Wedding videography advice

[Chris Oh]

To kind of piggy back on this topic, what would your gear list be if you were first starting out as a wedding videographer for small weddings, with a budget of $1000 USD? I'm serious.

(I'm piggy backing, because there are a lot of good information here, in regards to wedding videos already.)

[Kisaha]

10-15000€ are small budgeted? Where are you living?!

[Dave Maze]

On 11/28/2016 at 10:34 AM, mercer said:

That looks great, man. Which camera did the hanger shot and what lens?

Also, was that all c-log?

1DC with my contax Zeiss 50mm 1.4 

 

all c log

[ricardo_sousa11]

I havent read all the comments, so what im gonna say might have been said already.

I own an NX1 and a7sII right now, although I barely used the a7sII, because im waiting for some lenses to arrive, from what I've tested, I dont think ill like it as much as the NX1. I have seen people using and creating beautifull things with the Sony, so im sure you can eventually make stunning stuff, but off the bat, the footage isnt as impressive as the NX1. Also, after getting the 16-50s, I dont feel like I need anyother lenses at all, it hasnt left my camera in quite a while (I had Sigma art 35,50mm, sigma 18-35mm, samyangs, tamrons etc), so you kinda have a full package with around 2k€, which is stunning. With the a7sII, you will need a combination of cameras, and some time to learn how to grade (if you dont know already) and treat your image, but its still an amazing camera.

NX1 footage :

 

[Axel]

@ricardo_sousa11

Beautiful clip, exquisite style. But imo too flat, dark and desaturated to judge the camera's DR and colors. As I see it, you successfully managed to work around the NX1's prominent feature, overly sharp outlines in every detail, mistaken for superior resolution and not looking natural. Search on Youtube Samsung NX1 wedding, and you see what I mean in many instances. You tamed the beast, but your approach is not that of a normal highkey wedding with vivid colors. I even found the fir needles @1'30" a little too much.

[ricardo_sousa11]

6 hours ago, Axel said:

@ricardo_sousa11

Beautiful clip, exquisite style. But imo too flat, dark and desaturated to judge the camera's DR and colors. As I see it, you successfully managed to work around the NX1's prominent feature, overly sharp outlines in every detail, mistaken for superior resolution and not looking natural. Search on Youtube Samsung NX1 wedding, and you see what I mean in many instances. You tamed the beast, but your approach is not that of a normal highkey wedding with vivid colors. I even found the fir needles @1'30" a little too much.

This was a specific clip to go for a moddy style, but you can go for a more vibrant style very easily and it still looks great.

 

Most people who did get the NX1 arent good, they were consumers who wanted a camera, very few prosumers/professionals actually got the NX1, so i'd pick carefully what you're watching online, because most of it is going to look terrible.

[Axel]

1 hour ago, ricardo_sousa11 said:

This was a specific clip to go for a moddy style, but you can go for a more vibrant style very easily and it still looks great.

Not very vibrant either (Mara-smile). It seems to mimic some film stock, has grain and the colors looks like from the 70's. Admit that's it's highly stylized. Skin is rare, but in CUs it looks peculiar (1'37"). And everything that's perfectly in focus looks embossed almost as if like for AAE's cartoon effect.

Don't get me wrong, YOUR work is perfect. But imo the NX1 is not the right tool for everbody. 

[Cary Knoop]

2 hours ago, ricardo_sousa11 said:

This was a specific clip to go for a moddy style, but you can go for a more vibrant style very easily and it still looks great.

 

I think your black levels are way too high.

 

[Axel]

16 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

I think your black levels are way too high.

Needed for the analog look. As soon as the black slug was projected on the screen after the lights went down, the screen became brighter. So much for the allegedly higher DR in classic cinema.

[Cary Knoop]

5 minutes ago, Axel said:

Needed for the analog look. As soon as the black slug was projected on the screen after the lights went down, the screen became brighter. So much for the allegedly higher DR in classic cinema.

Sorry but that does not make any sense to me.

If we look at the scope it is clear the black levels are wrong:

[Cinegain]

To me that clearly seems a stylistic choice. I'm more drawn to wedding videos that are a little more cheerful, upbeat, happy, bubbly, but that does tend to get a little cliché. So, I admire the spin on it, to make it a little more dramatic yet mellow. There's a calmness, it's peaceful/serene. The grade reflects that. It's not another overly energetic video, it's not poppy. Certainly that's something that some couples can appreciate, also pretty sure that's something that wouldn't fit the personalities of other couples. But when you're talking about taste and creative choice, anything is subjective. So I wouldn't go and say that's wrong.

[mercer]

@Cinegain "...it's not poopy." Haha! You say some funny poop sometimes.

[ricardo_sousa11]

4 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

Sorry but that does not make any sense to me.

If we look at the scope it is clear the black levels are wrong:

The filmic look comes from dynamic range, but unfortunately not all cameras have enough to have that filmic look, therefore we raise the black levels to mimic that style. Its a stylistic choice, I dont like vibrant looks, to me, thats as vibrant as I would go. But I dont think its the cameras fault, its as versatile as any other camera.

This is a friends work, also with NX1 :

I think the NX1 has a much more pleasing look than any of the sonys for example, specially after trying my new a7sII, its very easy to have terrible skin tones.

