Engagement Shoot with 5D Mark II

Jeff Whitley · January 14th, 2009, 03:13 PM

Joel,

All I can say is WOW. The only rebuttal I could offer then is, the real underlying reason for giving up was difficulty ?!?

Dave Blackhurst · January 14th, 2009, 03:41 PM

Two different disciplines, and two different approaches, at least to some degree.

Photo you're trying to catch a single "perfect moment", so your concentration is in short bits, focusing on each shot... you're still telling a story, but don't have to deal with AUDIO, just a series of fractions of a second slices.

Video you're trying to catch 30 meaningful moments per second (roughly), strung together in a way that will be usable when you step into edit mode (requiring a whole additional layer of skill beyond "photoshopping"), while constantly having to adjust to light (photogs need a flash rig...), shifting attitudes of the "talent", keeping the camera steady, and all the exposure/shutter/framing/composition stuff too... and did I mention audio...

The 5D changes things, as do any of the newer HD video cameras - you can take quite respectable frame grabs from most any of them if you know what you're doing in post. Even my little Sony CX12 sits there and pops off a pic every time it detects a "smile" while it's shooting video.

There's a convergence or "fusion" of the two disciplines coming full tilt down the highway. But having fiddled a bit with the concept in practice, it's pretty hard to keep your brain running on both video and stills and multitask... your mental focus tends to drift.

I think the ideal is to have more than one "camera operator" and a few cameras with different capabilities, and let each tool and artist do their strong points, while doubling up as appropriate.

Peter Szilveszter · January 14th, 2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Whitley

and honestly its not hard to tell a story. Spin a story, for which there are all ready road maps to guide you, connect the dots and you have a very workable plan of attack.

I wonder why there are so many bad movies then, if they are shot well, why are they crap and they are even more prepared, they have story boards, scripts, shooting plan etc.. because they fail to tell the story well, this goes for any scale of story telling.

When you have people crying watching the video (and its not the bride) then you know you have told a story that grabs them emotionally, and its not EASY to do. If you show an emotionally engaging video to potential clients they will hire on the spot.

Joel Peregrine · January 14th, 2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Whitley

Joel,

All I can say is WOW. The only rebuttal I could offer then is, the real underlying reason for giving up was difficulty ?!?

Mostly time. They were learning software at the same time (one with my help) and sadly realized that the time investment not only in the first one but subsequent productions meant they weren't going to make any money.

Travis Cossel · January 14th, 2009, 09:29 PM

I've been on both sides of the lens, and I will agree that photographers are going to find it much more challenging to step into video versus videographers stepping into stills. When my wife first started her photographer business I assisted her on several weddings. Even though I barely knew how to operate the camera and didn't understand a thing about f-stops and aperatures I was able to capture some great stuff at those weddings. My wife was even quite impressed. I already had a sense for composition.

The thing is, once the still image was captured .. THAT was the story. The beauty of stills is in their ability to tell a story in a single frame. It's quite amazing. Try showing a client 1 second of beautiful video and see if you can get the same reaction. You can't.

Once you have to start thinking in terms of camera movement (or lack of movement) and movement of the subject, in addition to the compounded complications of lighting with video (namely, instant flash doesn't work .. you need constant lighting .. and more of it), video begins to seem much less attractive for most photographers. Now factor in editing and the incredible amount of time that can take. Factor in the story telling aspect, which can't just happen over the course of a single frame or a single second. And let's not forget about audio. Photographers live in a wonderful world where the audio of the moment is completely unimportant. Once you start dealing with technical difficulties or wind or people talking or babies crying or police sirens or any of the other million audio challenges that are out there ... I think many more photographers will find that video is not their cup of tea.

Now .. finally .. consider the fact that the average profit from a wedding video is not as good as the average profit that a photographer makes from a wedding (when you factor time and hard costs and whatnot) ... and I think the vast majority of the photographers will quickly see video as a fun gimmick but not an avenue worth pursuing in their business.

And no offense intended but anyone who thinks it's easy to tell the story of a wedding day in a way that is compelling and polished is someone who probably hasn't actually done just that.

Oleg Kalyan · January 15th, 2009, 05:11 AM

5мк2 material looks nice, one significant problem, colorimetry,
most of the footage shown including famous Reverie, suffer from incorrect
interpretation of 0 255 RGB gamma that camera shoots, there are second to non
solutions, so far only Color can do it on a Mac platform, transfer it to 16 235 RGB to bring back crushed blacks and blown out highlights.

Did not mean to get into technical details, bat that is to be aware of.

