A turning point in video/photo packages?

[Chris Harding]

Great comments guys!

Funny, I have always wondered if film makers who post stuff here take extra special care to make the clip as pixel perfect as possible as they know that they will probably get harsh words about every tiny wobble ?

I always remember a quote from a friend of mine who says " There comes a time during editing where you have to say "That's good enough" otherwise the editing will simply go on forever" Wise words when you are running a business. I still shudder at posts here where the person proudly says "I have spent 60 hours already on this wedding with the edit" ...He is also the one that shoots the entire wedding for $1500 and fails to realise that he would earn more money flipping burgers at McDonalds!!

Especially for you Steve I won't put in the Bride comment but I will say, that a lot forget, and that is "It's all about the content"

Chris

[Steve Burkett]

I can't speak for others work, but my Highlight Trailers are a bit like Macdonald's Burgers. When I have the time, my best work will see them look like that lovely picture on the wall, but everyday, a fast turn around and high workload means they're more like the burger you actually get given. Makes them sound worse than they're are, but it's the best analogy I can come up with first thing in the morning.

'It's about content' is alas another forum cliche I'm afraid. Sorry Chris. :) I spend all day hearing from Brides what they want and discussing content with them; I come here to escape all that and discuss tech. It is a Videographers forum after all, not a Bridal one, so it's no surprise it's that side of the work that gets the most focus here. Outside though, that's completely different. I don't have time to pixel peep on Wedding work; I save that for my own personal projects. That said, I still work to ensure my videos look as good as possible.

Back to the subject on the convergence of video and photo, does anyone think Canon's new addition to their range feels like a small knock back in that goal. They're making a clear statement, you can have top quality photo equipment and top quality video equipment and never the twain shall meet. Perhaps the Mark IV will address that, but as the 5D is by far the most popular camera I've seen Photographers use, it'll be interesting to see how many jump to the S (or R). I can't see them making much of video if they did.

[Roger Gunkel]

Good morning guys! your question about the new Canon cameras Steve and the lack of video/photo technical integration brings up a whole new area of discussion really. As the video take up for weddings is so low compared with photography, are we seeing the new wave of shortform and highlight videos being driven mainly by photographers? The very fact that still cameras are not the best choice for long video clips for solo shooters is very much about the lack of facilities and difference in lenses that you would find on a dedicated video camera as I see it.

I know several photographers who have changed over to videography as they felt that wedding photography was becoming very overcrowded. It would certainly be logical for a photographer changing to video to utilise both the equipment and techniques that he is already very confortable with. This would go some way to explaining the rise of companies offering videos with much of the style and hallmarks of the photographer. There are also many young guys starting up who have come from film schools and courses training for media production, who have learnt many of the skills used in the film making industry and want to apply those skills to their own productions.

If we we are going to see new cameras being released which concentrate on the photographic side, but with secondary acknowledgement of the film makers needs, then we may see more of the wedding video industry following the capabilities of the camera rather than the requirements of the genre. The other side of the coin is perhaps that the development of video cameras may be more at the pro and broadcast market end, now that most of the consumer video market is satisfied by smart phones. I don't see any of that making much difference to the growth of dual photo/video packages, but I do see it as affecting the type of video that is on offer. It will also have more impact in the European market, where cameras with recording limits, such as stills cameras are not subject to the same tax levels as dedicated video cameras.

Roger

[Chris Harding]

Hi Roger

I have yet to see a camera that does both successfully! Just by design, a DSLR is an awkward bugger to handheld for starters! The audio is still pathetic so users resort to recorders instead plus they still have short clip lengths which are not easy to overcome when doing a close to 60 minute Catholic ceremony!

Sony went the other route with the EA-50 of which Pete Rush has and I have too...the concept is brilliant as it's either a handheld or shoulder mount video camera with pro audio, all the normal features like focus peaking and the rest PLUS it has a DSLR sensor and lenses you can change (I use my Nikon lenses)
This gives you DSLR attributes with video camera form factor. Now it is also a mean DSLR still camera, has 16.7mp images and has TTL flash features from a dedicated hotshoe .... Do I use it for stills? Nope I use my Nikons because as good as they are it's still no the "right shape" for stills work whilst my Nikons are prefect for stills but IMHO useless for video...so I end up with both!! Even if the 5D IV does have XLR audio and limitless record time it STILL has the form factor issue unless you dump it on a fancy rig..if you do then you are back at square one when you try to take still with the cam on a rig which is just awkward.

I honestly cannot see a dual use camera design coming out that will have a perfect form factor for stills and then also be able to magically transform into a shoulder mount video camera and back to a still camera in an instant. Hmmm James Bonds engineers might have some ideas but until then we are stuck with having one for camera for each function which is tricky for a solo operator

Chris

[Roger Gunkel]

H Chris,

The short clip lengths are one of the most annoying things for me, and I really can't see the logic of it apart from forcing two different markets for the manufacturers. So many film makers use DSLRs that it just doesn't make sense to impose artificial restrictions.

