Wedding Videos Now and Then

[Peter C.]

The other day I got a request from a friend to digitize her VHS wedding video. Luckily I hadn't got rid of my vhs player which I had planned to toss to trim back all my old tech lying around.

Watching the wedding video from 1990 it's amazing how much tech has improved and the way weddings are filmed. This one no doubt used one big shoulder eng camera. No fancy editing, multi camera angles, slow motion, gimbal, shallow dof, etc. As a viewer with no vested interest, I actually didn't care about all the stuff I normally obsess over and appreciated simple documentary approach being able to see the whole event not only focusing on the bride and groom. You appreciate all the little ordinary things of the day. Contrast with today's approach of crafting a cinematic short that eliminates all the "boring" stuff.

 

[NorBro]

The change and appreciation is a part of life. You've lived a handful of decades to understand.

People in the 80s would have the same enlightening (and some, appreciation) if they were to watch black and white weddings captured on silent film cameras @15fps.

For like 75 years up to the point when you could pretty much have anything you wanted in video production, the main objective for most single camera operators was to just point this box at things and capture, document.

 

[Charlie Ross]

Funny about both mentioning a wedding and you saving that old VHS unit. A friend offered me a Sony Beta desktop recorder/player along with a camera that hard cabled into the recorder, ie. no tape in the camera. He just knew I liked any kind of quirky gear. I kept it for years as a curiosity. Then when I got into post production I put it up on a shelf as a conversation piece. This was around 2003. A few years later a young man came with a Beta tape of a wedding on the Caribbean island of Guadaloupe. I hooked up the beta unit and loaded the tape. Behold! It worked. It was a beautiful service in a small sun-drenched chapel with a small group of people. Someone was singing (not sure of the language), accompanied by acoustic guitar. It was nothing like any wedding I've been to in Canada. Not ostentatious or showy, more like a close knit clan or group from the same village. The mood was almost reverent. Just after the wedding portion ended, the deck jammed the tape. Keee-rap. But I had the entire wedding digitized successfully. When he came back to pick it up on DVD he was visibly overjoyed. I didn't risk ever using the deck again but I was feeling good about having kept it up to then.

Many of today's wedding videos seem to be trying too hard for me. Bart Simpson would say they "smack of effort." They incorporate contemporary effects and staged antics with the bridal party. What do I know but I expect they'll be cringy to watch two or three generations of family from now.

 

[Peter C.]

My point is that the filmmaker and client can and often do have completely different viewpoints. I'm thinking of meeting or exceeding the current style and looking to use it for reel material to show off my skill. Where as the client might really only care that you captured the entire day so they can look back 20 years later to re-live it. But I do think both the client expectations and filmmaker approach is heavily influenced with what is currently in fashion. Today's emphasis is creating a highly crafted slick view that makes the wedding better, more exciting, romantic than it actually was. Seems to be more about showing off to others than faithfully documenting what happened. I won't go so far as to say it's bad but just different.

Independent of that its funny to watch any wedding, all the pomp and circumstance.

 

[combatentropy]

Totally agree, and I was just thinking about that this morning.

If videos were hairdos:

amateur	sophomore	master

When you're just starting out, it is a juggernaut just to overcome technical hurdles (focus, exposure, sound). In the '80s and '90s, if a wedding video overcame these hurdles, it usually still was unexciting, with static, locked-off shots that were allowed to go on forever.

After you have read a few books and made a few things, you often steer too far to the other extreme, in an overreaction to amateurish videos. The product is overwrought. It's pretty but superficial and strange, like it was maybe someone else's wedding. In the '80s and '90s, this manifested as animated transitions, baroque titles, and cheesy video effects. Nowadays, the effects are more subtle (black and white, slow motion) but still fatiguing after several minutes.