[Axel]

9 hours ago, ricardo_sousa11 said:

This is a friends work, also with NX1 :

(Karli & Casey - video)

I think the NX1 has a much more pleasing look than any of the sonys for example, specially after trying my new a7sII, its very easy to have terrible skin tones.

Yeah. 

What I again notice in every perfectly focussed shot is the terrible sharpening. Perhaps a strong ProMist filter could help against the sharpening? 

[ricardo_sousa11]

On 09/12/2016 at 6:13 AM, Axel said:

Yeah. 

What I again notice in every perfectly focussed shot is the terrible sharpening. Perhaps a strong ProMist filter could help against the sharpening? 

Sharpening is an issue, some people apply blur on post, you could try some ProMist and it should work fine, but i've never done it myself.

[Arikhan]

@Axel

People criticize Canon for "soft" 1080p IQ. OK...When getting very sharp footage (eg out of the NX1), they soften it artificially. I've often seen many mushy pixel soups out of the NX and I ask myself about the sense of shooting sharp and detailed footage (people like crisp sharp 8K footage out of the RED too...) for ruining it in post...If one likes soft and grainy footage, one just need to use a 6D. Perfect soft and undetailed footage out of the camera...Please consider, I am still quite young and unexperienced, but in my eyes that's quite absurd...

I never met a person saying: "What a beautiful mushy footage...". People around me say: "What a beautiful crisp footage...". OK, people saying this are not filmmakers but spectators - and still I tend to trust them...

@ricardo_sousa11

The Aflatis-Films footage out of the NX1 is gorgeous...Your friend handles the Samsung and its colours very well....

[aldolega]

I think it's as simple as those two examples representing the two opposite extremes, and people here want something more in the middle- a detailed image without artificial sharpening making it look gross.

6D footage has issues outside of resolution and sharpening- mainly awful moire and aliasing- and you can't really fix them.

[Cary Knoop]

On 12/8/2016 at 0:50 PM, ricardo_sousa11 said:

The filmic look comes from dynamic range, but unfortunately not all cameras have enough to have that filmic look, therefore we raise the black levels to mimic that style. Its a stylistic choice, I dont like vibrant looks, to me, thats as vibrant as I would go.

Of course if that is your preferred taste then you should continue doing that.  But I would not equate that look with 'film'.

I suppose you are not a technicolor fan?

 

 

[Axel]

13 hours ago, aldolega said:

I think it's as simple as those two examples representing the two opposite extremes, and people here want something more in the middle- a detailed image without artificial sharpening making it look gross.

Not exactly. I also don't like blurry images. I'm not a pixelpeeper either. The NX1 has a too poor color differentiation to make it's too sharp images look natural. Terrible, I'm posting the same Ursa wedding film example now for the third or fourth time:

It was recorded in 1080 only ...

15 hours ago, Arikhan said:

I never met a person saying: "What a beautiful mushy footage...". People around me say: "What a beautiful crisp footage...". OK, people saying this are not filmmakers but spectators - and still I tend to trust them...

... but, if scaled up to 2160, none of the ordinary people around you would complain the image wasn't crisp. They wouldn't use "crisp" to describe it. Some would perhaps say it had beautiful colors.

Good resolution imo signals that there is a surplus of resolution. That the details are there, but that there would be even more details if you moved closer, like in real life. The NX1's edge sharpening signals, here it is, there you are, that's the end of the road, these outlines are what the world is made of. If you took a step further, the whole thing would crumble apart. Sharpness mustn't betray the limits of resolution.

[Arikhan]

@Axel

For sure I am not the most experienced filmmaker, but now I care for years about impact of film / video clips on audience. And as more than 90 percent of current productions are documentaries, narratives, commercials, etc. (and NOT productions for film theatre), every filmmaker should care about the requirements of his audience...and not about the requirements of an "inner circle" of enthusiastic freaks. At least, if you want a growing audience to watch your films.

And that's the point, at least in Germany. NO ONE cares about "filmic look"...People care much more about "beautiful" colors (and this is VERY subjective, as one loves vivid colors, the other one likes more pale and decent colors, etc.), contrast and a sharp look - on big screen displays. On mobile devices, the content is the most important, as optical perception of a film on smartphones (crispness, colors, balance, etc.) is a matter of second-tier...
So, in my experience, neither in photography nor in films, the audience cares much about specific colors. Nikon colors vs Canon colors (photography) and Canon color science vs. Sony (just an example) is more an artificial "war" between fans of a color science than a matter for people (average Joe) watching photos and films.

People like tack sharp and well composed photos - that's what everyone immediately sees. Colors is for most people a secondary matter...

For now about two decades we live in the digital age of film...filmmakers should consider, that we have to point out the advantages of digital film: blatant precision, crispness, detail, flexibility in post, etc. The run on the "old filmic look" is more a matter of nostalgy of a few geeks, as the definition of film and film look and audience preferences are constantly changing. There are though elements of the old filmic style to adopt, but there are many elements to be revoked too - because we are in 2016 and no more in the 80s...Filmmaking has just to consider the diversity of audience preferences. Please don't misunderstand me: if one wants to massacre his 8K footage to a soft 1080p footage because of "cinematic look", OK, each to his own. BUT than we could throw away all 4K + devices and the technical progress of the last 10 years...