The DSLR form factor is not that much of a problem for me as I don't do shoulder mounting, preferring a lightweight tripod with quick release. I do love using my Lumix fz200s for filming when length is not an issue and the light levels are within acceptable limits. The up to 24x zoom at F2.8 is so convenient with no lens change necessary, and a bigger sensor and improved low light is still making me look at the FZ1000 with the 4k option. For a joint package, the idea of a 4k, zoom lens, big sensor bridge camera that can take dslr quality pics in all lighting conditions is probably the way that I would go. I think the FZ1000 doesn't quite get there but certainly closes the gap and I will almost certainly get one to use for some parts of the day.

Roger

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Sony went the other route with the EA-50 of which Pete Rush has and I have too...the concept is brilliant

It's only too bad Sony doesn't seem to make any improvements on that camera with a mark II version, the ea50 is bound to be yet another "thing" Sony does and then quickly goes off designing 10 more different camera's. Only camera's that sell really well, like the rx100 get updated.

[Chris Harding]

It's all about money Noa!

No manufacturer is going to pump money into a product unless it has awesome sales figures. Sony actually did come out with an updated EA-50 with the shorter E-Mount lens (18-105 I think) ...they supposedly changed the sensor as well but no one could ever confirm it but the spec did say new sensor.

I would say they would look at the A7S if they were going to add an extras to a camera as that took the world by storm!

[Michael Silverman]

I think that both Canon and Nikon seem to want their still cameras to be used primarily for still photography. I think that will be the case with the 5DS and 5DS R since they removed several video features that were on the 5D Mk III. Canon seems to want people who are serious about shooting video to purchase from their EOS Cinema line because they'll make more money and they won't have to try to cram amazing video and stills capability into the same camera. Canon has done their research and believes that forcing people to choose either video or stills will make them the most money (if I was a large international corporation I would probably find the best way to make the most money too). I've heard that the 5D Mk IV may have 4K video, but my guess is that either by providing a weak codec or leaving off features they will make sure that it doesn't undercut their Cinema cameras.

I'm a huge fan of the Canon Cinema cameras but have not been impressed with the video quality of my Canon 70D, so it doesn't bother me that Canon is doing this as it doesn't really affect my work. However, since lots of people have been shooting primarily video on their Canon DSLRs I've read tons of comments by unhappy users who are furious with this new approach.

With all of that said, I think that if anything we are all pretty lucky that we get to shoot with some amazing cameras and lenses for relatively low prices compared to what was offered even just 10 years ago. I suppose the best thing to do is just enjoy it and not worry about what each company offers so much because they're just trying to stay alive like everyone else.

[Chris Harding]

Hey Michael

Exactly! That's why Canon have the C100 and C300 as cinema cameras ...I have always wondered why they still keep all the video features on the 5D when they could make it a dedicated still camera which is their major market. I guess the unique photog will still use the 5D for stills only and the C300 will be the choice for primary video? I'm not a Canon person but does the C300 have the same sort of features as a 5D for taking stills.

I guess there is still a market for cameras that do both even though it might do one better than the other??

Chris

[Michael Silverman]

My C100 has a photo button but it only takes stills at 1080p which is like 2 megapixels, so it's pretty much useless as a still camera. I'm not sure about the C300 but I imagine it does the same thing. Because of this you won't see any photographers walking around with a cinema camera shooting stills at a wedding any time soon lol.

Sony will have to decide if they want to include internal 4K in the next A7S because if they do then that will strongly discourage people from buying the FS7 since the two cameras will both shoot internal 4K but the A7S sensor is actually much better in low light than the FS7. Since Panasonic did not create a successor to the AF100, there's really nothing that they sell which will be affected by the GH4 (or the next GH camera). The Varicam HS is around $45K so there aren't too many people that will be considering both cameras for a shoot.

I'm excited to see which new cameras come out this year but I'm starting to feel like these new cameras are all so good that my clients (especially brides) really won't be able to tell the difference between something shot on a GH4, FS7, or C300 Mk II. I think now more than ever, it's really not about the camera.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Michael Silverman

I'm excited to see which new cameras come out this year but I'm starting to feel like these new cameras are all so good that my clients (especially brides) really won't be able to tell the difference between something shot on a GH4, FS7, or C300 Mk II. I think now more than ever, it's really not about the camera.

I really don't believe that it ever has been about the camera, only the content. I do think there is a big danger in getting into a technical mindset where the camera is the important part, it isn't, it's the content that matters. Given a £45k camera and poor content or a £200 handycam and good content, the good content will always be the winner. I've shot weddings in the past where the lighting and situation have been next to impossible and the end footage has been grainy and lacking in colour, but the couple have been ecstatic.