I did wedding videos 2000-2004. I had made lots of videos as a teenager and gone to film school. So I could pull off the technical better than many, who often were just dipping their toes in the water of video production with wedding videos (Smack! Wedding videos are the most challenging kind of video I have ever attempted). Furthermore I tried for a more organic style. Meanwhile one of my colleagues remarked of this new "cinematic" style that only uses cuts or fades --- none of her fancy fly-ins, wipes, and other digital transitions. Another literally used picture-in-picture in one of his ceremonies. But recently when I rewatched mine, they were still painfully overedited. I had tried too hard to make the video not boring. I got good reviews from clients, but now I feel like I got my grubby little fingers too much all over their stuff.

I won't go back to wedding videos, but if I did, I would strive for something even more naturalistic. It's hard to articulate, but once I saw a documentary called A Conversation with Gregory Peck. It is well-executed technically, with decent audio and was even shot on film. And clearly, shots were trimmed and assembled into a story. But it still has that laid-back, naturalistic feel that years ago I might have thought was a little too boring, but now I would say is more immersive and less annoying.

You kind of have to skip through this clip to see what I mean. The beginning is maybe like a ceremony, and the end is kind of like a reception:

I think certain ingredients in the typical modern wedding video are the culprit:

• slow motion
• non-stop musical beds
• fast cutting, trying to match the same shot length as music videos or at least scripted films
• nonlinear editing

I think if I did it all over again, I might not use any of those techniques, at all! If I did, only in very small doses, like a spice or frosting. With modern wedding videos, those are the main ingredients, and watching them feels like eating nothing but cake frosting for dinner.

 

[Peter C.]

Good points yeah sounds like we both feel the same way.

 

[cyvideo]

Oh, this brings back memories. I remember shooting a number of wedding vids in the early '80s for a fledgling outfit that started a wedding video service. Shot on big 2/3" three-tube cameras with big NiCad batteries that lasted about 30-40 min. Pumping the image down a 1/2" thick 10-pin cable to Sony 3/4" Low Band 'U' Matic recorders with a maximum record time of twenty minutes per tape. I ended up pulling tape from the 60 min large cassettes and reloading the twenty-minute small cassettes as 30-minute loads to make life easier, especially on nuptial masses and speeches. All edited masters were no longer than 60 minutes as that was the longest tape you could get. Dubbed to a 60 minute VHS for client delivery. As mentioned, in those the wedding video was just a good chronological record of the day. I remember the first time we did a "highlight" segment. In '84 I cut the best bits of a wedding to Knopfler's Local Heros track "Going Home".

Chris Young

 

[morgan_moore]

Around weddings and many videos I think there is a thing.

I really struggle looking for that S35 17-150 lens, that bright enough to see in the sun monitoring solution, those 5 hour batteries, that synched audio, those instant click ND filters. Yet youngsters skip along to a wedding with a Gh5 on a gimbal.

How can this be?

Clearly the 'modern' shooter is going to miss a load of moments and fill out the video with smooth shots of bunches of flowers, expensive shoes and posed bridesmaids aged 6.

But a wedding is about tears and smiles not shoes and little girls in nice dresses.

So really the 2/3 camera with the ND and the wide to tele zoom is the tool (unless you have a fleet of operators).

It is of no suprise to me that wedding films of the 2/3 era contain engaging content.

 

[ahalpert]

I actually didn't care about all the stuff I normally obsess over and appreciated simple documentary approach being able to see the whole event not only focusing on the bride and groom. You appreciate all the little ordinary things of the day. Contrast with today's approach of crafting a short cinematic short that eliminates all the "boring" stuff.

It's funny - when I first started shooting wedding videos (only about 6 or 7 years ago), that was what I was aiming for - a home video with good operating. But then it became clear that the companies and brides didn't really want that. they just want to look good and show off the blizzard of expensive decorations to their "friends" on social media who will lose interest after a few minutes. (But people also still do half-hour long+ "documentary" edits if they want to pay extra, and those have much more "flab" and are probably more like what you're talking about.)

So really the 2/3 camera with the ND and the wide to tele zoom is the tool (unless you have a fleet of operators).

It is of no suprise to me that wedding films of the 2/3 era contain engaging content.

I don't think this is true because usually you're in a limited-range scenario and you have time to change lenses in-between. So, for example, I might start the day in a hotel suite where the bride is getting dressed. A 24-70 or so will handle the scenario because I'll never be more than 12 feet away from a target. Autofocus is way more useful than a long tele end in that scenario because it will grab focus while I frame and you won't miss the laugh.