Matthew Ebenezer · January 15th, 2009, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Seah

the colours pop. Really nice. Only prob is the jerkiness. How was it editing on the imovie? Tough?

Hey Sean,

Thanks for checking it out. The jerkiness is mainly from the 85mm 1.2 - it's a pretty twitchy lens. Interestingly I watched another recently clip of mine and the 5D footage is actually steadier than handholding my A1+Brevis combo.

It was a bit tough 'cause it was my first time using iMovie. And it seems to simplify things to the point where I don't understand it. I'm used to complicated editing on the PC :)

The new iMovie '09 looks like it will have some cool improvements. I could see myself editing simple videos with iMovie once I get a bit more used to it.

Cheers,

Matthew.

Matthew Ebenezer · January 15th, 2009, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yang Wen

Very nice... However, I do see strong black clipping in many shots. I assume you guys use the standard picture parameter?

Also for back lit scenes where we see the sun (such as sun in Vimeo's preview image for the video), I don't like the harsh clipping in the highlights. I'm more used to seeing a gradual ramp to white. How do you guys find the 5D2 when it comes to highlight handling?

Lydia's music is very nice. I checked out her site after watching your video. I'm gonna buy her album once it comes out!

Hi Yang,

Lydia's album is lovely. Definitely worthwhile picking up a copy.

I'm pretty sure we changed the picture setting to 'Neutral' but I'm not 100% sure.

The crushed blacks and blown highlights seem to be par for the course with this camera. If you like that look then it's not too much of an issue.

Cheers,

Matthew.

Matthew Ebenezer · January 15th, 2009, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

Hi Jeff,

I completely disagree, having seen many videographers become working photographers and also having seen many photographers give video a try only to give up during the first project because of the complexities of the entire production process.

Hey Joel,

Respectfully I disagree. Witnessing first hand how easy it was for a photographer to shoot this particular video within 30 minutes of opening the boxe really surprised me. Shocked me actually. And then how easy iMovie made it to edit something together that is 'good enough'. The whole workflow was so simple. Way less difficult than editing this same footage on my PC system and software worth about $10K+

That was the purpose of posting this clip. To show that with this camera, iMovie and a laptop, photographers can edit something together that is good enough.

Of course this video isn't as good as what a dedicated videographer would shoot and edit. But that's not the point. This point is ... is this type of video good enough? I say yes it is.

Cheers,

Matthew.

Matthew Ebenezer · January 15th, 2009, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oleg Kalyan

5мк2 material looks nice, one significant problem, colorimetry,
most of the footage shown including famous Reverie, suffer from incorrect
interpretation of 0 255 RGB gamma that camera shoots, there are second to non
solutions, so far only Color can do it on a Mac platform, transfer it to 16 235 RGB to bring back crushed blacks and blown out highlights.

Did not mean to get into technical details, bat that is to be aware of.

Hey Oleg,

While this technical stuff is important, not many couples are going to care. Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Matthew.

Jason Robinson · January 15th, 2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Ebenezer

Of course this video isn't as good as what a dedicated videographer would shoot and edit. But that's not the point. This point is ... is this type of video good enough? I say yes it is.

Bingo. Once a photographer can learn how to make a very compelling highlights shoot, then customers may be less inclined to get a similar production from the videographer (never mind that there are lots of differences from OUR point of view.... from a client's POV there may be very few differences).

Ken Diewert · January 15th, 2009, 05:45 PM

Interesting thread... Thanks for starting it Matt.

Beautiful images, I'll bet the stills were great. Though for my taste the camera movements are to jerky for 'video'. But with the right stabilizer...

It's far easier IMHO to capture 1/125th of a second and freeze it and make it look good then it is to continuously roll for 20-20 seconds and make it look good. Never mind audio...

I see this as another image aquisition tool, myself. Whether you call the operator holding it a photographer or videographer, it doesn't really matter. Ideally that person is a talented cinematographer who understands composition, and lighting, and can aquire magic images in beautiful settings. With it's built in capacity for shallow dof, it would be a nice tool to have.

As far as the difference in video vs photo, for me it comes down to post. My wife shoots incredible photos but has a hard time with Photoshop. So I've learned Photoshop, and while I'm still a relative novice, I find it so refreshingly simple to edit single frames in photoshop as compared to the effort that goes into editing video.

I've seen samples of photograhers who have 'branched out' into video and it's not good. Yet I've pulled stills of some of my footage that I'd be proud to sell if the pics had the resolution.