Your comment about the stills from the C100 being 2mp was interesting, as I have a couple of Panasonc SD750s which take 14mp stills and will take 13mp stills while taking video, just at the press of a button. Granted the sensors are small although they are 3mos cameras, but the stills are amazingly good for the size of the camera given reasonable lighting levels. I have even been asked to make an album from them before now, when the photographer's shots were a disaster.

Roger

[Chris Harding]

Greetings Roger

Sadly being a video forum we tend to get into the tech-head mindset when we are on here! Yes Roger you are so correct! I have seen disaster footage from people with cameras that cost more than I probably earn in a year! However most have no idea at all about basic movie making.

The big issue still seems to be the DSLR owner who becomes reasonably competent shooting stills when they discover that their camera can shoot video too. The immediate reaction is "Wow, I'm now a wedding videographer" ... Shooting motion pictures (if I may call it that) is completely different to shooting stills. Our era and passion for video has allowed us to learn the art of making moving pictures complete with the techniques and rules that apply only to movie making so our content is always appreciated by the bride!

The modern still photographer makes the transition simply because DSLR's can shoot video now, without any basic knowledge about film making. I can pick out the "transitioned" people easily ..Just watch the bridal prep video and you will see lots of shots of the rings, the shoes, the makeup bottles and perfumes .. all they are doing is shooting video of things they used to take stills of!! They have little to no idea of what camera movement is (besides pushing it across a slider) so all you get is a result that could quite easily be emulated using stills and panning across the image. Sadly even the most up to date camera shooting 4K footage cannot make this type of content any better and even simple rules like framing for video and eyeline position that we adjust for by habit are foreign to most people and ignored.

Chris

[Steve Burkett]

Roger / Chris, this is a Videographers forum and we can't be too surprised to see an emphasis on tech. As I said before, I go to my Brides to discuss content with them and I come here to discuss tech. Now tech isn't something to be dismissed lightly. We all use it to one degree or another and getting it done well is less impressing the Bride and more delivering a product that looks Professional. After all, for me it's not just the Bride who sees my video, the Groom too obviously, their family and in the case of a Trailer, their friends too. I see no reason to deliver work of a lesser production value on the theory the Bride cares only about content. No, she also expects a Professional looking video, otherwise she'd ask Uncle Bob to film it.

I do use DSLR's for filming. My main camera is a GH4 and I would not have it any other way. I am looking for something larger like a C100, but more for Corporate. I film using a monopod and the small form factor of the GH4 is less an obstacle and more supportive to my way of filming. I tried something larger a year or so ago and hated it. I don't expect some Videographers to feel the same way as our backgrounds and style of work will be different. However I can say that with my videos frequently topping 2 hours in length, I'm not exactly failing on the content.
Yes I love the tech, yes I can occasionally get arty farty as some put it, but I also work very hard to deliver a documentary style video that looks as good as well as covers all the elements of a Wedding.

[Roger Gunkel]

Hi Steve, I certainly wouldn't disagree that the tech is important, my point is that it is easy for some to get obsessed with the technical side and forget about the importance of the content. I want the technology to give my work a professional and high quality finish, but if the camerawork, flow and content is poor, the the technical quality ain't gonna save me! It's not a matter of offering work to a lesser production standard, we should achieve the highest technical standard that we can as I am sure most here do. But production standards include the content, and wedding clients won't notice if you filmed it on £50k cameras or £1k cameras, but they will notice if the content is wobbly, out of focus or missing parts they really wanted to see.

I do sympathise with you that you come on the forum to discuss the technical side, but let's not forget that this wedding and events section is equally open to discussing content, contracts, experiences etc aswell as the technical aspects.

Chris, your description of what many crossover photographers offer with video is absolutely what I feel. Applying some of the photographic techniques can be great used in conjunction with the story telling and movement necessary for video production, but too often it can look like a video slide show, when there is no knowledge of other requirements. There is a tendency to use the framing, focus and pose to add emotion in the way that a photograph does plus music dubbing, without understanding that it is the emotion and sound already present on the day that is there to be captured and crafted. That is where the strength of video lies when you are filming a wedding. Anything else becomes a different product in my opinion, with it's own place and style.

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I do sympathise with you that you come on the forum to discuss the technical side, but let's not forget that this wedding and events section is equally open to discussing content, contracts, experiences etc aswell as the technical aspects.
Roger

I appreciate discussions on content, contracts and experiences too. Such threads are very valuable and I read many of them and comment also when I have something to offer. However it's only the subject of tech that gets shot down and sometimes cut short with that oh so familiar line - 'aren't we forgetting it's all about content', 'we must remember it's what the Bride wants', 'the Bride wants good content, not a flashy video' etc etc. The other types of threads are never interrupted for covering what they cover. It's hardly big deal, just becoming a bit of a cliche now. I find myself groaning whenever I read a version of the above line.