Need some camera suggestions for weddings.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

hey stevem what your seeing is the different compression algorythms.. the z1 for example, is a 4:2:2 unit, where as DV is 4:2:0 or 4.1.1 depending on where you are

MPG2 on the other hand is 4:2:0, but DV itself is an "ugly" compression method, so image abberations and colour bleed are prominant compared to HDV (even though theyre running at the same bitrate) also sharpness makes a huge difference with HDV, but comparing 1080i and 720p, 720p is far more superior to my eye, when running on a HD panel or LCD monitor

for bradcast or xfers to Digibeta, HDV is an awesome solution, and has saved me countless thousands in camera gear, but its not perfect either..

Me, im just waiting to work with dcvprohd before i decide which hd format ill be jumping to

Yep, understood. The argument usually goes that it is pointless to shoot in HDV (or any HD recording format) for the corporate/event/wedding market because none of your clients have HD playback equipment and so it'll end up in SD anyway. What we saw was that shooting and recording in HDV and converting to SD when rendering in post gives a much superior image than recording in standard miniDV to begin with, even when the signal originates in the same high quality camera. So my conclusion is that shooting/recording in HDV and preserving the HD as long as possible in the chain before converting and distributing in SD will give noticably superior image quality to shooting and recording SD miniDV with even high quality conventional miniDV camcorders. And it gives you the option of delivering HD versions later if your clients get the playback equipment. Meanwhile you've got the highest possible SD quality for the buck.

[Peter Jefferson]

i agree 100% with what you say, what im saying here is that until the public is educated on this there is no point in offering a product such as HD weddings unless there is a market for it.. yes there is a small niche market at the moment which will infinitely grow, but for now, its all about education, and i for one am not willing to offer a HD product to a wedding client who is tight budgeted as it is. The market here in oz is very different. they see video as inferior and despite what we do to make this change, it doesnt happen as there are too many backyard hacks ruining the industry for us.

Its difficult enough selling them SD, let alone selling them HD (ive tried and have prolly sold one couple in 50 on HD after showing them the differences.. )

I have z1s here (hel i sold a DSR570 to get them.. ), but i loathe to use them for weddings simply due to the lack of tweakability, and the fact that the DVX is (to me at least) alot more flexible and responsive.

Like i said, HD is the way of the future, but businesswise.. its still up in the air.. there are too many factors (for me at least) to just jump and offer the product openly without having to change my prices too much or having the need to educate the client...

[Diogo Athouguia]

Why buying a DV camera when you have HDV offers for just a bit more? Don't forget that these cameras can work in both formats using real 16:9. I sometimes shoot wedings with my DSR-PD170, but some companys want me to use a pro camera, in this case I rent a DSR-390. I prefer using a pro shoulder camera, however the DSR-390 is to heavy for a long working day.

The PD170 is a great camera, you don't need more for weddings but in my case weddings are just a small part of my job and I'm really needing a real pro camera. That's why I decided to purchase a JVC GY-HD101, it's a professional camera, HDV, no autofocus, shoulder mount and it's light. I'll use it as DV for now, but I'll be able to shoot in HD if I want. I personaly don't like prosumer cameras, they have focus issues and don't give me the stability I like. XL2 has a very good image quality, but is very unbalanced and like all others the focus is servo assisted... it would be better with a real pro lens without autofocus.

So,this is my advice: if you're purchasing a camera and are not concerned about focus issues and a pro look, go for the Sony HDR-FX1 or the HVR-Z1 (for weddings the FX1 is enough). If you prefer a real pro camera without automatic functions go for the HD100. This is only my personal opinion...

[Dave Largent]

Originally Posted by Steven Davis

I love my Gl2, it's worked for me to get started. I use a couple of PV-GS120s as side cams.

Just wondering what has been your experience using the
GS120s for weddings? How is the image of the 120s
at the ceremony?

[Kevin Calumpit]

i wonder how HDV looks slowed down cause i know a lot of wedding vids use slowmo shots

[Kevin Calumpit]

I actually work a company that shoots everything HD and the stuff usually gets laid off/final output to SD and it definitely does look better compared to that of going SD to SD its just more information you get to work with, its like the "camera raw" feature in photoshop

Originally Posted by Steve House

Yep, understood. The argument usually goes that it is pointless to shoot in HDV (or any HD recording format) for the corporate/event/wedding market because none of your clients have HD playback equipment and so it'll end up in SD anyway. What we saw was that shooting and recording in HDV and converting to SD when rendering in post gives a much superior image than recording in standard miniDV to begin with, even when the signal originates in the same high quality camera. So my conclusion is that shooting/recording in HDV and preserving the HD as long as possible in the chain before converting and distributing in SD will give noticably superior image quality to shooting and recording SD miniDV with even high quality conventional miniDV camcorders. And it gives you the option of delivering HD versions later if your clients get the playback equipment. Meanwhile you've got the highest possible SD quality for the buck.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Diogo Athouguia

So,this is my advice: if you're purchasing a camera and are not concerned about focus issues and a pro look, go for the Sony HDR-FX1 or the HVR-Z1 (for weddings the FX1 is enough). If you prefer a real pro camera without automatic functions go for the HD100.

