When shooting family portraits, wedding party portraits, couple portraits etc., the photographer is directing everything, posing everybody, it doesn't translate to good video. But between the poses, where there may be two seconds of footage, that in slow motion turns into 10, where the couple is doing something off-script that I can give the editor. You just never know so you keep rolling, that's all.
Hot hot was it?
- Thread starter Tom Roper
- Start date
NorBro
Major Contributor
How come you didn't move around? (Just wondering, chit chat.)
I read the YT description and you're further away - and I also don't know anything about what exactly is going on and what you need to be doing right then and there - but I think maybe it would have been a good opportunity to move your feet and snipe shots with that 100-400 from different angles.
I read the YT description and you're further away - and I also don't know anything about what exactly is going on and what you need to be doing right then and there - but I think maybe it would have been a good opportunity to move your feet and snipe shots with that 100-400 from different angles.
Peter C.
Veteran
I don't know if you're open to criticism but I don't like it.
To me it's an overuse or misuse of slow motion. In my mind slow motion should be reserved to key emotional moments bride walking down the aisle, the kiss, first dance, etc not for photo session with the photographer. You also are slowing things down too much. I usually shoot at 60fps then in post you can reduce it a bit but not like this. This appears unnaturally slow and obvious. It looks strange and takes me out of the moment. This is more subjective but if I'm filming the behind the scenes I want audio and I'm going to be filming the photographer talking and interacting with them. I'm going to stay out of their way but I'm not filming from a distance because I want the documentary feel. If you are doing non gimbal hand hold shots from a distance and you are relying on slowing it down to hide it I don't think that's a good approach. Either you should have the organic feel of hand hold or the steadiness of a gimbal.
This is nothing personal just my honest opinion on how I see it.
To me it's an overuse or misuse of slow motion. In my mind slow motion should be reserved to key emotional moments bride walking down the aisle, the kiss, first dance, etc not for photo session with the photographer. You also are slowing things down too much. I usually shoot at 60fps then in post you can reduce it a bit but not like this. This appears unnaturally slow and obvious. It looks strange and takes me out of the moment. This is more subjective but if I'm filming the behind the scenes I want audio and I'm going to be filming the photographer talking and interacting with them. I'm going to stay out of their way but I'm not filming from a distance because I want the documentary feel. If you are doing non gimbal hand hold shots from a distance and you are relying on slowing it down to hide it I don't think that's a good approach. Either you should have the organic feel of hand hold or the steadiness of a gimbal.
This is nothing personal just my honest opinion on how I see it.
Ah, the time warp of slow motion. You're looking at a grand total of 40 seconds of footage spread out over 3:23. What can you do with your feet in 40 seconds?
It works like this, wedding party shots after the ceremony can last for an hour of standing around. (For the guests this is also called the cocktail hour) Calling out names from a list, arranging people according to height, having the right buttons buttoned, the hands in the pocket, the sunglasses off etc, etc. The videographer doesn't need to be there for all of that. So there I am, inside the reception area, hooking up audio to the sound system, positioning cameras and tripods for the introductions, grand entrance, speeches/toasts, dances, lights. The photographer wants to know why so many cameras. Well it's not because I'm crafting an extraordinary scene of pageantry. It's because I'm praying that for all the important moments, I'll have just one camera that solidly captures it, unblocked by guests, photographers, kids.
So you're doing that but you're multi-tasking, you're grabbing b-roll of the guests, getting well wishes on camera, shots of the cake, the seating, the arrangements, the flowers, the candles, the invitations, the pictures of the departed. You're doing all of this. You spot the wedding couple through the glass, they are finally staged, you pick up your Ursa off the ground, throw it on your shoulder, step through the door, you're at the top of the stairs over the heads of the guests milling below, you aim at the couple and start filiming. You shoot for 40 seconds. Perhaps as little as two seconds of this makes it into the edit, or as much as 7 seconds. How much trouble will you afford for 40 seconds that may end up unused?
My next thoughts are back inside. Set the Ursa down. Meet with the wedding planner and DJ, get details on where the bride and groom will be making their entrance, how many people will be in the introductions, the order of the dinner, the blessing, what comes next and when, replacing batteries exhausted during the ceremony, re-balancing gimbals, removing and stowing ND filters, leveling cameras, checking frame rates and exposure, pre-planning where you might have to reposition if the script changes.
Weddings seldom go according to plan, if they even have a plan. How will you stay out of your own shots? This is what it's like when you're one shooter. If you have a second shooter, you can split up the cocktail hour from the wedding party photos. The best shots are the couple photos/romantics at twilight. It takes perfect coordination of calendar, time of day and luck so that you can have control of the bride and groom post ceremony, after the family portraits and wedding party photos and before the introductions and dinner seating. The guests have been waiting all this time, drinking, but when the couple enters they try to serve dinner right away.
The most fluid shots come from the gimbals, but they are wide. There is no point in trying to recreate that with an Ursa on your shoulder. What the gimbals don't give you are compelling, tight shots of faces. That's what you can get from the Ursa. In between those two extremes, you're just covering angles with the other cams.
