|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 21st, 2006, 06:59 PM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 187
|
Posting my first clip
Hi all,
This forum has been and continues to be a tremendous resource for me in all production areas. A big thanks to those who post examples of their work here in the wedding forum. It's always great to see members' work and read the constructive criticism provided. This is the 3rd wedding under out belts. It's amazing how much you learn with each new one. I've posted links in Quicktime and Flash format (not my favorite, but gaining popularity recently with Flash 8's use of the VP6 encoder). Flash 8 version: http://www.brainzstorm.com/weddings/...rekandlin.html Quicktime 7 version (H.264): http://www.brainzstorm.com/weddings/...erekandlin.mov We used an FX1 and a PD170. We shot HDV on the FX1 and down- converted to SD during capture. The PD170 was set to 16:9 mode. Many factors led to this rather non-optimized solution, but it's what worked best for us cost-wise and workflow-wise. Matching footage from the two cameras was no problem. Just remember to white balance when using multiple cameras! Somehow our settings didn't match up during the banquet and that resulted in extra time spent color correcting in post. An effort was made to be as efficient in the edit as possible. I was trying to work out the economics of wedding videography and it really doesn't add up. I was was shooting for the following numbers: 2 shooters x 16 hrs = 32 hrs Highlight Edit = 10 hrs Full length Edit = 10 hrs DVD design / authoring / burning = 2 hrs Package design / printing = 3 hrs * I don't count the 8 hrs of capture because that's not really work! The highlight video took me about twice the amount of time I was shooting for. Not good enough. Divide the price by the total man-hours worked and the wage is pretty abysmal. I'm interested in the average time you guys spend in post until you are satisfied each "masterpiece". Should I just go and get a job at McDonald's instead? The couple wanted at least a 10-minute highlight. We think the ideal length is around 7 or 8 minutes. It was probably a mistake to promise them the 10-minute cut because I had to stretch for footage and it became a bit repetitive. However, it's hard to say no to something like that when you're just starting out. Thanks for your comments and feedback. Cheers |
May 21st, 2006, 08:09 PM | #2 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento, Elk Grove. Calif
Posts: 306
|
First post
Nice job!
I can't see how wedding videographers can make a living with the hours that it takes to do decent work. People don't understand that. I have done a couple of weddings for free for friends - basically as a wedding present. But I sure didn't get to enjoy the ceremonies! My basic video direction is with the local fire department - training and educational videos. Question: Why did you use both HD and SD and mix them together? I can see doing HD and downconverting to SD for delivery currently (saving the HD version for when there is a practical delivery method) or shooting all SD (widescreen) (does the FX1 do that?). But with the mix you can't go back to HD with the program and I'm sure that it complicated the editing. Just wondered?
__________________
Puttin the wet stuff on the red stuff! |
May 21st, 2006, 08:40 PM | #3 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 99
|
I thought it was great. I did notice a few things though.
1) How was the sepia tone /w color flowers effect achieved? 2) I'm not sure using modern music in the wedding video is a good idea. For now it works great, but in 20 years, I'd probably throw up listening to it. I normally for timeless stuff, (Nora Jones of course). 3) I liked a lot of the shots you used and I'll have to use some of those the next time I do a wedding. I especially liked the short shot of them in the reflection of the car.
__________________
Videography Blog - http://www.video.thirdprong.com/blog/ |
May 22nd, 2006, 02:17 AM | #4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 187
|
Terry: There were several reasons I went with the HDV/SD mix. I own an FX-1, and we rented a PD170 because a) a Z1 costs more, and b) we were a bit worried about unexpected low-light situations, since we didn't have a camera light. The PD170 is still king of low light. So since the FX1 is native 16:9, we shot 16:9 on the PD170 and downconverted the HDV during capture (gives a slightly nicer picture I think). The resulting footage can all be dropped into a 16:9 SD timeline. We don't have the hardware to edit HDV yet, so that was never a consideration.
One thing that jumps out at me is the native 16:9 footage compared to the PD170. I can pick out every shot that originated from FX1. What a difference. Brian: The sepia tone with the color flowers is a simple 2-minute job in After Effects. Sepia the clip and drop it on the timeline. Drop the same clip on the next layer and draw a quick mask around the flower. Since it's a static locked off shot (the flowers don't move), this was an easy job. Thanks for the feedback. |
May 22nd, 2006, 09:34 AM | #5 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA
Posts: 1,675
|
Quote:
|
|
May 22nd, 2006, 10:07 AM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 275
|
Hey, great work! I know the location well. I did someshort films there.
