Wedding videography advice

[Parker]

43 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Don't Mormons allow filming inside the Temple?

Nope, definitely not. Only Mormons can go inside, and certainly no filming or anything like that would be allowed. For a typical Utah Mormon wedding video I film a romantic/stylized bridals session/first look thing, b-roll of the temple grounds, which are always very lovely, then the couple coming out of the temple to family cheering, hugs, etc. Then it's off to the reception for the cake/garter/bouquet/dancing and exit. And they're all just exactly like that, so sometimes it's hard to make them seem different. It's nice not to have to worry as much about the audio of all the speeches and ceremonies and more traditional wedding stuff like the rest of y'all though. 

[dbp]

That sounds really pleasant actually, the most stressful parts of the wedding video removed. Sign me up!

[Jimmy]

Thanks for all the great advice. It really is very helpful.

The C100 ii certainly ticks the right boxes and I have used the c300 on shoots, so know the system well (why the c300 didn't get 1080/60p, I'll never know).

I started out as a sound guy, so completely agree that will be a big part, some great tips on setup... thanks again to everyone!

[Axel]

I shot one wedding with my Pocket. It has a notoriously bad internal mic, utterly useless even for reference audio in most cases. Being a one-man-band and not into wiring anyone (which I did on one occasion, good audio, but too much interference and affected "performances" too much, aside from being a hassle), I was thinking about a "lenshopper" and my usual two Zoom H1's I place or ask people to hold. I researched and found a product from german private inventor Wolfgang Winne, then called Ohrwurm (ear worm), in my case the particularly ugly big headset with the ridiculous dead cats that makes you look like an idiot. I plugged one cable into the phone jack, the other to the mic jack, set the mic level manually to 70% once, done! The microphones have an incredible dynamic range, capturing quiet sounds with no noise and don't clip or distort below 130 dB (that's when it starts to hurt). They are practically dummy head mics that let you record what you hear. I originally planned to get useable reference sound for the Zooms (mono recording), but I didn't use their sound at all.

The smaller earwigs have no headphone-control (I don't know them personally), but they have a very good reputation. Even if you mistrust them for the final audio, they will deliver better audio than any built-in camera mic. 

[Cinegain]

5 hours ago, Parker said:

Weddings are kind of my bread and butter. Like most people here I started on Canon DSLRs, but eventually went mirrorless. While I've shot quite a few with the GH4 and A7s i/ii, my tried-and-true favorite combination for weddings for the last 2 years or so is my NX1 with a battery grip (battery life for days!) on a benro monopod. The 4k is fantastic, the 60p is excellent and the 120p is very good. For glass, probably 99% of the time I'm using either the sigma 18-35 or the rokinon 85mm. I have an SLR magic variable ND with xume magnetic filter holders, so I can just clop it on and off any lenses i use in half a second, very convenient for the running and gunning of weddings. Who needs internal NDs when it's that easy. 

For steadicam shots, lately I keep an NX500 with a rokinon 12mm on a zhiyun crane ready to go in my bag when I need some cool camera movement. I've pared down my wedding kit so that I can carry it all with me all the time(peak design everyday messenger for the win!) I have  a nasty habit of setting things down in the moment, forgetting about them, losing them, etc. and it's just so much of a hassle to have too much gear. I've done the whole ronin thing, extra lights, all the lenses I MIGHT need, but then you have the risk of that stuff laying around when you're not using it, just not worth it for me, especially since most of the time I'm a one-man-band.

Like everyone is saying, audio is important (I live in Utah, i.e. lots of Mormons here, so I don't actually film too many ceremonies, just the happy couple coming out of the temple) but for the odd ceremony it's really not too much trouble to throw a Sennheiser g3 or something similar on the priest, and line-out record the house audio with any recorder you want for backup and you're golden. I just don't see much of a reason to over-complicate things. Weddings are easy. Pretty fun too. Good luck! 

Sounds like you could've been Parker Walbeck. Devin Graham's trusty shooter.

 

15 minutes ago, Axel said:

I shot one wedding with my Pocket. It has a notoriously bad internal mic, utterly useless even for reference audio in most cases. Being a one-man-band and not into wiring anyone (which I did on one occasion, good audio, but too much interference and affected "performances" too much, aside from being a hassle), I was thinking about a "lenshopper" and my usual two Zoom H1's I place or ask people to hold. I researched and found a product from german private inventor Wolfgang Winne, then called Ohrwurm (ear worm), in my case the particularly ugly big headset with the ridiculous dead cats that makes you look like an idiot. I plugged one cable into the phone jack, the other to the mic jack, set the mic level manually to 60% once, done! The microphones have an incredible dynamic range, capturing quiet sounds with no noise and don't clip or distort  below 130 dB (that's when it starts to hurt). They are practically dummy head mics that let you record what you hear. I originally planned to get useable reference sound for the Zooms (mono recording), but I didn't use their sound at all.

The smaller earwigs have no headphone-control (I don't know them personally), but they have a very good reputation. Even if you mistrust them for the final audio, they will deliver better audio than any built-in camera mic. 