So the Ursa sounds like a lot of trouble for 40 seconds of video? What else are you going to do with it? The data rate is too high for the ceremony although you could, but that means a really heavy duty tripod to support it. That's more hassle than the Ursa itself. The long lens meant time saved not walking down a flight of stairs, not walking another 200 feet, not dodging around photographers and friends with cell phones to use a shorter lens. You can't just bowl over people. They are everywhere, in your way, blocking stairways, doorways. And although it's very stable footage from the shoulder, it's not for shooting with moving feet. You have gimbals for that. But as you said, sniping, absolutely. But sniped shots too have their problem, that they all can look like well, sniped shots. Unless something is actually happening with some action in it, they seldom end up looking any different than portraits. But portraits are people, people you may never see again, parents and grand parents that for all anyone knows, these could be the last time anyone ever sees them in life. So they are important. Just last September I shot a wedding, youthful mother of the bride, lost to cancer in February. Wedding videos were the last ones to memorialize this person's life.
The thing I'm not decided about on a 24 FPS timeline, is if 120 FPS is an improvement over 60 FPS? I think it's too slow. The editor was actually requesting 120 FPS, but 60 FPS has a fluidity that I think is actually better because it's not so slow.
It works like this, wedding party shots after the ceremony can last for an hour of standing around. (For the guests this is also called the cocktail hour) Calling out names from a list, arranging people according to height, having the right buttons buttoned, the hands in the pocket, the sunglasses off etc, etc. The videographer doesn't need to be there for all of that. So there I am, inside the reception area, hooking up audio to the sound system, positioning cameras and tripods for the introductions, grand entrance, speeches/toasts, dances, lights. The photographer wants to know why so many cameras. Well it's not because I'm crafting an extraordinary scene of pageantry. It's because I'm praying that for all the important moments, I'll have just one camera that solidly captures it, unblocked by guests, photographers, kids.
So you're doing that but you're multi-tasking, you're grabbing b-roll of the guests, getting well wishes on camera, shots of the cake, the seating, the arrangements, the flowers, the candles, the invitations, the pictures of the departed. You're doing all of this. You spot the wedding couple through the glass, they are finally staged, you pick up your Ursa off the ground, throw it on your shoulder, step through the door, you're at the top of the stairs over the heads of the guests milling below, you aim at the couple and start filiming. You shoot for 40 seconds. Perhaps as little as two seconds of this makes it into the edit, or as much as 7 seconds. How much trouble will you afford for 40 seconds that may end up unused?
My next thoughts are back inside. Set the Ursa down. Meet with the wedding planner and DJ, get details on where the bride and groom will be making their entrance, how many people will be in the introductions, the order of the dinner, the blessing, what comes next and when, replacing batteries exhausted during the ceremony, re-balancing gimbals, removing and stowing ND filters, leveling cameras, checking frame rates and exposure, pre-planning where you might have to reposition if the script changes.
Weddings seldom go according to plan, if they even have a plan. How will you stay out of your own shots? This is what it's like when you're one shooter. If you have a second shooter, you can split up the cocktail hour from the wedding party photos. The best shots are the couple photos/romantics at twilight. It takes perfect coordination of calendar, time of day and luck so that you can have control of the bride and groom post ceremony, after the family portraits and wedding party photos and before the introductions and dinner seating. The guests have been waiting all this time, drinking, but when the couple enters they try to serve dinner right away.
The most fluid shots come from the gimbals, but they are wide. There is no point in trying to recreate that with an Ursa on your shoulder. What the gimbals don't give you are compelling, tight shots of faces. That's what you can get from the Ursa. In between those two extremes, you're just covering angles with the other cams.
So the Ursa sounds like a lot of trouble for 40 seconds of video? What else are you going to do with it? The data rate is too high for the ceremony although you could, but that means a really heavy duty tripod to support it. That's more hassle than the Ursa itself. The long lens meant time saved not walking down a flight of stairs, not walking another 200 feet, not dodging around photographers and friends with cell phones to use a shorter lens. You can't just bowl over people. They are everywhere, in your way, blocking stairways, doorways. And although it's very stable footage from the shoulder, it's not for shooting with moving feet. You have gimbals for that. But as you said, sniping, absolutely. But sniped shots too have their problem, that they all can look like well, sniped shots. Unless something is actually happening with some action in it, they seldom end up looking any different than portraits. But portraits are people, people you may never see again, parents and grand parents that for all anyone knows, these could be the last time anyone ever sees them in life. So they are important. Just last September I shot a wedding, youthful mother of the bride, lost to cancer in February. Wedding videos were the last ones to memorialize this person's life.
The thing I'm not decided about on a 24 FPS timeline, is if 120 FPS is an improvement over 60 FPS? I think it's too slow. The editor was actually requesting 120 FPS, but 60 FPS has a fluidity that I think is actually better because it's not so slow.
This post came in while I was writing my other. I mentioned this, and I agree with you 100%.
Yes, it's bad. Too far away for audio and bts. The most you could say about it is it's Ursa footage, 8K 120 FPS HDR. It's at most more than zero, but it's never less than zero. You don't have what you don't have, so you keep it rolling. This is not product that goes to a client, not in this form. It's demo footage only, that gives a clue about skin tones, noise, dynamic range, color and resolution, set to music so you don't notice my breathing, as my head is tight against the camera body.
