"Cinematic" Wedding Videos - Full Ceremony Sample

[Matt Thomas]

Is there any full video examples online of the entire ceremony from anyone that produces "Cinematic" wedding videos?

I've seen a lot of stunning highlights/trailers of this style but never seen how they produce the actual ceremony, and I'm really interested in how the cinematic style looks within a full ceremony edit.

I know people wont want to share them but just wondered if anyone knew if there was any already online.

Thanks guys,

[Adrian Tan]

Hey Matt, I don't know what "cinematic" means, so I don't know if I'm shooting in that style or not, but I do shoot with DSLRs.

Did you see my "Armenian wedding" sample in the Members Only section? First page, scroll down a little.

[Matt Thomas]

Yeah, that's why I put it in brackets, but a lot of people seem to class it as cinematic wedding video.

I'll check your video.

[Roger Gunkel]

Many of those that produce so called 'cinematic' videos, specialise in the short form style partly because many of the techniques and camerawork would be difficult to maintain for the full length of a typical wedding ceremony unless there were a number of crew involved. There could also be the question of overkill for a full length ceremony which doesn't necessarily lend itself well to full cinematic style.

It is also worth bearing in mind that cinematic style as in cinema movies, is made up of a large number of carefully scripted and storyboarded scenes, with frequently many takes to get them right.

Roger

[Tim Bakland]

For me, the "cinematic" part applies only to the trailer/highlights. The full ceremony plays out in the running footage just as it played out on the day (2 camera angles, slightly shortened/compressed/cleaned up).

[Adrian Tan]

I think it's worth mentioning that "cinematic" for most videographers/clients seems to mean a 3-5 minute highlights packed with eye candy -- but for Ray Roman, Joe Simon, etc, their main product is a 15-minute or 25-minute video where editing (for story, for creating emotion) matters as much or more so than the images.

[Daniel Latimer]

The full ceremony is usually not included in a cinematic wedding video. The main feature that they are shooting for is the 12, 15, 20 minute video.

Most companies offer the full ceremony as well, but it's just a straight cut of the ceremony.

[Dave Partington]

It's almost impossible to present an entire 'real-life' ceremony in a 'cinematic style' because it's a live event that you need to record in real time with (usually) multiple cameras that for the most part aren't allowed to move around (at least not in the UK). If you wanted cinematic style throughout you'd need to be setting up shots and moving gear around like a film set and shouting cut, retake etc from time to time. The local vicar is not going to tolerate that for more than a coupe of nanoseconds, so don't even try it!

While you can record ceremonies using shallow DOF techniques (not always the best idea) and switch from camera to camera for visual interest, it's extremely unlikely that you'll have jibs and sliders and other such techniques running throughout. Sometimes the B+G and especially parents expect to be able to see themselves and other family/friends in the scene and not just the B+G isolated, so having a camera that captures 'more' DOF can often be required.

Most cinematic style wedding films are accompanied by simple multi cam productions of the full ceremony. While many people on the web (including some here) purport to provide highlights only packages (sometimes at unrealistically high prices for Yorkshire!) when you really drill down in to it you find that they do in fact provide a simple full ceremony film, sometimes with only a single static (read: boring) angle, while others do have full multi cam edits. Don't believe that everything they provide is as awesome as the highlights films. It's not.

You can't (and I wouldn't want to) have the 'cinematic' music running throughout an entire 45 minute church ceremony with appropriate climactic points while still preserving the original essence of the ceremony itself. Sometimes art has to give way to reality and brides (and especially parents) wanting a full uncut ceremony expect just that. Real life, uncut. Just make you get great audio too!

So, don't worry about it. Highlights films are highlights films. Full ceremonies are full ceremonies. They are different beasts.

Of course you have to set expectations correctly. If you lead the bride to believe that she's going to be wowed and bowled over by your high production value shooting and editing throughout an entire 45 minute video of ceremony and another 30-90 minutes of speeches then you're heading for a fall.

Most brides don't know quite what to expect since they've rarely (if ever) seen a full wedding video of anyone else's wedding, so letting them know that the ceremony is recorded 'as-is' and presented in full and is not a highlights style film should set their expectations more realistically.

[Matt Thomas]

That makes more sense, Dave.

I always wondered how the "cinematic" aspect would play out for the entire ceremony, and I couldn't really figure out how people would do it.

[Roger Gunkel]

Dave
+1


Roger

[Danny O'Neill]

Here you go. One of our full movies ANDREW & JESSICA | THE MOVIE | Minty Slippers

We only do short form.

The way to do a 'cinematic' ceremony is watch a Hollywood movie. Do they show a full 45 minute church service? Study how they show a wedding ceremony.

[Clive McLaughlin]

Danny, sorry to be direct - but I've asked this question many times and have yet to get a straightfoward 100% assured answer.

You use a song by Weezer in that video. Are you doing so legally? And if so, would you mind explaining the process and how much it costs?

Thanks

[Danny O'Neill]

Speak to the IOV. They know more than us but no one will give you a 100% answer, I get told different things each time I speak to the labels, music licensing body or whoever. The internet is still new to them and they still like to pretend its a fad that will die out.

I spoke to the IOV a while ago and got told if I keep up to date on my PPL licensing I 'should' be ok. But they can't say for sure and neither could anyone else.

To ensure there is no confusion I suggest licensing the songs from song freedom or the music bed as the rest of the tracks are and so is everything else we put online.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Dave

That is probably the most sensible description of "cinematic" that I have read for a while. After watching "cinematic" trailers or ceremonies here I have come to the conclusion that plenty of static items (usually on a slider .. since video is moving pictures) but still rather boring and to me these array of images seem to be fillers more than anything else? I agree with having an establishing shot ..that's standard practice so a non guest at the wedding knows where it's happening but after that I think you need to run the story line which means the bride arriving and everything that follows.

A couple of years back if you shot a wedding on a Canon 550D it was automatically a "cinematic" wedding but was probably just a lot of shallow DOF.

A +1 from me too!!

My shoots without the static slider shots of flowers and around the venue are always done multicam but I still call my weddings documentary. I wonder what attracts a bride to a cinematic style? and more importantly does she actually know what it is? Maybe the word itself sounds fancy and expensive so brides are prepared to pay a higher premium for a cinematic shoot.

Apart from Dave who will now probably cop a whole lot of flack from his description I have yet to see anyone provide an accurate description of a cinematic wedding and exactly how it differs from a multicam documentary wedding.

Chris

[Nigel Barker]

Whatever Danny or the IoV say the law is actually very clear that any music should be licensed appropriately.

Here in the UK we have a very simple process for licensing physical products like discs or USB sticks (also in Australia & a few other territories but critically not the US).

However for online use there is no such simple mechanism as the rights holders haven't caught up with the digital age & regard putting a music track on your website as effectively broadcasting that track to everyone in the world & want you to pay accordingly. What most of us do is licence what we can i.e. the physical product & then licence a different track for online use (there are even 'proper' commercial tracks on song freedom not just artists that you have never heard of) or not bother on the basis that it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone is going to sue us. YouTube also provides a means of legitimising use without obtaining explicit permission from the rights holders.