Then, when you're sniping people on the dance floor or at dinner, you can be on your 70-200 or 85.

Plus, there are usually 2 shooters and typically you each have a different focal length range on.

Like it or not, people often want glitzy Glammy s*%t. The photography side has gone way in that direction. I'd say there's an equal weight between capturing strong emotional moments (which are often my favorite - I love good dad tears, and I fondly remember a groom sobbing more than any man I've ever seen cry as he read his wife's letter to him before the ceremony), and capturing flattering fashion shots.

• slow motion
• non-stop musical beds
• fast cutting, trying to match the same shot length as music videos or at least scripted films
• nonlinear editing

When I'm editing a wedding film (only about once a year, I usually just shoot), I typically edit it linearly throughout the day so you tell the story from start to finish. It's still fast cut to music, but I agree that chronologically disjointed wedding films suck, which is most of them unfortunately.

Kids these days. I filled in a few times for a videographer who seems to make hip-hop wedding videos for a mostly African-American clientele. Extremely fast cut, on the beat, all slow motion, and generally shot as much like a rap video as possible. That's what they want!

These people aren't thinking about posterity and remembering dear friends in 30 years. They want to look like ballers right now.

 

[morgan_moore]

I don't think this is true because usually you're in a limited-range scenario and you have time to change lenses in-between.


Maybe british church weddings can be on a bigger scale. (than a hotel or private chapel??) people tend to hire castles and all sorts!

The car drive up can require a big wide, but if you are going in on the girl you want 200 (or more)

Same inside a church you can want the walk in at S35 15 push to 100 and then do ring fiddling and tears at 300

Of course well trained pairs of operators can get around a zoom as can certain builds of two different cameras.. its not that I would ever want to actually zoom during the shot!

 

[ahalpert]

Yes, the ceremony can have broader focal length requirements but it's usually covered by 2-4 cameras on the shoots I've done. So there might be a wide master from the back of the crowd that zooms or walks into a closer master. Then there are dueling telephoto zooms at 3/4 angle from the front aisles that get close-ups of bride and groom. And there may be a floating camera getting gimbal shots or reactions from the parents.

And also, because you're editing it all together (even in a longform edit), you can cover up your zooms and camera repositions.

But i will say that you're right about one thing - when I do a single-camera livestream of the ceremony, I usually go on either my 18-270 or my 70-200 depending on the situation. Nowadays I would probably choose the 28-135, especially since I'm zooming from the wide to a closeup. But having the rough zoom action of the 18-270 never stopped me from zooming it during a live shot just to get the framings I needed (especially since the camera is stationary and tethered to a computer).

But to take another example of a varied focal length situation - when the bride and groom enter the banquet hall, I'll be on a gimbal following them on a normal or short telephoto lens. The other cameraman can be on a telephoto zoom getting additional coverage of them or reaction shots from the crowd. And there could be a third camera stationed on a wide angle capturing the whole scene. Most of the day doesn't require a superzoom to get a variety of coverage and catch the nice verite moments (if only because it's not single-camera coverage).

 

[cyvideo]

