Feedback Request: Videography Services Web Site

[Bart_Boge]

Hey Everyone,

I just set up a new corporate web site for my videography business. It won't be winning any design awards, but it isn't bad. It is my first project using GoLive/Photoshop/ImageReady. Here is the link:

http://www.wellingtoncinematic.com

and here is what the demo display page will look like:

http://www.wellingtoncinematic.com/ScreeningRoomTest.html

I've used pictures of the HVX200 in the background and on the home page--in anticipation of renting/buying them for HD projects in 2006!

Any constructive criticism on the corporate logo, the ArtiVista logo, or any other design issues would be appreciated. Also, if you have any problems with the write-ups, I'd like to hear those comments as well.

Bart

[Kirk Gillock]

I just took a quick look but here's my thoughts.

First the Bad:

- When you access your site, why does the browser window resize itself? Don't do that.
- The blue outline around the menu boxes is not complimentary to the rest of your color scheme.
- You don't have any actual text on your site. Everything is an image. That's not good. When you want good placement on search engines, bots will access your site and store your text and use the text as keywords. Text will help people find you.
- There's no margin at the top, but you have margins on the left and right. You might want to add some space at the top. Not important.
- The secondary pages also have the blue outline and do not have any text. Also, the browser window resizes itself.
- Add some text at the very bottom (text links, copyright info, etc.)
- The screening room is nice but I'm not a fan of "bevel edges" on text. It's cheap looking. That's just my design preference. Maybe it doesn't bother others.

The Good:
- This was a very nice first attempt at designing a website. It's a great start. Improve it and you'll have yourself a nice website to showcase your services.

Good luck!
-pk

[Frizzle Fry]

Isara covered the points pretty well. I would also add that I'm not a big fan of the "outer glow" in the graphics. Too much makes the text hard to read.

As for the browser window resizing, there must be an option in GoLive to NOT do that, because I've seen other sites done with GoLive that do the same thing. Big No-No.

Not bad for your first time out!

[Bart_Boge]

The blue outline must be an issue with browser defaults. I designed this on a Mac and A/B'ed it using Safari and IE for Mac, and I get no blue borders. I'll have to look at it on PC systems with different browsers and perhaps make adjustments accordingly.

The browser window resizing is intentional. As I am referring a lot to 2:35 aspect, I thought designing the site that way might be an interesting gimmick. It rubs some people the wrong way, though, so I'll have to reconsider the tactic.

The image-only design was intended to guarantee that every browser displays exactly the same thing. Hoprefully, there is enough info in the meta tags to grab the attention of web spiders.

As far as no top border is concerned, I'll see if I can't add one in the next few days.

[Frizzle Fry]

Bart,

Be sure to check Firefox on Mac and Win. Firefox on Mac has the blue margins...hmmm, it must be using a style or something that isn't supported on some browsers...find out what it is and eliminate it. This is one of the issues with GoLive. It's like FrontPage that way, very unpredictable.

Honestly, resizing the browser windows is extremely irritating. Please don't do it. As far as the 2.35:1 aspect, I don't think anyone is going to "get it," anyway.

There are other ways to ensure your pages will display the same across different browsers. Try CSS! I'm learning it now and it's just amazing what you can do with your layouts. Even using tables for layout can be done gracefully. Problem with the image-text is, assuming you do away with the browser resize, you may force some to have to scroll to the right to read your text. Plus, some people disable image loading in their browser, leaving them with nothing to read.

I understand you probably don't have a lot of time to invest in learning all this stuff, and would like this to be "good enough" (and it is good, don't get me wrong), but it's really worth the time to get it right. Please don't think I'm ragging on you or anything, I just want your site to be everything it can be, and up to snuff with the rest of the work you do.

Like I said, the site looks good. If you only change one thing, though, please nix the browser resize.

-Paul

[Bart_Boge]

Please don't think I'm ragging on you or anything, I just want your site to be everything it can be, and up to snuff with the rest of the work you do.

Like I said, the site looks good. If you only change one thing, though, please nix the browser resize.

-Paul

Paul,

I ASKED for feedback. You are hardly ragging on me! I am thankful for your input. I will probably pitch the browser resize as per your suggestion sometime tonight. The rest I'll have to weigh and consider whether the extra time is worth it.

[alexander]

Hi Bart,

I will give you a few advices.

All the infos that Isara told you are important.

I teach webdesign, HTML, CSS, PHP-Mysql, web ranking in search engine during 3 months each year at the SAE school, just that you know I know a bit of my stuff.

First, as said just using images in your pages is useless for the search engine. Even if you have keywords, meta,...

To have a good ranking (in short) you need to have a good combinaison of the followings:
- text written in HTML in the page
- the title of the page (not to long)
- the description of the pages
- the name of the pictures and their alternative text
- the name of the page
-...

The resizing is really annoying. Internet is free media, and you are forcing people to see it how you want it. I think that it is the main error of every the first websites. On their first website, people generally use images, so that they are sure that it shows as supposed. You must learn how to let it resize and staying pretty.

