C100: Interview Demo Reel

Eric Coughlin

Eric Coughlin

Veteran
Here's an interview demo reel I just finished putting together. It was filmed with two C100 Mark I's, a C100 Mark II, and a Panasonic GH2 (some of the tight shots). I did all of the lighting and audio for these interviews (and camera work, of course). Mics used were the Schoeps CMC641, Sanken CS-3e, Sanken COS-11D, and Countryman B6.

Lights used were the Lowel Rifa EX88 1000W, Arri 650W Fresnel, Dedolight DLH4 150W, Lowel Tota 750W, 2x Lowel Pro 250W, and Comer 1800 LED.

If you feel like digging through the photos you can find behind-the-scenes photos of the various lighting setups for a lot of these interviews here (https://www.facebook.com/TwoSenseFilms/photos_stream?ref=page_internal).

Comments and constructive criticism welcome.


I put C300 Mark II in the Vimeo title simply because I have the camera on pre-order and want to start showing up in local search results, as Vimeo tends to do pretty well in Google searches; I'll probably add C300 Mark II footage to the reel once I start doing interviews with it. I'm kind of curious how well it will cut together with the C100s for multi-cam interviews.
 
@Scott F: At 1:50, hmm, yeah, I see that now; maybe I can brighten up just the guy's suit with a mask if it doesn't introduce too much noise.


@joe/dp: For the sit down interviews my typical lens setup is a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 on front tight, Nikon 55 f/2.8 on front medium, and Nikon 105 f/2.5 on off-axis tight (if I have room). In tight quarters or if I want to see more of the background in general I use the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (around 24-35mm) for the medium shot and either the Nikon 55 f/2.8 or Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for the tight shot. For run n' gun I'll often use the Canon 24-105 f/4. I often add 7-20 sharpness in post in Premiere and am always sure to upload and upgrade the video to 1080p on Vimeo.


@remsyatassi: Indoor sit down interviews I generally used the Schoeps CMC641 on a boom overhead; I love how it sounds, very clean with less echoes than most mics. Outdoor interviews and noisy indoor interviews I'll use the Sanken CS-3e, often from underneath pointed upward and away from loud noises. The Sanken CS-3e is great at isolation.

There were four lav interviews in there, but for three of them it was mostly because I didn't own the quality boom mics yet at the time, and the fourth one just because I was in a hurry. Now I use boom mics for just about all of my interviews and don't use lavs for interviews unless I'm in a big hurry and don't want to setup a boom. I almost always use the boom on a stand and not handheld by someone. The mic is always as close as it can get without going into frame. All audio (except for two interviews which used a Sony PCM-M10) is going straight into the C100.
 
The opening (priest) shot needs more fill because it currently looks a tad too "film noir".

The third "exponential" shot, your background is far too dark, which makes your subject appear more like a deity. Compare this to the 4th, where the background is well lit.

The face of a lady in the red dress is a bit overexposed (it could be her natural color but you don't want it to stand out that much, as she is ghostly here).

The last "freshman from Rhode Island" face was also not lit uniformly. MO, it needs more fill and hair. I also don't like the clock in the background, as its face reflects light and distracts from the main subject.

Personal observations, mind you.
 
Nice reel. I like it. However, I don't agree with the idea of C300 Mark II being mentioned without even a single shot being present. It is simply not right. Apart from ethics, it is also not good business. These seemingly small transgressions hit very badly, often at the worst moment. Most of the times one doesn't get a chance to explain. In my past corporate life, I have been party to blacklisting of several agencies because someone caved in to temptation. Don't let your reputation get affected by such stuff. There are other ways of announcing that you have got C300 Mark II coming soon.
 
Hi Eric,

That's a great coincidence. This is the reel you sent me yesterday responding to my Production Hub ad looking for a shooter in Baltimore next week. Very nice. I think it could be shorter, felt looooong. I have many, many short reels, most are password protected, some are interviews like this but I break them down into two: corporate and documentary because those are the two styles I function in and they tend to be different. Each head is about 5 seconds and it has music, no narration. Narration is a distraction and I'm often forced to use rooms with bad ambient HVAC so I figure why provide the audio which can work against me? Some editors who cut my footage may suck at at audio sweetening. I want my talking head reel to prove that no matter what situation you put me in I will be successful. So by having a zillion heads quickly dissolving by with music it seems the reel is quick. Prospects deciding who to hire are very busy and we are just one item on their To Do list.