I love how people try to make it sound like a good thing that the HD100U has no automatic focus feature. If you'd prefer to spend your time and energy trying to ensure accurate focus manually (which needs to be extra precise for HD work), by all means go ahead. But here's a funny thing: the autofocus feature on the Sony HDV cameras works surprisingly well, and there's a switch you can flip to turn it off and focus manually when the urge strikes you. Imagine that. :-)

[Diogo Athouguia]

It is a good thing not to have autofocus, manual lens don't have a servo and a stupid non-stop focus ring. Yes, I know you can always switch to manual mode, but the "funny thing" is that it's not you who really move the lens but a built-in servo that has a poor precision.

My PD170 has a very precise autofocus and I rarely use it, it is always a risk because it can focus on something that I don't want. I don't spend my time and energy focusing, it just comes out when you're used to manual focus lens.

It is a great thing that the HD100 has no auto focus, do you know why? Because it's a professional camera, the only affordable HD one. And, because it is HD, it has a very usefull function to assists you when focusing.

For some reason pro cameras don't have autofocus and amateur or prosumer have... why would that be? Think about that!

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

i agree 100% with what you say, what im saying here is that until the public is educated on this there is no point in offering a product such as HD weddings unless there is a market for it.. yes there is a small niche market at the moment which will infinitely grow, but for now, its all about education, and i for one am not willing to offer a HD product to a wedding client who is tight budgeted as it is. The market here in oz is very different. they see video as inferior and despite what we do to make this change, it doesnt happen as there are too many backyard hacks ruining the industry for us.

Its difficult enough selling them SD, let alone selling them HD (ive tried and have prolly sold one couple in 50 on HD after showing them the differences.. )

I have z1s here (hel i sold a DSR570 to get them.. ), but i loathe to use them for weddings simply due to the lack of tweakability, and the fact that the DVX is (to me at least) alot more flexible and responsive.

Like i said, HD is the way of the future, but businesswise.. its still up in the air.. there are too many factors (for me at least) to just jump and offer the product openly without having to change my prices too much or having the need to educate the client...

Yep, and I wouldn't a retire a good quality SD camera in favour of an HDV camera just yet. Just if one is already shopping the market for a new camera anyway, it makes sense to me to go with an HD instead of a new SD cam, even if the final delivery will be in SD for the forseeable future. There's a higher cost to consider, true, but it's not THAT much higher and in the meantime you'll be delivering better SD images than the competition.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Diogo Athouguia

For some reason pro cameras don't have autofocus and amateur or prosumer have... why would that be? Think about that!

That's an arbitrary distinction you've defined for yourself: a professional will know how to get good images with any camera at his/her disposal. I have no doubt you can get good images using manual focus, but for "run and gun" weddings shot in HD it's going to be a lot easier to shoot some scenes using autofocus. But either way, it's great to have affordable HD recording options, no matter what camera you choose.

[Peter Jefferson]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

That's an arbitrary distinction you've defined for yourself: a professional will know how to get good images with any camera at his/her disposal. I have no doubt you can get good images using manual focus, but for "run and gun" weddings shot in HD it's going to be a lot easier to shoot some scenes using autofocus. But either way, it's great to have affordable HD recording options, no matter what camera you choose.

not to mention the fact that most pro level lenss in still photography are also runnign auto mode, with manual overides..

[Diogo Athouguia]

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

not to mention the fact that most pro level lenss in still photography are also runnign auto mode, with manual overides..

Photography is different, you are woking with still images. You focus and then you shoot, you won't take the risk of unfocus during shooting.

A professional will know how to get good images with any camera when he has abolute control over it, in automode is the camera who controls the situation, the operator just points and shoots. That's why manual focus and manual iris are essencial to get exactly what desired.

Another thing that a pro lens allows to do is to mark different focus ranges for different distances in the same shot. For exemple you are shooting the fiancé from is right side, the bride is on his left. You want to focus the fiancé, then the bride and then someone next to her. This is impossible with autofocus and very difficult with a servo assisted lens.

Kevin, I have some experience with both kinds of cameras. Shooting is my profession but that doesn't mean I know everything, I still have a lot to learn. I shoot weddings every Saturday and some Sundays, I love shooting them for 2 reasons: first it's very well paid, an extra money is always welcome. Second, I have freedom to improvise, do what I want and learn with my mistakes. I learned that handycams are not stable as a shoulder cam and the autofocus is to use the less you can.

