C300: C300: 3.5 million views

that is a totally bad a$$ video man. brings to mind the ancient theatrical tradition of the greek chorus that is no less powerful today than it was a few thousand years ago. both euripedes and mark twain would be proud. appreciate the elegant, simplicity of your cinematography. really created the space for the voices to be heard. well done. and thank you for sharing.
 
Thanks for sharing Bill, it's always nice when fellow DVXers show us their work. But OMG, I had to turn it off after the first :30, I found this project to be a bit too preachy and annoying. I have a 22 year old daughter and have raised her to be strong, confident feminist and I am totally down with the cause. But it becomes tiring to hear people continually rant on social media how women have it so bad. Most of the strong, confident women I know don't continually fixate about how life is so unfair for women. In my career, I have worked for more women directors, producers and writers than men and I am totally happy with that, generally women are easier to work with than men, there is usually (not always) far less ego. I see that other than at the top studio level, there are more business opportunities for women to get a leg up in our business than middle aged white guys like me. Women in film, SBA, government certifications, getting hired as a vendor by ANY Fortune 200 as a production company, women owned and minority owned businesses have a decided advantage, just based upon being able to check a box. I work for Netflix (all female client team), Amazon (all female client team), Fox (80% female client team), Sony (all female client team). I work in the marketing/PR/social media realm and it is totally dominated by women.

I have been told by vendor relations at three Fortune 500 corporations over the past decade not to even bother applying to become a vendor if my company is not women or minority owned because they have to appease the EEOC and blowback from discrimination lawsuits. In doing so, ironically, they have began just a different form of discrimination. I know, boo hoo for my company. My best client is a woman who owns her own production company, she is brilliant, we have partnered for over a decade on hundreds of projects. At some point, women, just like gay people, need to step off of the soapbox and just get on with life. At some point, strong successful women like Oprah, Queen Latifah, Arianna, etc. stopped playing the victim card and just became successful in spite of the hardships faced by women. Success is the best revenge. Yes, there is systematic discrimination to women, but also gays, minorities and yes, even middle class, middle aged white guys, the supposed partiarchal overlords. There is a time for complaining and protesting and then there is a time to put your nose to the grindstone and just do it. Nobody who is playing the victim card is going to be successful. Hard working, smart and visionary women are going to become sucessful, in spite of the patriarchy.
 
Last edited:
Let's take the political discussion off DVXUSER. If you're not into the content then that's your right, but forum rules are to leave political views at home. We can talk about tech and how the video has million of views thru Facebook.

Bill, good work.
 
I could show you the James Corden piece with millions of views shot on the C300 as well, but they messed with the image so much I barely recognize it.
 
bill totolo said:
I could show you the James Corden piece with millions of views shot on the C300 as well, but they messed with the image so much I barely recognize it.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean Bill, I just shot a short little piece for Dancing with the Stars and a sponsor. Same thing, shot WDR with sharpness down, thinking they would color correct it and up the sharpness in post like a good editor would. When it went public, it quickly became apparent that they did NO color correction and added NO sharpness, even though I sent detailed notes to the post super and the client. Sigh. It didn't look awful, but it just could have looked so much better. Thank goodness I didn't shoot log!
 
puredrifting said:
I know what you mean Bill, I just shot a short little piece for Dancing with the Stars and a sponsor. Same thing, shot WDR with sharpness down, thinking they would color correct it and up the sharpness in post like a good editor would. When it went public, it quickly became apparent that they did NO color correction and added NO sharpness, even though I sent detailed notes to the post super and the client. Sigh. It didn't look awful, but it just could have looked so much better. Thank goodness I didn't shoot log!
Click to expand...

Post can make you look like a hero or a zero...

Unless I'm told specifically to shoot with a particular set-up(i.e: log or scene file x), I shoot "air ready" footage and it's as close to how I want it to look in-camera as I can get it. I "grew up" shooting Beta, so it was always shot to look how it was gonna look and that's the way I still like to shoot.
 
This is drifting off topic but as I'm the OP I'm all for it.

What I'm finding as we shoot with better cameras in more sophisticated ways whether using WDR, LOG, or maximizing the DR of the sensor by holding highlights and exposing into the shadows, is that assistant editors are "color grading" our footage on 8 bit low res monitors, in improper environments, without the proper tools, in the wrong color space...

But I'm sure this has already been discussed ad nauseam.
 
And then after those editors edit it, they upload it at lower resolution in highly compressed files to sites like Facebook, which still has poor image quality compared to Vimeo and Youtube. FB is big time; when are they going to improve the quality of their video uploads?
 
Good work. How'd you do it? One wide cam and then do each girl individually? Or multi cameras?

Thanks,

Ned
 
Eric Coughlin said:
And then after those editors edit it, they upload it at lower resolution in highly compressed files to sites like Facebook, which still has poor image quality compared to Vimeo and Youtube. FB is big time; when are they going to improve the quality of their video uploads?
Click to expand...

Thank you. This kills me. What's even worse than their video compression is their audio compression. It's continually gotten worse and worse.

I'm at the point where I would gladlly opt-in to a pay system that lowers compression on both photos and videos. Or be able to suggest that to my clients.
 
Thanks nedcam, you're correct on both accounts.
Three camera shoot with multiple takes. Editors did a nice job stitching performances together.
 
traviswears said:
Thank you. This kills me. What's even worse than their video compression is their audio compression. It's continually gotten worse and worse.

I'm at the point where I would gladlly opt-in to a pay system that lowers compression on both photos and videos. Or be able to suggest that to my clients.
Click to expand...

Even better when they compress your footage on ingest, edit, then color the proxies and output and upload that. Final result is laughably bad with banding and macro blocking, etc.
 
85% of the shoots I do where we hire a good sound mixer, the editors and or producer end up using camera sound, which compared to the high quality files from the mixer's Sound Devices recorder, sound terrible. But producers rarely seem to care about sound much past, "is it good enough". And when I say camera sound, I don't mean camera mic, I mean mixer output recorded into the camera. So we are paying a sound mixer good money to bring their best gear to record with, then recording it to and using substandard camera audio when these amazingly high quality recordings are available from the mixer's SD or Zaxcom recorder. Kills me as I am very sound oriented.
 
You can lead a horse to water... Just like the old saying, "You can't fix stupid". And I'll add, "Or lazy". If they want to screw it up, there's not a lot you can do.

I had a shoot last year for a net. Three cameras, two subjects, reporter(with reversal) and a room that was WAAAAY too small. Probably 12x12(I'm possibly being generous with the dimensions) with inward opening doors on the left and right and we had to keep at least one that could open for access and exit. We managed to light it pretty much the way I wanted it considering and no hotspots on the subjects(one was white, one was black and we were keying them with one fixture). When the interview aired, they purposefully jacked it up in post and made the subjects have hot spots. All I could do was sigh and shake my head. And probably cuss some...
 
puredrifting said:
85% of the shoots I do where we hire a good sound mixer, the editors and or producer end up using camera sound, which compared to the high quality files from the mixer's Sound Devices recorder, sound terrible. But producers rarely seem to care about sound much past, "is it good enough". And when I say camera sound, I don't mean camera mic, I mean mixer output recorded into the camera. So we are paying a sound mixer good money to bring their best gear to record with, then recording it to and using substandard camera audio when these amazingly high quality recordings are available from the mixer's SD or Zaxcom recorder. Kills me as I am very sound oriented.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what really bugs me is that every time I shoot a music video, they ask that I have a mic on-camera recording audio, but they never use that feed. They always replace it with some other track they have which wasn't even recorded on set. So all my hard work of setting up that camera mic for nothing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top