Man, I'm waiting on the Instamics to ship out! https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/instamic-the-smartest-microphone-ready-to-record-video-music#/

[Axel]

7 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Man, I'm waiting on the Instamics to ship out! https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/instamic-the-smartest-microphone-ready-to-record-video-music#/

They can count on me as a customer! This is the kind of simplicity I admire. 

[Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Axel said:

They can count on me as a customer! This is the kind of simplicity I admire. 

Wow, impressive sound for such a small device. I agree, I love simple technology. Some of my clients (usually people giving speeches) aren't very comfortable being 'miced up' but these would be painless (and quick!)

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, Jimmy said:

The C100 ii certainly ticks the right boxes and I have used the c300 on shoots, so know the system well (why the c300 didn't get 1080/60p, I'll never know).

 

The reason why is because......  Canon!

 

I'd suggest spend a bit more for the Sony FS5 over the C100 mk2, as the FS5 is an even better run and gun camera with even more features, but also capable of being so much more.  You can rig it up and get raw out of it as well!

[Jimmy]

I've been down that route with the fs700 and odyssey. Even with raw, the skintones left me a little unhappy.

Maybe the FS5 has improved that. Will take a look at some samples. 

Think the combo would be a bit unwieldy for weddings though.

[ade towell]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The reason why is because......  Canon!

 

I'd suggest spend a bit more for the Sony FS5 over the C100 mk2, as the FS5 is an even better run and gun camera with even more features, but also capable of being so much more.  You can rig it up and get raw out of it as well!

It's not just spending a bit more - you can get a c100 mk2 and 2 x c100 mk1 with dpaf for the price of a Sony fs5 which is £6k here in the Uk. And then you've got to wrestle with slog to get anything nice out of the camera. The c100 is as already stated perfect for weddings 

[dbp]

15 hours ago, Axel said:

I shot one wedding with my Pocket. It has a notoriously bad internal mic, utterly useless even for reference audio in most cases. Being a one-man-band and not into wiring anyone (which I did on one occasion, good audio, but too much interference and affected "performances" too much, aside from being a hassle), I was thinking about a "lenshopper" and my usual two Zoom H1's I place or ask people to hold. I researched and found a product from german private inventor Wolfgang Winne, then called Ohrwurm (ear worm), in my case the particularly ugly big headset with the ridiculous dead cats that makes you look like an idiot. I plugged one cable into the phone jack, the other to the mic jack, set the mic level manually to 70% once, done! The microphones have an incredible dynamic range, capturing quiet sounds with no noise and don't clip or distort below 130 dB (that's when it starts to hurt). They are practically dummy head mics that let you record what you hear. I originally planned to get useable reference sound for the Zooms (mono recording), but I didn't use their sound at all.

I'm about to order this mic for the pocket. It's cheap and plugs discreetly into the mic port. Obviously not great for any real sound, but it'll increase the quality of the onboard sound and actually make it usable. Handy for weddings, and one of the reasons why I avoided using the pocket before. 

[Axel]

5 hours ago, dbp said:

I'm about to order this mic for the pocket. It's cheap and plugs discreetly into the mic port. Obviously not great for any real sound, but it'll increase the quality of the onboard sound and actually make it usable. Handy for weddings, and one of the reasons why I avoided using the pocket before. 

Try it, and then report your experience. I am sceptic because shooting a wedding implies a lot of hand held camera (to move fast and get into narrow places or between the guests). Though I am quite good at avoiding shaky camera even with the tiny Pocket (my first challenge was to learn to hold right), it's tiring. If a mic was mounted to the camera directly, it had to have a shock mount and be a shotgun, otherwise I would hear my pressed breathing and noises from focus manipulations right before the mic. An earwig isolates these influences. If there was an unidirectional version, it would be even better for voices. 

[Jimmy]

I forgot to mention that I will have an assistant on most weddings. This is why part of me was leaning towards an XC15 as an option, it seems to be a camera that I could give to someone who is less experienced with video (photography background)... use the AF and stablisation and still get nice shots and audio.

Maybe an S lens on the NX1 would be a good option though?

[Kisaha]

Yes, the 16-50 2-2.8f is perfect for that, a workhorse really, and can be found for -relatively- cheap. Yes, the XC15 would be amazing as a B cam, but you have the a7s already and NX can be your B, or A (straight 73minutes recording, no heating issues) and it is not exactly cheap for a small sensor and a few features missing. 

3 cameras are too many to add another! Something has to go, and if you really want to buy something (I definitely would with such a big contract!) I would consider the Canon C100mkII with a 18-135 STM, it mixes very nice with the NX (you can have a prime lens for this one if you don't want to invest more, the 30 and 45 are nice, the 16-50S is unbelivably versatile as well) and you still can do great low light stuff with the C100.

[Arikhan]

@jacoblewis

Quote

We use NX1's for everything. www.velare.tv

How do you handle extreme low contrast and low light situations with the nx1? I just ask, because I use the NX1 too, and in low light + low contrast the camera falls apart...For example quite dark church, additional lighting NOT allowed?