I was decided to purchase a FX1 untill JVC announced the realease of the HD100. With the FX1 I would still need to rent a pro camera for most jobs, as a freelancer the look of your material is very important, some clients think that my PD170 is my home camera. The HD100 is actually the best affordable offer, however the FX1 is a bit more light sensible... witch is usefull in weddings.

[Tommy James]

Well first of all I think that if you are going to offer your clients high definition it is very important not to charge more money to shoot in high definition. This is because most clients will refuse to pay extra for high definition video. Before when high definition video cameras cost 50,000 dollars it was impossible not to charge more money and still stay in business. But today high definition video cameras are very affordable so there is little reason to charge more money.

Secound I think one needs to deliver high definition video and not just shoot it. If your clients are told that high definition video cannot be delivered they will sense a problem and may opt out. Decks capable of playing high definition video can be had for around 250 bucks and should be bundled with the wedding video package.

Also you can let your clients know that HDTV can save them money. An HDTV with a built in digital tuner can receive free high definition broadcasts from the air. The payments on the television are cheaper than most cable bills.

[Peter Jefferson]

i beg to differ with the HD comments..

yeah sure shoot in HD.. but if u wnat to deliver in SD AND offer a HDV backup, its alot more post producion work for you..

think about it..

yeah sure u shoot in HDV..
from here, what editor are u using? Vegas? Premiere? if ur using these two, best ot convert to a eavelet format or work with proxies.. to set this up takes TIME...
yeah sure u can do it nativeluy with edius or liquid, but i guarantee you the results wont be as clean as using a wavelet format..
Cineform (as an example) allows up to about 15 generations.. mpg2.. maybe 2 gens if your lucky..
ok, now uve done your edit, u can either output to HDV stright, or render to your wavelet format, which is then rendered out to tape..
this is yoru HD outpt file..
ok, then what.. u have to render out to SD for dvd delivery..

now this is a typical workflow (this is how i do it anyway) but you can see the extra steps that i have to take to offer HDV on tape as well as SD on dvd..
Now this isnt considerin WMV HD output.. or DivX hd output... this is raw HDV from the timeline...
Have u ever transcoded a cineform AVI w.5surround sound file to WMV9 with 5.1 audio channels?
how much time in the day do you have?

now theres NO WAY i would do this at the rate of SD (which only requires sd capture with no transcoding to wavelets)
I would definately charge more as these prcesses take more time..
Put simply time is money.. and if ur spending al tis time and resources on offering HD at SD prices, then youre ripping urself off...

If people want HD they shoudl pay for it.. hell if theyr ehappy to pay 4grand for a friggin TV, im sure an extra 500 bux for HD delivery wont bust their bank..
no seriosuly.. people spend all this money on shit and dont want to pay for a service, ive been to weddings where theyve paid 3700 for a friggin cake which will be shat out the next day.. but to pay for a video.. i had to twist their arms to get them to fork up the cash..
i say if you can afford a plasma or a largish lcd panel, u can afford to pay a ll extra for a HD wedding...

priorities people.. it seems this industry is still falling on its arse as even with these opportunites to expand our business offerings (ie, offering HD as an upgrade for the client which could land you anything between 500to 1000 extra on top of the standard package...
and the worse thing is that the videographers accpet the fact that people wont pay for these upgades unless theres "something in it for them"

So you all can keep charging peanuts and offering the world.. or you can profit on the fact that you now have a new product to sell...

but in the end, it all comes down to how much you value your time, talent and resources...

I for one am not falling into the "professional non professioanl debate" I make money, i take shortcuts, i take long cuts.. im making a liiving from this, its paying bills.. its my profession.. im a professional.. irrespective of whether im using a DSR570, Z1, or DVX100...
like the next guy, i work my ass off, and spend stupid amounts of hours in editing, i have clients sending me thank you cards with gift vouchers, and yea, i am close with them, but in the end, theyr still clients and theyre weddings are what are used to sell my products to other potential clients.

its a great big whopping circle and if its mismanaged by me offering to much to one client while another waits for his edit to be completed, you end up burning out, you end up with complaints about delivery and in the end its for naught.. believe me, i been there and done that...

all i can say is that if u want to go HD, go for it, hell, who wouldnt..
Me, im jsut waitng for the HXV and firestore...

but dont be a fool by giving the product away and setting a BAD precendent for the INDUSTRY by not charging accordingly...

Am i sounding stingy and tightassed?? yeah? well think about the fact that youre in this game to make money from it.. All of us.(well most anyway) live by what we do, and if some numbnuts decides to offer a product at a set rate, the next guy has to match or beat it to compete (for price alone... workmanship doesnt come into play at this time)

so yeah whatever anyone decides, just be sure to think about your business GROWTH, your business WORKFLOW, and your business behaviour within the industry..

[Tommy James]

Steve Mullen claims that the JVC 720p format is twice as easy to edit as the Sony 1080i format. Perhaps a wedding videographer could shoot 720p at no extra charge but charge more for higher resolutions like 1080i.