So I think having a solid (notice I said solid) background in moving pictures sets you up better for stills than the other way around. IMHO

Mark Ganglfinger · January 16th, 2009, 08:51 PM

After hearing photographers whine and complain that "everyone with a DSLR is now a photographer!" I am going to enjoy moaning that "every photographer with a 5D thinks he is a videographer!" :)

Dave Blackhurst · January 16th, 2009, 10:07 PM

Technology is "commoditizing" or "democratizing" the capability to shoot very high resolution video and pictures. BUT it doesn't teach a monkey how to get good shots.

Ultimately the tools are cooler and more fun to work and play with, but you can still create drek.

I'll say it again, I've seen garbage shot by "pros", and brilliance shot by "novices". The best camera in the world can't compensate for a good eye, good skills and don't forget talent...

The tech can change the playing field, no doubt about it, and for those who care to shoot both disciplines, it's a pretty cool toy. It adds a few possible dimensions to any shop or camera person shooting one or both stills and video.

In my mind, having a dual mode camera makes a lot of sense, and I have no doubt that owning dual mode cams that can do reasonably well in both realms will become the norm rather than the exception, maybe not this year, but 2-5 years tops.

Since I'm already versed in both still and video, my only comment is grab a dang camera and shoot already!!! As long as it will fit on my stabilizer, I don't care if it looks like a pig with lipstick as long as it gets good results! I'm still waiting for someone so disappointed with their 5DMkII they are giving it away to send it my way... no luck yet, but would love to have one, crushed blacks and whatever other "defects" and all!

I'll comment again that I sure wish Sony was on the ball on this concept, Canon seems to be the bleeding edge leader!

Mike Williams · May 7th, 2009, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Ebenezer View Post
Of course this video isn't as good as what a dedicated videographer would shoot and edit. But that's not the point. This point is ... is this type of video good enough? I say yes it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Robinson

Bingo. Once a photographer can learn how to make a very compelling highlights shoot, then customers may be less inclined to get a similar production from the videographer (never mind that there are lots of differences from OUR point of view.... from a client's POV there may be very few differences).

Despite what anyone says about anything eles regarding audio or story 99% of couples will see a highlights from a photog like this...which just looks like he hit the video button after shooting the same set up ( but really great shots ) and called it a day.

Couples will be sold right out of needing the ENTIRE ceremony recorded and the photog can get someone to shoot the video for him. End of story. We become the photogs assistant. Just ask this.. Who do couples book or talk to first?

They call Carlos Baez et al and then he says forget the videographer I can give you THIS.

When the client is educated ( calculate that one ) it MAY be different. Not odds I'm banking on with my business.

January 14th, 2009, 03:13 PM	#16
Jeff Whitley Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 43	Joel, All I can say is WOW. The only rebuttal I could offer then is, the real underlying reason for giving up was difficulty ?!? __________________ Jeff Whitley <'/))))><

January 14th, 2009, 09:29 PM	#20
Travis Cossel Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 2,933	I've been on both sides of the lens, and I will agree that photographers are going to find it much more challenging to step into video versus videographers stepping into stills. When my wife first started her photographer business I assisted her on several weddings. Even though I barely knew how to operate the camera and didn't understand a thing about f-stops and aperatures I was able to capture some great stuff at those weddings. My wife was even quite impressed. I already had a sense for composition. The thing is, once the still image was captured .. THAT was the story. The beauty of stills is in their ability to tell a story in a single frame. It's quite amazing. Try showing a client 1 second of beautiful video and see if you can get the same reaction. You can't. Once you have to start thinking in terms of camera movement (or lack of movement) and movement of the subject, in addition to the compounded complications of lighting with video (namely, instant flash doesn't work .. you need constant lighting .. and more of it), video begins to seem much less attractive for most photographers. Now factor in editing and the incredible amount of time that can take. Factor in the story telling aspect, which can't just happen over the course of a single frame or a single second. And let's not forget about audio. Photographers live in a wonderful world where the audio of the moment is completely unimportant. Once you start dealing with technical difficulties or wind or people talking or babies crying or police sirens or any of the other million audio challenges that are out there ... I think many more photographers will find that video is not their cup of tea. Now .. finally .. consider the fact that the average profit from a wedding video is not as good as the average profit that a photographer makes from a wedding (when you factor time and hard costs and whatnot) ... and I think the vast majority of the photographers will quickly see video as a fun gimmick but not an avenue worth pursuing in their business. And no offense intended but anyone who thinks it's easy to tell the story of a wedding day in a way that is compelling and polished is someone who probably hasn't actually done just that. __________________ Black Label Films www.blacklabelweddingfilms.com