Just a few questions, howd you record the vows? I didnt see any mics on them. just curious. And I've never heard this rendition of Canon in D. Did you get someone to perform it for you? Its really good considering its only a single piano. Other than that, good stuff. |
May 25th, 2006, 11:01 AM | #8 |
New Boot
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Studio City, California
Posts: 14
|
Song
Hi Eric:
Great job. Can you tell me what the name of the first piece of music in your video is. Thanks, Clarence |
May 25th, 2006, 12:36 PM | #9 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bowie, MD
Posts: 74
|
Nice job! Nice cars they had too :) The backdrop was awesome.
Were some of your tracking shots handheld or did you use a stabilizer? |
May 25th, 2006, 03:48 PM | #10 |
New Boot
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16
|
Hi all!
An excellent clip... ill try to achieve something like this in my next work :P Did you notice the vigneting on the FX1 takes?? When i buyed my FX1, spent a lot of time speaking with the technical service about that... everybody from Sony didnt see the problem and try to explain me that there isnt vigneting at all. They changed my first camera, but the new one has the same vigneting. I see this problem happens to all FX1. |
May 25th, 2006, 04:11 PM | #11 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 187
|
Hey everyone, thanks for all the comments so far. I'll try to answer all the questions that have been asked.
Audio for the vows: we miked the officiant, had the stock PD170 mike onboard, and also tapped into the officiant's wireless system. The result? Let's just say it was less than optimal. It was very windy outside, the wireless system kept dropping out, the bride was a bit nervous and forgot some of her vows and had to be prompted. Basically, only the people right in front of the altar could hear what was going on. Our solution? ADR! The couple was totally cool about it, so we just met up afterwards and recorded a clean version of the vows. I think it made the resulting video much more polished, although not a true representation of what happened that day. The tracking shots were done with a Glidecam 2000. I basically shot with it all day long. Boy, was my arm tired at the end - I did not have a forearm brace. Jose - regarding the vignetting. I can assure you that my FX1 does not vignette at all. The effect you see was added in post using Magic Bullet misfire vignette. I chose to give it that look. I have not heard of the FX1 vignetting on the stock lens - I doubt Sony would allow something like that to happen. You can't go wrong with the backdrop in Sydney - everywhere is just spectacular. It also doesn't hurt that you get a 95% chance of sunny weather! Now I'm back in rainy Vancouver, BC, and I really miss that. I'll reply privately to those who asked about song selection. Thanks, Eric |
May 25th, 2006, 07:55 PM | #12 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bowie, MD
Posts: 74
|
Wow, using the G2K all day w/no forearm brace must've been painful! The shots looked pretty good though.
|
May 25th, 2006, 10:22 PM | #13 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
Im planning to buy the glidecam but might only use it for specific parts of weddings. Did you use any other support? |
|
May 25th, 2006, 11:06 PM | #14 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MOSCOW
Posts: 860
|
""Should I just go and get a job
at McDonald's instead?"" May I ask you what was the budget for the project? |
May 26th, 2006, 01:13 AM | #15 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 187
|
Billy: Yes, I literally did shoot with the Glidecam all day. Not because I chose to, but because I had just gotten my Glidecam and haven't had a chance to pick up a quick release adapter yet. Since you don't really have time to try to balance a rig during the day, it was all or nothing. I chose to shoot with it because who can resist playing with a new toy? It actually isn't as bad as it sounds because when you're not flying the rig, you can just hold it with your other hand and it's just like going handheld. The lesson here is to definitely have a quick release adapter so you can pop your camera on/off quickly. If possible, get an adapter with a plate that fits your tripod head. (e.g. I now own a 503 head with a Manfrotto 577 QR adapter).
The second cam was either handheld or on the Miller DS-10 tripod. Oleg: I'm embarrased to say the price for this one. We basically did it just to get another one for the showreel (it was only our 3rd wedding ever). But in the future, we plan to charge $1500-2000 (CDN) for a standard package: 2-camera shoot, highlight video, full-day edit, DVD extras (slideshows, etc). |
| ||||||
|
|