In the early days of wedding videos I never ever saw a second camera let alone a third. It was all one-man-band doco style shooting. A chronological record of the day. We never shot the groom's home or the bride's home. It started with the arrival at the church then followed on to the photoshoot. You would then sprint from the park or wherever the photoshoot took place and bolt for the reception. Rip in and set up lights. Normally Redheads back in the 70s-80s. Then turn them on straight away so as guests came in they were used to the lighting from the get-go. Turn them on later and there would be screwed up faces and groans from the guests. Plenty of time to turn them off later. Then grab as much venue B roll as possible then bolt back out with your 2/3" with something like a WA 4.5mm x 10 or 11 times f1.8 zoom. This gave you in FF terms an 18-175mm zoom which retained its f1.8 throughout and was parfocal. Now you would shoot the bridal party arrival, entry, and sit down. Once guests were settled you would grab bucket loads of guest and bridal party B roll to pepper the speeches etc during the edit. All wireless mics back then. No having to Pluraleyes sync separate recorders. To me, this is still an archaic practice from yesteryear. I left dual system sound recording when we moved to the CP16 film cameras. Best thing ever for working one out. Will not go to separate audio unless working with a soundie with TC linked mixer-recorder. We usually used dual receivers, normally Sony WRR-862 wireless kits. With one TX/RX taking a line feed from the PA desk and the second TR/RX taking a direct feed from a handheld mic taped to the presenter's or podium mic. Made it look like a dual ice cream cone. Never ever had a failure in forty-odd years working this way on any type of shoot. If onboard camera wireless audio is good enough for most ENG it's more than good enough for a wedding. In post never a sync or drift issue using onboard audio. Which in later days with clean camera preamps and 24-bit audio was very good. I can understand today it's all more superficial and mainly aimed at social media delivery not a doco of the day memory so yes the glitz-bling rap clip look is highly desired I guess, yes I understand, I hear you. Just feel blessed to have missed out on being requested to deliver this style of shoot/edit I guess.

Chris Young

WRR-862. One of the best dual receiver kits I ever used. Analogue yes but I still use a couple of sets today on a regular basis. Had them re-crystaled to the current frequencies available. And often get complimented on the audio quality which always puts a smile on the old face.

 

[combatentropy]

Receivers with two channels, and cameras with four, sounds nice.

 

[drboffa]

Somewhat related: the Amazon series Red Oaks (which is worth checking out) has at least one episode (S01E03) featuring wedding videography from the 1980s. The main character is seen holding a JVC VideoMovie in several scenes.




And then later in the same episode we see footage from the perspective of the camcorder itself.



What's interesting is how (to my eyes) this doesn't really look like a camcorder image from the 1980s. The show is very clearly going for a lower quality look than the rest of the shots (and there's the viewfinder overlay, of course) but it still looks remarkably sharp and nuanced. The content seems appropriate—i.e., talking heads, record-of-the-day style shooting rather than contemporary style—but the formal characteristics are more an approximation of what people think it should look like rather than the reality (again, to my eyes). My guess is that people shooting in the 1980s would have killed for this level of sharpness, tonal subtlety, and dynamic range!

 

[cyvideo]

Receivers with two channels, and cameras with four, sounds nice.

The other two channels were used for ambient/atmos sound. The laughter, clapping, dancing etc.

 

[combatentropy]

Sounds like you did it better than most. I would love to watch one. Upload one some time

 

[cyvideo]

Good grief! What a request. I saw the back of my last wedding shoots in the late '90s. Nothing at all I can show of any of those. The last wedding was when I was press-ganged off the couch for a family wedding. One of my wife's nieces. And yes the bride and groom's places had to be shot. Shock horror!

I just hear many modern wedding shooters saying "Ah but you can get shallow DOF with three-chip cameras." In defense of shooting with a well-balanced camera with NDs, multiple XLRs, unlimited run times, and one lens I argue that you can. These grabs are all from a 1/2" three-chip camera using a Super Wide 3.3m x 13 times F1.4 zoom. How do you get shallow DOF with these cameras? Any experienced B4 shooter who really knows his craft knows how to use his macro to obtain shots that you normally couldn't get. How many B4 users know the technique of dual point focus macro zooms? Not that many. But if a good operator learns how to maximize the macro capabilities of his lens and learn the technique of dual point focus macro zooms there are many "looks" he can get. Including a very shallow DOF if that's your desire.

combatentropy. I will PM you off-forum with a link to a clip but in deference to my wife's niece and family, it will only show the brides and grooms to demonstrate what can be obtained with a small three-chip camera. Bear in mind this was all B4 manual. Manual focus, manual iris, and no stabilization. Shot by an old dude in his sixties at the time. It shows the same techniques I was using in the '80' and '90s. Re audio. Anyone who has done pressers with ENG cameras using onboard audio knows my argument for wireless mics hold water. How many of us have plugged a wireless link into the press audio breakout box and linked to our camera receivers. Can you imagine 20-30 Zoom recorders at a presser? Not for me. I wouldn't want to be a part of it.

