Wedding Video Shot with FX1/Z1

[Douglas Villalba]

I shot this wedding Dec 3 with a Z1 and FX1 in HDV. I cut it in HDV then tranfered it to DVCPRO HD 720 and added the titles. Then I export it as a Sorenson 3 for the web.
It looks good when downloaded with a Mac, but can you downloaded and view it on PC? If you can, How does it look?

http://www.dvtvproductions.com/MOVIE..._Sorenson3.mov 150 MBs

[Kevin Shaw]

I was able to download and play this on a PC laptop with the latest version of Quicktime installed, but the download took longer than I think many people would accept for a web-based wedding demo. As far as image quality is concerned, some scenes looked good but others were only so-so, especially in terms of dynamic range and brightness (or lack thereof). Some of this may be due to limitations of the HDV format, but I wonder if any of this is also due to the process you used. Try comparing your sample to mine at the following link using less than half the bandwidth: I don't think you're getting much from the extra bits. (But maybe others will see something I don't.)

http://www.videomem.com/weddings/gor...highlights.wmv

[Chris Barcellos]

I am pleasanlty happy to see the results. The evening shots were seem to have held up pretty well. I also can imagine the interior of the church played hell with white balance issues, and I thought it was resolved decently. How did you white balance and fix your exposures. THis raises my expectations of the FX1 I bought.

Chris Barcellos

[Dave Lammey]

I am on a PC and was able to watch it, I thought the picture looked great. But why were you using a light at the ceremony? It didn't look like using a light was necessary. At one point there was a shot of some women in the crowd, and it didn't look like you used a light for that shot, but it came out fine. So I'm wondering why you felt it was necessary to use a light for the procession, even the bridal prep stuff.

(What was the wattage of the light you were using, by the way?)

And how did these cameras do at the reception?

Thanks for posting this clip, very helfpul.

[Douglas Villalba]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

I am pleasanlty happy to see the results. The evening shots were seem to have held up pretty well. I also can imagine the interior of the church played hell with white balance issues, and I thought it was resolved decently. How did you white balance and fix your exposures. THis raises my expectations of the FX1 I bought.

Chris Barcellos

We actually set all 3 cameras at 3200K pre-set. I didn't color correct it but if I needed to color correct it would have been the same with all the cameras instead of color correcting each one separatelly.

[Douglas Villalba]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

I was able to download and play this on a PC laptop with the latest version of Quicktime installed, but the download took longer than I think many people would accept for a web-based wedding demo. As far as image quality is concerned, some scenes looked good but others were only so-so, especially in terms of dynamic range and brightness (or lack thereof). Some of this may be due to limitations of the HDV format, but I wonder if any of this is also due to the process you used. Try comparing your sample to mine at the following link using less than half the bandwidth: I don't think you're getting much from the extra bits. (But maybe others will see something I don't.)

http://www.videomem.com/weddings/gor...highlights.wmv

On a Mac it actually starts playing in about 10 secs. The way to do it on a PC is:

Open QT then go to File>Open URL and type the page address and it starts playing as it downloads.

On a Mac the WMF has to finish downloading before it starts playing, so your small file takes longer for me.

As far as quality a laptop is always darker. I have a 720 LCD HD monitor and iit looks good in it. The only area that I see less detail is outside that it was totally dark and on the final Sorenson 3 compression it looses a lot. To tell you the truth the only WMF that look good on my Mac are the ones at full size HD.

[Douglas Villalba]

Originally Posted by Dave Lammey

I am on a PC and was able to watch it, I thought the picture looked great. But why were you using a light at the ceremony? It didn't look like using a light was necessary. At one point there was a shot of some women in the crowd, and it didn't look like you used a light for that shot, but it came out fine. So I'm wondering why you felt it was necessary to use a light for the procession, even the bridal prep stuff.

(What was the wattage of the light you were using, by the way?)

And how did these cameras do at the reception?

Thanks for posting this clip, very helfpul.

As a general rule you always use a light to fill the shadows under the eyes. I was using a 50 watts with a diffuser that cuts it to below 25 watts. On the opposite side my other cameraman was using another 50 watts without a diffuser that is why you notice it. It was a little over powering but it also gives it a 3D effect. Another thing that no one has made a comment is that we had to use gain and 1/30 sec. I personally like the feel of the 1/30sec speed and it helps with the low light levels.