The first time I heard it, I didn't get it because I knew nothing of either Rooney's or Russell's particular attributes.
BTW, a light umbrella would have been a better solution that a towel. If the ambient temperature was that hot, an external fan - and/or a bucket of ice - might have helped.
NorBro
Major Contributor
How is the footage supposed to look on a M1 MBP? Because when I go to scrub through, I see the image previews above the scrub bar which look different than the playback version (they look desaturated and possibly more normal). But when I play the HDR video (no option for SDR), they look crunchy and oversaturated (I know you mentioned the sunburn but the scrub bar preview doesn't show that).
There is no doubt the images are beautiful in their own way, and every normal wedding client in the world would love them, but it's just that when you're used to watching a lot of ARRI and RED clips, the difference is pronounced (at least to me) and the images don't have that natural softness while still maintaining resolution.
Crispy is really the right superlative; the footage appears super crispy (at least to me and what I am seeing on my screen).
I'm not saying this to imply everything should look the same but just trying to figure out if what I am seeing is what's intended since the scrub bar previews are displaying a different product.
I had this complaint before on that video and thus I did not release it to public, it's an unlisted video. But the complaint came from viewing the HDR on an Apple device. When I looked at it on my iPhone which is the only Apple device I own for viewing, it looked oversaturated and red. It does not look that way on my 65 inch display in HDR. but something is wrong.
Would you do me the favor of looking at the first video posted above for the same problem? It seems normal in HDR on my iPhone and I would appreciate confirmation.
And you don't have to sugarcoat your words. I appreciate constructive criticism. These videos suck! Lol..but especially the 2nd one for oversaturation and reds. I have a clue what it is, but the first video was done differently. It sucks for other more fixable reasons.
Would you do me the favor of looking at the first video posted above for the same problem? It seems normal in HDR on my iPhone and I would appreciate confirmation.
And you don't have to sugarcoat your words. I appreciate constructive criticism. These videos suck! Lol..but especially the 2nd one for oversaturation and reds. I have a clue what it is, but the first video was done differently. It sucks for other more fixable reasons.
NorBro
Major Contributor
They absolutely do not suck; you're capturing cherished memories (at least for the time being) in extremely high-quality. Our brains just process data differently.
I checked both videos on my iPhone and both look different (which I already expected since I believe HDR is handled differently on mobile by Apple). The first one's saturation/skintones didn't change but there is much more detail in the shadows. The second one has the beautiful subtle look the scrub bar previews show and also much more detail in the shadows.
I checked both videos on my iPhone and both look different (which I already expected since I believe HDR is handled differently on mobile by Apple). The first one's saturation/skintones didn't change but there is much more detail in the shadows. The second one has the beautiful subtle look the scrub bar previews show and also much more detail in the shadows.
When you say both videos look different when you checked them on your iPhone, did you mean both videos look different from each other or different from the M1 MacBook?
So are you saying the second video, (the blonde bride) looks okay on your phone but not on your M1 MacBook? I'm probably confusing what you meant.
So are you saying the second video, (the blonde bride) looks okay on your phone but not on your M1 MacBook? I'm probably confusing what you meant.
NorBro
Major Contributor
For the Hispanic bride, the SDR copy or whichever copy it is on my iPhone does look better on the phone than the HDR version on the M1, but by better I mean only in the dynamic range (IMO). The blacks aren't as crushed...not a drastic difference but you can see more into the shadows of the suits, the trees, any dark areas (naturally because that's the point of HDR). The colors seem unchanged.
But with the blonde bride, the color science is different. Much less saturation and a more subtle, pleasing look. Maybe even less sharper. And the aforementioned dynamic range increase is also there (as expected).
But with the blonde bride, the color science is different. Much less saturation and a more subtle, pleasing look. Maybe even less sharper. And the aforementioned dynamic range increase is also there (as expected).
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Probably just sharpening settings, no?
As for slow motion (addressing a different post), i shoot most of a wedding day in 120fps. I actually find that things that are already slow look sexy when they're slowed down further (someone turning to smile, putting in an earring, etc.). And you can benefit from pausing the subject in their most flattering angle or lengthening a shot that was too brief to use. The editing pace remains the same, so there's still a cut every 3-ish seconds. And, of course, you can always speed things back up anyway. And if you use a high frame rate timebase rather than s&q, you can capture audio.
I shoot the ceremony and toasts at 24fps. But even then, there is one studio that I work for who has slowed down ceremony footage. Obviously it would have been better in that case to shoot it at a high frame rate instead of letting them interpolate frames.
I typically shoot dance footage at 24fps because people look awkward bouncing up and down in slow motion, and usually I want more subject movement within an edited shot and the dance montage has a faster editing pace. But even then, I've seen nice smiles and hugs or arm gestures on the dance floor that would benefit from slow motion, not to mention the benefit of rescuing shots from being too short. This one I'm on the fence about, and I shot most of my dance footage last night at 60 fps.
Doesn't really make sense to me to evaluate those things from a string of selects instead of a finished edit...