But one thing you must remember is that the rule number one is the "content". You are not building a website that must please you. But it must please the future customer. You must show him what he wants to see and hear. Pictures of your work, text about how it is going to happen. I think you put too much emphasis about the technical aspects. The customer doesn't care how it's done, he see the result. You must show him and he will see the difference and say I want that quality too.

I'm sure you put a lot of work in the site. And that's a good start.

Don't be offended with the critics. When I did my first website I had to re-do it 3 times until I had something very efficient.

Alex

[Larry Rutledge]

FYI: To remove the blue border around the images simply add border=0 in your IMG tag. I haven't used GoLive so I don't know how you would do it in there interface, but there should be an option for setting the border width/size for images. If not then once the page is created go into the HTML and replace <img src="..."> with <img border=0 src="...">

Hope this helps,
Larry

[Sirius_Doggy]

Forget the website..I just want to know how you plan on incorporating the HXV into wedding and event type work???:grin:

[Bart_Boge]

Sirius Doggy,

My intention is to probably use PowerBooks and FW800 drives to capture DVCPRO100 straight to HDD. That might seem like ridiculous overkill, but the price of a base 15" PBook won't be much more than whatever FireStore, MCE, or the others come up with. I'll have to carefully rig a stable platform for the set-up, but ingenuity is the mother of invention. I'll figure it out.

The benefit of using PBooks instead of specialized DV capture drives is that I can use them in post for other tasks--one for audio engineering, one for titling, another for rendering streaming web versions of projects, all while my DP tower is editing the full-res versions. Rendering time is completely wasted when all you can do is stop, get another cup of coffee, and maybe surf idly until a render is complete. Even now, using one PB and a tower, I feel like I can get a lot more work done. Seeing that high-def editing will likely increase my render times 6x, I like my solution.

But then again, maybe I'm an idiot.

[Sirius_Doggy]

But then again, maybe I'm an idiot.
Nah.... a RICH idiot maybe....:grin::grin:
Just kidding - I don't think so at all.
I was just curious because I haven't really considered the HVX because I do lots of long form event type stuff and the P2 process just doesn't cut it. I'm sure the firestore drive will be available by the time the camera hits the market and that will be a possibility.

[J.R. Hudson]

Maybe I am re-hashing but without reading everyones input:

1. 100% Positively 86 the Browser Window Re-Size. Make it Full Screen unless user adjusts it themself

2. The Main Logo looks nice with the outer glow but the words "The Look and Sound....." is overkill with the Outer Glow. I would make this a clean design. IN fact, the LOGO is the only place I would have an uter glow and thats it.

3. The MAIN PAGE before you Enter I always thought was overkill. Maybe the link takes you straight to HOME PAGE instead of just a LOGO?

4. Make all of your pages drop to the bottom instead of cutting off and only filling half the page. Push the code down.

5. Clean up the FOnts throughout the site; every frame is too busy or the font is too big. The eye does not know where to focus. I think you have to re-think the overall balcne of the design elements as they are all competing withother for attention.

Its a good start though.

[Alexa]

But one thing you must remember is that the rule number one is the "content". You are not building a website that must please you. But it must please the future customer. You must show him what he wants to see and hear. Pictures of your work, text about how it is going to happen. I think you put too much emphasis about the technical aspects. The customer doesn't care how it's done, he see the result. You must show him and he will see the difference and say I want that quality too.


alex said it a lot better than I could. just letting you know I agreed. I looked at this site yesterday and the "arista" content and 5.1 ect. stuck out in my mind...in the wrong way. I'm a techy-camera geek gal, and I stopped reading. a few other thoughts that don't have much to do with the website, but I just wanted to drop the thought in your head...

--technologically, you seem to be offering a very high end product. great for specific corporate clients that need to impress others with the cutting edge. even some individuals will want that also. you seem to be hoping they are wedding clients. I had one person ask me about high definition this year and no one asked me about widescreen. i told them they could get almost whatever they wanted if they wanted to pay a lot more for it. the conversation ended at that.

one last, I think it is very, very challenging to try and impress non-wedding and wedding clients with the same website. you might think about creatively splitting it or buying another domain of similar name. however, you have to start with something and what you have is a pretty darn good start!

[Bart_Boge]

Nah.... a RICH idiot maybe....:grin::grin:
Just kidding - I don't think so at all.
I was just curious because I haven't really considered the HVX because I do lots of long form event type stuff and the P2 process just doesn't cut it. I'm sure the firestore drive will be available by the time the camera hits the market and that will be a possibility.

For event work, P2s won't be an option for years. At DVCPRO100's 1GB/minute stream requirements, people like you and I will need 64GB P2s before it becomes feasible to use P2s. But off-the-shelf PBooks as capture controllers for FW800 drives is a possibility NOW. A base PBook with a CardBus slot is $1999. retail. That, plus a ComboDock ($170) an extra FW800 CardBus Card ($75) and using raw IDE drives (200 GB= $125), you're at $2400 all-in per camera (assuming you already own FCP). Until a 64GB P2 card is substantially less than that, it's actually cheaper this way.

So, with the HVX included, you're looking at about $8,500 per camera for event-ready 1080p. And a funky post studio with PBooks rendering independent projects all over the place. Better than a FireStore in its case between gigs!