I agree that your first shot shouldn't be the priest. We all go through style periods and the priest looks like you're in your "no fill" period so if the majority of your prospects are corporate you should load those types up front. I realize with the priest that you were trying to match the look of the background but that one is a little too much negative fill.

Were some of those punch ins or did you have a two camera set up or change focal lengths?

The way I sell myself when I am asked to shoot a Chicago or Midwest or US scene that will be added into an existing video is I ask to see a screen grab or QT of their interviews and then I send something very similar. I also mention that I can match the style which is what they are most worried about and in fact, when I posted the Production Hub ad that's all I cared about: Can this person match what the other interviews looked like?

Also speed! Many of the people we are asked to shoot are VIP, or folks who have dedicated a specific short length of time for the interview so I let the prospect know I am fast, fast, fast, and that's a relief to them. Also, I let them know I have a make up kit, including for black people, plus I have a small 9" fan I put on a stand and has a remote on/off switch.

Sorry I couldn't travel you to Baltimore!
 
indiawilds said:
Nice reel. I like it. However, I don't agree with the idea of C300 Mark II being mentioned without even a single shot being present. It is simply not right. Apart from ethics, it is also not good business. These seemingly small transgressions hit very badly, often at the worst moment. Most of the times one doesn't get a chance to explain. In my past corporate life, I have been party to blacklisting of several agencies because someone caved in to temptation. Don't let your reputation get affected by such stuff. There are other ways of announcing that you have got C300 Mark II coming soon.
Click to expand...

Ethics has left the building.
 
Moving forward I won't have text as to what camera did what since I use so many different models. In sum, it should not say C300 if it wasn't. You can make a separate C300 interview reel if you feel the need, but if clients think you had great C100 work then it goes without saying that your C300 will be "more better".

And Eric, as you learned yesterday, I hire shooters around the country because many of my clients are too poor or cheap to send me or I am double booked. I need to know they are fast, presentable in a corporate environment, won't try to steal my client, basically: No danger of them f'ing it up.
 
@DLD: Thanks for the observations. I could probably try bringing the exposure down some in post on the red shirt lady. The dark background interview was for a drama/theater video, so I wanted the lighting to be reminiscent of more dramatic theater lighting.


@indiawilds: I'm not misleading my clients because most of my clients already know what cameras I have (3 C100s) and what camera I have coming in around a couple months (C300 Mark II), and the rest of my clients don't care what camera I use as long as the images and content are good. It's about SEO (Search Engine Optimization) for potential future clients Googling for a C300 Mark II in Tampa or Orlando. Most of my videos can't have the camera listed in the title because they are videos for clients or on a subject and not a reel. I'm not going to make a new reel every time I get a new camera as that would be too time consuming, and if I waited until I have C300 Mark II footage in the reel to add it in the title then I don't think it would work well in terms of SEO since SEO takes time to work out.

My last reel was my Steadicam reel which had in the title "Tampa Steadicam," and now when you Google "Tampa Steadicam," that video is the first result. When I meet someone and want them to check out my Steadicam reel, I can just tell them, Google "Tampa Steadicam." Is the first result my website, TampaSteadicam.com? No. It's the Vimeo Tampa Steadicam reel. SEO. Ned knows about SEO. Perhaps my next video reel should be titled, "Tampa Videographer."

While I have shot on a good number of cameras, most of my work is with my own cameras and that's how I want it to be, as if I'm using someone else's camera I'm typically getting a lower rate since I'm not using my gear. As such, it makes sense to market myself as an owner of whatever cameras I own.


@Ned: Hey Ned; shortly after sending you that application I was back in my "What is your job title?" topic and saw there that you had responded in there. Didn't know at the time I applied that you were a DVXuser. That's cool.

