reception set-up -- was that motion-controlled timelapse? It felt to me a bit like it distracted from the couple and the guests, since it goes for 1.5 minutes.
One thing I think is interesting: what makes something a jump cut rather than a smooth cut? To me, the coverage of the vows from 3:02 onwards was jump cutty, because the three angles are too similar. What do you think?

We shot the aerial shot ourselves to use as stock footage since we shoot here a lot. The reception timelapse was not motion controlled. Since pictures are 4k, you can move it around the frames.

I agree on coverage of the vows. It does looks a little jump cutty but that was the best we could do... The church only allow us to shoot all the way in the back of the church.

[Victor Nguyen]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I would consider that a borderline jumpcut :) all three angles are indeed very similar and don't add anything substantial. It doesn't really bother me though but I think just one angle (the center camera) would have been fine as well.

I am interested to know how the very smooth steadicam motion was performed, is there some post stabilization involved? Which type of steadicam was used?

Yeah, it is a jumpcut, however, if you notice... their whole vows wasn't included. It would look even more jumpcutty if we only show one angle and then cut to different parts of their vows. Churches like these just puts you in the back and don't even let you get close to the couples :(

The person who perform the steadicam is a certified steadicam op. He use the Steadicam Merlin without vest and smoothcam effect from FCP 7 are added to take out any jerkiness.

[Victor Nguyen]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

.
Also, I hope you don't take this personal as it is just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions. :) Good thing is if you manage to get the audio on the same level as the video then you have got a winner.

The harsher the critique, the better. That's the only way we can improve. I agree with you 100% on the audio. I can't wait when I have professional audio equipment to make it sounds on par with the visuals.

[Peter Riding]

The harsher the critique, the better

If you didn't mean that don't read on :- )

Stylistically its at the other end of the spectrum to that which I prefer but I'm not a lover of "cinematic" shorts so please bear that in mind.

I'm only getting audio on my right speaker, nothing on the left.

The meeting of the bride and father seemed scripted to a cringeworthy degree. Needed to be shorter and as happened rather than set up for the benefit of the cams. Clients likely to remember this part of the day as "where the video guy asked us to ..... " rather than a real moment. Waaaaay tooooo much of that in cinematic shorts.

Too much coverage of prepping of the venue and detail shots. And do the clients really want to see builders bums (as we say in the UK) as the carpets are laid when they watch this in future years.

Dads speech coverage far too short. I would want to hear a lot of what he actually said - but maybe you are also supplying a longer version. Same with the ceremony moments.

I think you got away with the voice audio to some degree by underlaying it with music. But not including lots of actual audio is a copout. I don't care what Still Motion think. They don't even include the ceremony (apparently).

There I did warn you!

Oh - good competent use of the equipment.

Pete

[Daniel Latimer]

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

I'm only getting audio on my right speaker, nothing on the left.

I'm getting the same thing. I thought my headphones were dying.

I don't care what Still Motion think

ha.

-------

I like the short. I essentially agree with what Noa said. Awesome visuals. The audio is very important. Even just adding a Rode Videmic would make it better. In the reception you could either mic the dad or just put a mic next to the speaker to get better sound.

I think most people would notice a segment with poor sound than a segment with slightly off white balance, etc.

Nice work.

[Victor Nguyen]

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

If you didn't mean that don't read on :- )

Dads speech coverage far too short. I would want to hear a lot of what he actually said - but maybe you are also supplying a longer version. Same with the ceremony moments.

I think you got away with the voice audio to some degree by underlaying it with music. But not including lots of actual audio is a copout. I don't care what Still Motion think. They don't even include the ceremony (apparently).

Pete

I totally meant what I said :)
Thanks for your critique Pete. I'm just an intern at the company with limited funds. But when I have enough money, I'll invest heavily in audio.

your other points are taken to heart too :)

[Victor Nguyen]

Originally Posted by Daniel Latimer

I think most people would notice a segment with poor sound than a segment with slightly off white balance, etc.

Sadly some wedding filmmakers don't even know what white balance is. Their getting-ready shots are just orange and it looks terrible.

[Noa Put]

Their getting-ready shots are just orange and it looks terrible.

That was the first thing I noticed when the first dslr wedding videos started to appear after the 5dII 'revolution', especially the canon dslr's tend to have a lot of red in the image and if you use auto whitebalance faces can indeed look very yellow/red when you shoot with indoor light. I often felt I was looking at a simpsons movie :)

Regular videocamera's are much better in getting the whitebalance right in auto, my sony cx730 f.i. is very good at that, even with a mixture of light I always get the color I see with my own eyes, only with my 550d I need to manually whitebalance or use a preset.