[Kevin Shaw]

Wow, the second camera had a 50 watt lamp without a diffuser? That must have been uncomfortable for anyone in the line of fire! 50 watts with a diffuser is the most I would use at a wedding, and lately I've been trying to get by with 20 watts (diffused) to be less obtrusive.

Regarding the 1/30 shutter speed, I didn't watch closely enough to notice that, but I can see the consequences of this setting in my own HDV footage and try to avoid it for any scene where I expect a lot of motion. Even for someone just waving their hands the effect of the low shutter speed can be distracting, but if that's what it takes to get a usable exposure then it's nice to have the option. Just don't overuse it.

[Douglas Villalba]

If you think that 50 watts is uncomfortable what would you say about 2,000 watt during the reception? Oh, plus the 50 watts on camera light. LOL
I guess that wealthy people like to be in the spot light 'cause I get almost $6K for those weddings and I did 3 of those this month.
When you have been doing this for as long as I have you know what pays the bill and what is really uncomfortable.
A 20 watts light in a dark place is more uncomfortable than 2K watts correctly placed.
Also, I just downloaded the file as previously explained (PC Pention II 400 from early 2000) and it downloaded as fast as it did on my Mac. It sure looked dark on the LCD computer screen and it had a hard time keeping up with it.
I keep my HD LCD on the Mac balance to the Color Bars to make sure that what I see is what my customers get.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Douglas Villalba

If you think that 50 watts is uncomfortable what would you say about 2,000 watt during the reception? Oh, plus the 50 watts on camera light.

I can almost understand 2K watts properly placed to light the entire scene, but 50 watts undiffused right in someone's face? Ouch. I started out using a 10 watt undiffused light and quickly stopped because it made people visibly cringe on camera -- do you not have that problem with the 50 watt light?

[Chris Hurd]

Three to five watts has always been the limit for me for an onboard eye light.

[Douglas Villalba]

Now, tell me if you saw the video, How many watts do you think that the church had coming down from the ceiling coming straight down?
A simple guess is about 20 150 watts lights. That is 3K watts. What would a 20 watts light do?
Light drops in intensity in exponential proportions. For example a 100 watts light gives you X/1 lumens at 1 foot distance at 2 feet it gives you X/2 lumens at 3 ft it gives you X/4 at 4 ft is X/8. So a light at 4 ft needs to 8 times stronger than the light at 1 foot to be equal. you would need an 800 watts light to give you the same amount of light of the 100 watts light at 1 foot distance.
Another thing to consider is the reflector’s efficiency diffusing the light. Watts is power consumption not the amount of light that it gives. A 50 watts Frezzi gives you a different amount of light from other lights.
I let my customers know ahead of time is that what they like about my videos (quality) require lights. That is what photography means, painting with lights.
Going back to what you guys saw in the web demo, I can tell you that the difference in light is about 1 f-stop which is ideal. I my regular computer monitor it looks about 4 f-stops difference. In the actual video you can see the light balance through out the scence.

[Chris Barcellos]

Is what Doug telling us that to get a decent shot in an old church in HD, with standard lighting, you are going to have to supplement with lights. I'm not sure that would be needed with my VX2000. Doug- what were you shooting before the HD, and with what ?

Chris Barcellos

[Douglas Villalba]

I only used the 50 watts light for the isle that is a about 2 f-stops darker than the Altar. At the Altar I had 0 db Gain but at 1/30 sec speed. Some of the shots I used 24CF and 30 CF. I was just testing the capavilities of the FX1 that I had gotten a week before.
I shot the same way I would shoot with my JVC 500 or 300 with the difference of the lower speed capabilities.

[Dave Wagner]

Originally Posted by Douglas Villalba

As a general rule you always use a light to fill the shadows under the eyes. I was using a 50 watts with a diffuser that cuts it to below 25 watts. On the opposite side my other cameraman was using another 50 watts without a diffuser that is why you notice it. It was a little over powering but it also gives it a 3D effect. Another thing that no one has made a comment is that we had to use gain and 1/30 sec. I personally like the feel of the 1/30sec speed and it helps with the low light levels.

Hi Douglas,

Very nice footage. Clear and sharp. Do you always use lights when video taping inside? Have you found this to be necessary whenever using your HD cams?

Thanks!
Dave