I feel that interviews are about lighting, framing, audio, background, depth, how comfortable and fluent the interviewee is (often as a result of your producing and directing), etc. and so forth. If you take audio out of the mix then you're really taking a very important component out of showing your skillset in filming interviews as a whole (at least assuming you don't always have a dedicated audio professional with you). I mean, if you film a great looking interview with completely unusable audio then (assuming dubbing isn't an option) you've essentially failed at the job as a whole and it would need to be re-shot or scrapped. I'd think as a producer hiring a videographer to do interviews where they're also doing the sound, it would be important that I also get from them samples where they've gotten good sound. Audio isn't just a matter of good or bad luck; there's a lot one can do to get better audio in a wide range of situations.

Regarding more fill on the priest, the last priest I filmed (and previous interviews in general, I guess before I went through the less fill period) people (local colleagues and also DVXuser members) said I needed less fill as my interviews were too balanced and bland. I guess this essentially means that either I went too far on reducing fill, or that different people have different tastes. I personally like how the priest looks and have gotten more compliments on that interview than any other ones I've done before, hence why I put it first. I guess it remains to be seen if I'll stick with or lessen my less fill period that I am currently in.

No punch-ins; I had a two or three camera setup. I own three C100s so for sit down interviews will use at least two and if there's room and a decent off-axis background I'll use a third. I'm digging the three camera setup. I know a lot of people are punching in on 4K for interviews but I'm not sure if I like the jump cut look of it as oppsoed to the non-jump cut change in focal length and slight change of angle from multiple cameras. Once I get the C300 Mark II I suspect I'll still be doing separate cameras for medium and tight for any interviews where they're looking off camera; for interviews where they're looking straight into camera 4K and punching in will be quite useful.

Make up kit...yes, that's on my list of things to get and learn. Any tips there on what to buy and learning resources?
 
Last edited:
Hey Eric,

I agree with you regarding the audio, but I end up in horrible rooms with HVAC so by doing a montage with music I avoid putting great looking interviews with crappy audio into a reel. Also, many clients aren't keen that I want to use clips for my sample reels in case something confidential is discussed so a music montage serves me well. Plus, the sample seems less long. And you're right: It's all about the lighting. I assume a pro can do audio although I ask what mics they will bring. You have very nice mics.

For several years I did fund raising docs for a private Jesuit school and one year the client wanted a black background cloth (bad room) and no fill. Really. When their client saw it they complained the head priest looked like "a bobblehead", since he was wearing black. Swear to God (no pun intended).

The two boards I am active on are CC and this Canon one, although I am sort of done with this one since I know the C100 very well now, but I do get bored and check in now and then. A few years ago I asked a SEO consultant who was trying to get me to hire him, and he did an analysis on me and he said that Google recognizes my posts on various video forums going way back and the responses to them so Google thinks I'm an expert in video and that has helped my ranking. Go figure. I never cold figure out why guys on these forums would anonymize their identities because it dings their SEO.

By the way, you provide 3 cameras for the same price as most of us cameramen bring one? Why? Is that a competitive edge for you? How can you pay for all this gear if you charge a regular rate? You look young and your clients seem small but your equipment list looks like $80-$100K of gear. Just curious as to what I'm doing wrong ;-) Please clarify.

Thanks,

Ned
 
Last edited:
Regarding more fill on the priest.....
Click to expand...

That was one man's opinion, but THIS man thinks you got it right. (Film noir or otherwise.....who says there are rules on how things have to look?) You did a fine job.
 
nedcam said:
By the way, you provide 3 cameras for the same price as most of us cameramen bring one? Why? Is that a competitive edge for you? How can you pay for all this gear if you charge a regular rate? You look young and your clients seem small but your equipment list looks like $80-$100K of gear. Just curious as to what I'm doing wrong ;-) Please clarify.
Click to expand...
I've got about $65K of gear which will be $85K once the C300 Mark II, memory, and batteries arrive. I actually updated my rate card a couple weeks ago to charge more for additional C100s for freelance work, but it remains to be seen if clients will be willing to pay for it. I was looking for feedback on my rate card, so feel free to chime in on that if you wish.

