|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 20th, 2006, 05:35 PM | #16 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 910
|
Quote:
The minister said it better than I can repeat, so I encoded that portion of the ceremony for you. He read the explanation after they poured the sand and after the song was over. To compress time and make the ceremony more enjoyable, we put his audio explanation of the sand ceremony in during the actual process. It's a way to compress time without losing anything, unless you just want to watch the minister say the words. Anyway here's the link. http://www.tulsaweddingvideos.com/vi...ndCeremony.wmv I actually use a 3063 head on that monopod. I have the same head on 5 other tripods and I have the same quick release plate on my Glidecam, Scorpion Support, and 685B monopod, so it just makes sense to use the same head. I don't use the 682B for traditional monopod shooting. I only use it for those high shots. For traditional monopod shooting we use the 685B, which actually allows you to do a smooth pan without a head. The top handle rotates seperately from the shaft of the monopod. It is great. I haven't see the 560B. |
|
September 20th, 2006, 05:36 PM | #17 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 910
|
Quote:
You are welcome. |
|
September 20th, 2006, 05:43 PM | #18 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 910
|
Quote:
Thanks for the kind words. My style was influence by others who I admired. The key is to not merely copy someone else but take what they are doing and add some of your own personality to it. We would love to have you down in Tulsa for a workshop. I understand about cash flow, so since October and Novemeber won't work for you, we will be announcing more dates for next year. I like your attitude. You are just what we need more of in our industry. |
|
September 20th, 2006, 06:34 PM | #19 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 1,585
|
That chandelier shot was amazing. The rest was great, of course. I've always enjoyed watching your stuff.
Is it pretty standard for you to do an entire highlights in slow motion? I use a fair amount, but don't think I've ever done one completely like that. I do notice from watching the work of our friends to the south, that you seem to use more than we do. Maybe we're used to seeing things jump around in the cold more. Heh, heh... One thing I admire is your ability to use voiceover in highlights effectively. I think 90% of the time when I see that, I feel that it doesn't work, but you manage to make it work very well. Thanks for posting. Enjoyed it greatly... |
September 20th, 2006, 07:55 PM | #20 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 220
|
Hey guys,
By the way, I just happened to visit Mark's site and saw that he has a new training DVD out called The Art of the Edit. It looks like his introductory price is ending tonight so check it out if you'd like formal training from Mark Von Lanken himself ;) I think his work speaks for itself and he's willing to share his techniques to help the industry improve as a whole. Anyways, thought some of you may be interested :) I'm in! |
September 21st, 2006, 10:38 AM | #21 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 910
|
Quote:
Thanks for your kind words. Yes, it is pretty standard for us to do a majority of the Highlight in slow motion. The exception would be if the couple selected a fast song. I think the topic of slow motion could be best covered in a new thread, so I'll start one. My wife, Trisha, is the voice over master at Picture This. She is the one that decides what to use and more importantly, what not to use. She also decides where it would best fit. If you want to see a great example of Trisha's mastery of voice over look Cinemtaic Closing on our website. She trimmed back what the parents said and used cutaways to cover the edits. When she had to really edit what they said it goes totally to video and you don't see much of the person talking. You would not belive how many times the Bride said "and um". ;-) Another example of great use of voice over is the Windows version of the Cinematic Highlight. |
|
September 21st, 2006, 12:45 PM | #22 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 64
|
Truly inspiring Mark. Very impressive!
What songs did you use for the SDE and highlight!! |
September 22nd, 2006, 01:28 PM | #23 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 910
|
Quote:
Thanks. The SDE was two songs from the Meet Joe Black soundtrack. The highlight was from the Lake House soundtrack. |
|
September 23rd, 2006, 10:35 AM | #24 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 149
|
Thanks for letting us know what cams you used Mark. I've been on the fence about getting either PD170 or the FX1. I still am on the fence. :) The fottage from your PDs looked great. I've been shooting with an XL1 for years and I do beg to differ with this: :)
"Over the years I have learned it doesn't matter as much which camera you use, but how you use it." After this quote, your post did go on to acknowledge the issue of 3 chips and light sensitivity. I love my Canon WHEN I HAVE GOOD LIGHT TO WORK WITH. In the darker shots in your highlight reel I'm sure the Canon wouldn't be able to provide any useful images in that available light (even with the gain cranked and playing with shutter speeds). I've done wedding over the years but have been working in pro video (or teaching production) for 20 years. I'm just now setting out to start a full-time biz specializing in (mostly) weddings. I'll be making a camera purchase to be used starting in spring. I'm still trying to figure which cam to get. Thanks again for sharing your PD footage. Looks great. -Don |
September 23rd, 2006, 12:53 PM | #25 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 910
|
Quote:
I shot with the XL-1 for 5 years. It is a good camera when you have enough light. That's a tough choice between the 170 and an FX-1. I do not have much experience with the FX-1, but I have heard people compare it with the XL-1 when dicussing light sensitivity. I don't personally know how accurate that comparison is. If low light is your primary concern, it's an easy choice, the 170. The downside to the 170 is of course the DV format and 4x3. If you want to buy new cameras in the spring and keep them for 3-5 years, I think you have to go with the FX-1 to future proof you purchase. If you do purchase new 170s in the spring, be willing to take a potential big loss on them when you sell to upgrade to HDV. Two of my three cameras are 3 years old. I'm hoping the new version of the Z-1/FX-1, you know the ones that are better in low light, will come to market before I have to replace my aging cameras. Time will tell. |
|
September 23rd, 2006, 01:41 PM | #26 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 149
|
Thanks Mark. You have cited all of the factors I've been considering. I know 2 people that own the FX1 and they say its OK in low-light because if you crank the gain you get no noise.
I am looking to buy something I can use for a few years. I'm going to a trade show on Tuesday where there will be many vendors (Sony, JC, etc.). I hope I'll get a chance to see the FX1 in low light. I do realize that if I but PD170 it won't be worth much in a year or two. I think you have been another person to suggest that, considering my situation, the FX may be the way to go. I wonder how the FX would have done in the low-light situations you included in your highlight clip. (?) I am also hoping that the next HDV cams to come out will be better in low-light. Time will tell. :) Thanks again. -Don |
September 23rd, 2006, 02:25 PM | #27 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 220
|
I have seen footage from an FX1 in low light. While it is not as sensitive as the PD170, your friend is right in that the noise is almost not noticeable and you can crank the grain and it looks really good.
I plan on getting an FX1 on my next camera purchase. |
| ||||||
|
|