[Parker]

1 hour ago, Arikhan said:

@jacoblewis

How do you handle extreme low contrast and low light situations with the nx1? I just ask, because I use the NX1 too, and in low light + low contrast the camera falls apart...For example quite dark church, additional lighting NOT allowed?

Not who you asked, but I really find the NX1 quite useable in all but the most pitch black of situations. With an 85mm T1.5 on there, especially combined with the new speedbooster I recently purchased from @lucabutera, which gives a further stop in light gain, I never have to take things above even 1000 ISO really, and normally I'm far, far below that. I really doubt you're going to be filming in a church that is darker than what ~T1.2 and 1000 ISO can illuminate. Worst case, filming in 4k, if it's a static scene drop the shutter from 1/50 to 1/30 and you can soak in even more light. Sonys are cool, but I pretty much never need anything higher than 1600. That would be one crazy dark wedding. 

[Kisaha]

@Parker what you said, and the native lenses are fine too, the 45 is 1.8, the 30/2f, the 16-50 2(!)-2.8f, e.t.c

Even for the after parties, if you "search" for the light, it is ok, I have done it with even cheap zoom lenses (3.5-5.6 for church and parties and 4-5.6 inside the church). 

There wasn't a time in motion pictures history that you didn't need some kind of lighting. Even Kubrick with his special lenses was putting candles everywhere!

 if you don't mind, it would be nice to add an NX-L review in the NX subforum, there are a lot of us that are waiting for a credible review of the speedbooster!

[Arikhan]

@Parker

Parker, even with a 1.2 lens, sometimes we want - depending on composition and set - to film with 4.0 or even smaller aperture. So, in such cases a "fast" lens doens't help anything. In such cases, it' s a high ISO performance of a camera and image processing and handling in low light witch helps.
I've made some tests in very decent light and very low contrast which shocked me...OK, it were tests about stills at 1/200 shutter, where the NX1 broke completely down...much worse than the old 7D, for example...Broken colors, noise, etc. And this with 45mm 1.8. I'll post next week some comparison with 5D III, 7D II, 7D...
I love my NX1...but - in STILLS - it's a miserable failure in decent light and low contrast. Also it often fails focusing in low light. After getting my new D750 in the next days, I will post some comparative images. Please note, I speak about STILLS...

It has curious behaviour: For example in "candle light tests", it gets enough contrast (with the bright candle light) and performs not so bad (in STILLS). But without contrast, it's more than bad...

[Parker]

5 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@Parker

Parker, even with a 1.2 lens, sometimes we want - depending on composition and set - to film with 4.0 or even smaller aperture. So, in such cases a "fast" lens doens't help anything. In such cases, it' s a high ISO performance of a camera and image processing and handling in low light witch helps.
I've made some tests in very decent light and very low contrast which shocked me...OK, it were tests about stills at 1/200 shutter, where the NX1 broke completely down...much worse than the old 7D, for example...Broken colors, noise, etc. And this with 45mm 1.8. I'll post next week some comparison with 5D III, 7D II, 7D...
I love my NX1...but - in STILLS - it's a miserable failure in decent light and low contrast. Also it often fails focusing in low light. After getting my new D750 in the next days, I will post some comparative images. Please note, I speak about STILLS...

It has curious behaviour: For example in "candle light tests", it gets enough contrast (with the bright candle light) and performs not so bad (in STILLS). But without contrast, it's more than bad...

Interesting, I'd like to see your comparisons, as it's not a problem I have noticed, and I do use my NX1 extensively for stills as well. What would constitute a super low contrast scene exactly? Shooting directly into the sun/washing everything out? I typically tend to underexpose (which I suppose would innately make things more contrasty) since the sensor protects shadow detail so well, but highlights burn easily (also speaking only of stills here). And I do understand the need for high ISO of course, but personally I almost always shoot my lenses wide open, just the aesthetic I prefer for my work. Being able to stop down and deepen the depth of field without worrying about noise is certainly an advantage though, especially when the cam is on a gimbal or moving quite a bit, Unfortunately a luxury NX users don't have! 

Keeping on topic though, for me personally, other than lusting after some sweet 4k 60P that it unfortunately can't provide, the NX1 truly brings everything to the table that I need in a wedding camera. YMMV of course. 

@Kisaha I'm planning on posting my opinion of the NX-L in the next couple days! I've been using it quite a bit for a variety of different work, I'll be posting screenshots. I really like it so far though! 

[HelsinkiZim]

I have been filming weddings for 10 years. Ask yourself:

Am I beauty or am I documentary?

If you are beauty then go with full frame (doesn't matter by whom, get shallow DOF).

If you are doc, then get a c100.

Develop an instinct for schedule changes. eg. When everyone is going to the next room, and when. Even if on paper,, it always changes. Ask people where they are going and why.

Coordinate with the bride's best friend. Groom knows nothing and his friends are there to get wasted.

Develop a signal so your. B cam can. Go wide when u go telephoto eg. Ring on finger

Everything on slider, tripod or gimbal. Go hand held at your own peril.

Seek perfection.

Oh, and don't fuck up the dance by being embarrassed to light it.