Rate Card said:
Day rate (up to 10 hours) with C100 Mark II and lens package*: $1000
1/2 day rate (up to 5 hours) with C100 Mark II and lens package*: $700
DP or Steadicam day rate without equipment: $650
DP or Steadicam 1/2 day rate without equipment: $500
Camera operator day rate without equipment: $500
Camera operator 1/2 day rate without equipment: $400

A la carte:
Additional C100s: $100 each
Dolly w/12-ft track: $75
Jib: $150
Steadicam: $350

Overtime (beyond 10 hours) is time and a half of what the hourly pay would work out to from the day rate.

*Includes basic support gear (tripod, slider, monopod, Glidecam), tungsten lighting kit, and audio package.

My equipment list can be found here: http://twosensefilms.com/?page_id=422
Click to expand...

Now that's for freelance work for other video companies and producers. For my company's clients (non-freelance, where I'm the producer and editor) it kind of depends on the project. If I'm doing a long-form multi-cam event I'll often charge based on how many cameras and cameramen they want since more takes a lot more time to edit and requires me paying extra cameramen. But for interviews, it actually doesn't take much longer to edit multiple angles, and it just takes a few extra minutes to setup. Plus, most of the times I'm filming interviews for my company's clients it means I'm doing a project which is going to be public on my Vimeo page, which means I'll want to put my everything in to it as I generally don't want to make public videos which I didn't do the best I possibly could (such as if I was charging by equipment and the client didn't want to pay for everything). While a current client may not always be willing to pay for a full gear list, by using that full gear to the best of my abilities and then publishing that work, I find it has led me to better paying clients who are willing to pay higher rates based on the quality of the work. If I had just stuck with only ever bringing just what the client is paying for than my work would suffer in relation to my capabilities with my gear and in turn so would my ability to get better clients.

Also, since I already have three C100s which I also bought for the abundance of multi-cam shoots I do (I film around 40-50 freelance (no editing) weddings (generally 3-5 cameras) per year in addition to my corporate work), it doesn't cost me anything extra to bring what I already own. I know some videographers who act like it costs them money to bring a camera to a shoot, but, I've only had $200 in maintenance on three C100s in three years which means it has cost me about 50 cents per shoot in camera maintenance, and wear and tear doesn't really reduce a camera's value nearly as much as the passing of time (upgrades in competing technology) does. I also take good care of my gear on shoots and it all looks like it's in good condition.

As for how I can afford it, I guess I just live below my means. This year I'm expecting to make around $80k, while my living expenses are around $30k (probably not far from average for a 28 year old in my area), which means I have around $45-50k I'm using to invest in gear this year. From a business standpoint this has worked well for me because I find that the more gear I have, the better my work is, the more I can charge, and the more job opportunities I can land, as the amount of money I've been making each year continues to grow rather quickly. One reason I'm excited about the C300 Mark II aside from the technical features that will give me better image quality and make filming easier, is also that I'll be able to charge a higher rate, get higher end clients, and make more money.
 
Scott F said:
That was one man's opinion, but THIS man thinks you got it right. (Film noir or otherwise.....who says there are rules on how things have to look?) You did a fine job.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said that it was a personal opinion. I can also agree with others POV that, if every shot in every clip has the same look, then one might have to change things up just for the heck of it. It is a demo reel after all.
 
I think your rates are competitive but fair. Though, I usually hesitate to throw too much gear in without billing for it because at the end of the day you have to pay for it. It helps when you're getting started but in the long run freebies like $2k mics will really hurt the profit line on your day rate unless it's billed additionally.

Though like I said, your audio is quite good!
 
The mics aren't as expensive as they seem since they'll last a long time, I would say. My tungsten lighting kit is feeling dated with the new LED technology out there. Canon comes out with V. II of lenses which makes V. 1's outdated, Sigma releases new Art lenses which are better than the rivals, and new cinema lenses come out such as Rokinon and Canon CN-Es, so lens technology is changing and improving. Cameras have a shelf life of 2-3 years. Computers about the same.