Chris Young

 

[ahalpert]

one thing I'll say in favor of cameras these days is that a lot of clients want fly on the wall shooting and don't want a big camera or an on-camera light. some of my clients forbid video lighting altogether. one of them has the slogan "wedding films for people who hate wedding films" and as far as I can tell their clientele is...not always photogenic but usually has a bit of money. and the sense I get is that the groom doesn't really want to be photographed but relents for the sake of the bride.

I've had so many couples say to me that they didn't even notice me filming. one said they were hugely relieved to see my footage because they got home and asked themselves, "wait where was the videographer?" meanwhile, I feel like I'm this crazy-looking jesus bearded guy running circles around them with a gimbal and a 7" monitor and not afraid to get close.

but it's not a big ENG camera, there's no on-camera light. a lot of people don't even realize I'm shooting video. this has major benefits for verite, on top of the ability to cleanly expose in light levels beneath comfortable human vision (which lots of these dark corners inside and outside the dance floor are)

 

[cyvideo]

Look I take on board all the points you outline. All valid. I just want ed to point out that with modern sensors today yes you can get away with little or no extra lighting. Though many use that as an excuse not to because they couldn't be bothered to light. There again I would hardly call a modern three-chip camera like a Z280 a large ENG camera. Bulk wise no more than an A7 on a gimbal. Especially if fitted with a monitor. Z280 cameras can see better than the eye can in low light and see it pretty noiselessly. It has four-channel audio, good autofocus decent stabilization, and a fast parfocal 17 x F1.8 zoom. And add to that a great variable ND system.

The art of fly on the wall filming and blending into events and not drawing attention to yourself regardless of kit is that art of the documentary cameraman. And that's what a wedding is when you boil it down. It's a document of what happened. Albeit with a lot of artistic interpretation these days. Most late model cameras can do a pretty acceptable job in fairly low light situations. Anything that starts to show way more than the human eye can see starts to look like surveillance video. IMHO It's not a natural look. I can shoot quite happily with very quiet results at 25,000 ISO and have a camera that can do thatt but would I want to? No. I won't use any gain that lifts visibility above the natural level the human eye sees. Unless it for specific scientific or observational, i.e. wild-life footage. Even an old 1" sensor if used sensibly can work well in lowish light conditions. A test I did five years ago. One with no NR and the same clip with Neat Video.

Chris Young

 

[ahalpert]

I mean, if I needed a big zoom, I have multiple options including a 15x Tamron. One of the nice things about the format and a fastish lens, though, is getting selective focus on medium and wide shots, especially when there are details one doesn't want to see in the background (like a bridesmaid checking her phone during the first dance).

I hear you about using high ISOs but it's basically what the clients want. They don't want an accurate representation of the vision at the scene. If granny flashes a smile that's too dark for my eyes to make out, they still want to see full detail and color in the picture. (My companies also want neutral white balance even if the banquet hall is bathed in warm light that looks warm to the eye. This pains me but I correct in-camera for it.) Same thing goes for wedding photos - all the photographers use flash, so every shot is super high-contrast and glammy, even if the banquet hall was bathed in soft chandeliers and candlelight. At least I'm maintaining more of the ambience.

I'm sure I'd shoot a fine video with a Z280. But I'm happy with f/1.4-2 DOF in full-frame for wide and medium shots, happier than I was with a gh5/speedbooster at the same aperture but 1.4x crop factor. I can always stop down as I please, especially with the sensitivity available to me. And the rendering of prime lenses is probably nicer than a 17x zoom. Most of the time, I can zoom with my feet. Or I'm on a 3x zoom. I dunno...I just don't feel like I have a lot of verite missed opportunities due to insufficient zoom range, and I'm pretty conscious of shots I'm screwing up or missing. And it certainly helps that there's usually another cameraman on a different lens.

a7siii:

gh5:

every visible face is a liability for the shot if they look away, make a stank face, check their phone. and i've seen all that and cut around it