January 15th, 2009, 05:45 PM	#27
Ken Diewert Trustee Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Vancouver Island, Canada Posts: 1,200	Interesting thread... Thanks for starting it Matt. Beautiful images, I'll bet the stills were great. Though for my taste the camera movements are to jerky for 'video'. But with the right stabilizer... It's far easier IMHO to capture 1/125th of a second and freeze it and make it look good then it is to continuously roll for 20-20 seconds and make it look good. Never mind audio... I see this as another image aquisition tool, myself. Whether you call the operator holding it a photographer or videographer, it doesn't really matter. Ideally that person is a talented cinematographer who understands composition, and lighting, and can aquire magic images in beautiful settings. With it's built in capacity for shallow dof, it would be a nice tool to have. As far as the difference in video vs photo, for me it comes down to post. My wife shoots incredible photos but has a hard time with Photoshop. So I've learned Photoshop, and while I'm still a relative novice, I find it so refreshingly simple to edit single frames in photoshop as compared to the effort that goes into editing video. I've seen samples of photograhers who have 'branched out' into video and it's not good. Yet I've pulled stills of some of my footage that I'd be proud to sell if the pics had the resolution. So I think having a solid (notice I said solid) background in moving pictures sets you up better for stills than the other way around. IMHO __________________ C100, 5DMk2, FCPX

January 14th, 2009, 03:41 PM	#17
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Two different disciplines, and two different approaches, at least to some degree. Photo you're trying to catch a single "perfect moment", so your concentration is in short bits, focusing on each shot... you're still telling a story, but don't have to deal with AUDIO, just a series of fractions of a second slices. Video you're trying to catch 30 meaningful moments per second (roughly), strung together in a way that will be usable when you step into edit mode (requiring a whole additional layer of skill beyond "photoshopping"), while constantly having to adjust to light (photogs need a flash rig...), shifting attitudes of the "talent", keeping the camera steady, and all the exposure/shutter/framing/composition stuff too... and did I mention audio... The 5D changes things, as do any of the newer HD video cameras - you can take quite respectable frame grabs from most any of them if you know what you're doing in post. Even my little Sony CX12 sits there and pops off a pic every time it detects a "smile" while it's shooting video. There's a convergence or "fusion" of the two disciplines coming full tilt down the highway. But having fiddled a bit with the concept in practice, it's pretty hard to keep your brain running on both video and stills and multitask... your mental focus tends to drift. I think the ideal is to have more than one "camera operator" and a few cameras with different capabilities, and let each tool and artist do their strong points, while doubling up as appropriate.

January 15th, 2009, 05:11 AM	#21
Oleg Kalyan Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: MOSCOW Posts: 860	5мк2 material looks nice, one significant problem, colorimetry, most of the footage shown including famous Reverie, suffer from incorrect interpretation of 0 255 RGB gamma that camera shoots, there are second to non solutions, so far only Color can do it on a Mac platform, transfer it to 16 235 RGB to bring back crushed blacks and blown out highlights. Did not mean to get into technical details, bat that is to be aware of.

January 16th, 2009, 08:51 PM	#28
Mark Ganglfinger Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hermon Maine USA Posts: 138	After hearing photographers whine and complain that "everyone with a DSLR is now a photographer!" I am going to enjoy moaning that "every photographer with a 5D thinks he is a videographer!" :)

January 16th, 2009, 10:07 PM	#29
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Technology is "commoditizing" or "democratizing" the capability to shoot very high resolution video and pictures. BUT it doesn't teach a monkey how to get good shots. Ultimately the tools are cooler and more fun to work and play with, but you can still create drek. I'll say it again, I've seen garbage shot by "pros", and brilliance shot by "novices". The best camera in the world can't compensate for a good eye, good skills and don't forget talent... The tech can change the playing field, no doubt about it, and for those who care to shoot both disciplines, it's a pretty cool toy. It adds a few possible dimensions to any shop or camera person shooting one or both stills and video. In my mind, having a dual mode camera makes a lot of sense, and I have no doubt that owning dual mode cams that can do reasonably well in both realms will become the norm rather than the exception, maybe not this year, but 2-5 years tops. Since I'm already versed in both still and video, my only comment is grab a dang camera and shoot already!!! As long as it will fit on my stabilizer, I don't care if it looks like a pig with lipstick as long as it gets good results! I'm still waiting for someone so disappointed with their 5DMkII they are giving it away to send it my way... no luck yet, but would love to have one, crushed blacks and whatever other "defects" and all! I'll comment again that I sure wish Sony was on the ball on this concept, Canon seems to be the bleeding edge leader!