All you web suggestions are very good. I will do a redesign over the next month or so to incorporate most if not all of your suggestions. Thank you for your help, everyone!

[thisiswells]

I'll be quite honest, I didn't read everyone's comments. Here are my own:

No-one has any idea what 192Khz 5.1 Surround Sound is... and for a wedding? Come on.
The widescreen thing is kind of gimmicky, but it makes sense. Lose the "2.35:1". Call it widescreen.
The technical mumble jumble about SD and HD made my head spin. Confuses me. Confuses clients.

It's clear in your website that you wish to make widescreen weddings with surround sound.
I'm not sure that's what wedding clients are looking for, to be brutally honest. I know that's
tearing apart your bizness platform, but that's my brutal opinion, okay. I would re-think the
needs of the wedding/event client in particular and design a website around those needs.

A great photographer here in town focuses only on weddings and does very well. Here's his slant:
www.amarilloweddings.com (http://www.amarilloweddings.com) - first of all, the name is easy to remember.

Check out Davy's site. It's simple and well done. Hope this helps.

[Neil Rowe]

id agree with wells. is assume that 90%+ of your clients are going to have no idea what 192khz means or what 2.35:1 is or care to have surround sound. they will likely feel that your prices are high because they are paying for fancy stuff they dont need. even if your prices are the same as others available. its what they percieve that counts.. they can put a price on technical stuff they dont understand.. its likely oing to be priced at -0- .. but they cannot put a price on those moments you will delicately capture.. and they see value in that aspect of the biz. i mean us people with dvxs stuck in our braces and stickers of cool NLEs on our pocket protectors know what that stuff is and love it, but you have to relate to the outside world. most people looking for a wedding videographer just want great imagery that captures the moment and makes it last, and comes at a reasonable price. the wedding business is WAaaaay more personal than it is technical.. from a client/service provider standpoint. id rethink your marketing stratagy. they likely dont want to feel like they are paying for HD either cause id bet at least 70% dont have an HD set. .. anyway the site looks nice. its just the marketing that IMHO has to change. im not a wedding videographer .. but i know quite a few..

[Bart_Boge]

It's clear in your website that you wish to make widescreen weddings with surround sound.
I'm not sure that's what wedding clients are looking for, to be brutally honest. I know that's
tearing apart your bizness platform, but that's my brutal opinion, okay. I would re-think the
needs of the wedding/event client in particular and design a website around those needs.


Actually, I have been done a few of these type of weddings already, and the couples have been estactic with the results. But you are all right--if my aims were to focus exclusively, or even primarily on wedding videography, I would gear my site more to that kind of client.

While I'll take wedding gig money, I'd prefer to start doing more concert event work, where my audio engineering overkill is better suited. But it certainly seems to be the consensus here that the tech stuff is overemphasized for a web site, so I'll back off of it with my redesign, or at least make it a "drill-down-to-get-details" option.

[thisiswells]

I know plenty of guys who won't touch a wedding. Mostly photog's and because it isn't artsy
or some other nonsense. Plenty of guys think, "Oh, it's just a wedding, I'll take their money"

The truth is a well executed strategy and pricing structure can earn you a ton of money.

I personally don't do weddings, but if I did I wouldn't think of it as sideline work. It would be a
primary focus and would be presented to clients as the work of an artist--not a technician.
This concept alone allows one to triple their rates provided they have the right client. My $0.02.

[Alexa]

why not include and area that details your expertise? then you can go nuts. I would buy that. "this guy has some kind of real experience and in depth background!!"


I think that is what you were trying to show in your aspect ratio, audio content descriptions, right? good luck, you take the criticism well.

[Bart_Boge]

I know plenty of guys who won't touch a wedding. Mostly photog's and because it isn't artsy
or some other nonsense. Plenty of guys think, "Oh, it's just a wedding, I'll take their money"

I hope I didn't come off as totally dismissive about wedding videography work. In fact, I consider my approach to be very "artistic" compared to a lot of the competition. Framing for 2.35:1 makes for some neat visual statements, and dropping the viewer smack-dab in the middle of the sanctuary auditorily via true surround sound is an artistic call as much as a technical one.

I come into the production design for weddings with this philosophy: using the technology at my disposal, how can I craft a program that is both an emotionally moving experience a and breathtakingly accurate record of this (hopefully) one-in-a-lifetime event? This is my answer: widescreen presentation (with camera framing and placement designed to accentuate it) and surround sound audio. The best Hollywood DVDs use these technologies, and so will I.

I know my competition will not bother with the set-up and post syncing issues with a discreet surround sound acquisition system. That's fine my me. And merely slapping a letterbox on the finished product doesn't really accomplish the same thing as framing up everything with 2.35:1 in mind from the outset, and using either the PanaAna adapter w/a DVX or an HVX200 w/native 16:9. In a sense, I am delivering to a client something beyond their expectations, beyond what they might ask for, beyond what my competition would see as selling points to brides. Making something unique enough to distance me from the rat-race.

There is plenty of work to go around. Five of these projects @ $4,000 ea = $20k per summer. I can live with that.