But mics, they should last for 10-20 years or more. So I spent $5k on mics which should last me 10-20 years, which comes out to just $250-$500 per year. For that low yearly price I'm able to greatly improve my audio on all my videos throughout my career, along with having better audio for my reel which will increase my odds of being hired in general. Audio is such an important part of video production that I don't understand why people aren't willing to spend more on audio in relation to what they're spending on other equipment.

People are showing up with a camera they spent $5k on like the C100 and are using $200 mics (one shotgun (such as an NTG-2) and one lav (such as the stock Senheisser lav that comes with the G3 wireless)). The camera will be outdated in three years and may sell for $2000 then, so that's $1000 per year on the camera. The mics will be good for say 15 years at $400 total, so $26 per year. That's a 38 to 1 camera to microphone spending ratio. Considering how important audio is spending so little on microphones doesn't make much sense to me.

It often makes even less sense when people are showing up with their $16k camera (such as the original C300 when it first came out) and are still using their measly $200 mics. Or for those who invested $75k in a betacam 10-15 years ago but decided not to spend an additional $5k on good microphones, while the microphones would still be in use today improving all of their videos, and the betacam is pretty worthless now.
 
Last edited:
I have found that lavs don't last all that long, maybe 3-4 years and here's why. I instruct my soundmen, and if I am solo I say the same thing to the whomever a lav is pinned on:

"Please do not take off the mic, it's very fragile. As soon as you're finished we will take it off for you."

Invariably, especially with celebs, experienced actors, news types, VIPs or people doing a costume change elsewhere, they will YANK on the head of our lavs trying to take it off, as if they are doing us a favor. No matter what we say they forget. Sit down interviews most people will remember but my point is, where the cable enters the capsule the thin cables get frayed. It is very hard to repair (Location Sound, Trew Audio, etc.) and when they do you are on borrowed time. The mic will not last for long.

That's what I found. Also, crew members closing the case on the cables also shortens their life span. Shotguns can last forever but lavs I give them a few years. I am a label maker freak (OCD?) and I put the date on everything so I can rotate. I now know from experience to color code a lav that has been repaired because it may stab me in the back, such as at a live event.

I have good and cheap lavs. If I feel they will be harmed, like lavs on a fishing show, or the subject will be in the rain, I use my cheepos. When it is an important job or indoor sit down I use the good stuff and I suggest you do similar and don't think something so fragile will last. Due to their very thin cables lavs are an expendable although they can last a few years. The longer you're in this biz you'll hear clients say, "You're insured, right?" That's said right after a piece of your package is needlessly destroyed, such as when someone just pulled the capsule off your lav. And I never heard a client offer to pay my deductible!

In sum, lavs don't last.

P.S. I just saw you mentioned me and SEO. What I've seen the last year or so is SEO doesn't matter as much anymore. Prospects looking for video vendors such as us here are using sites and apps such as Prod Hub, Thumbtack, Staff Me Up, Freelancer, etc. It's a sign of laziness. If they do a Google search that means they then have to drill down, contact people, ask about rates, negotiate, etc. People are inherently lazy and it seems your generation is used to just going with these apps. I know. The leads that come in from searches will always tend to be the older crowd. Unfortunately, the sites are all crowd sourcing which is why prices are driven down. But don't get me started.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
@indiawilds: I'm not misleading my clients because most of my clients already know what cameras I have (3 C100s) and what camera I have coming in around a couple months (C300 Mark II), and the rest of my clients don't care what camera I use as long as the images and content are good. It's about SEO (Search Engine Optimization) for potential future clients Googling for a C300 Mark II in Tampa or Orlando. Most of my videos can't have the camera listed in the title because they are videos for clients or on a subject and not a reel. I'm not going to make a new reel every time I get a new camera as that would be too time consuming, and if I waited until I have C300 Mark II footage in the reel to add it in the title then I don't think it would work well in terms of SEO since SEO takes time to work out.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Can't agree with this at all. Whether you are misrepresenting facts to your clients or trying to mislead the search engine, the basic fact is you are ok with misleading. Gaining an edge in search is not a life and death situation. Even if ethically you are fine with it, it is not good business.

One never knows who is watching. Last year I was looking for another shooter when someone proudly told me that he has shot with Amira. Since I knew Amira was not yet in the market, I further questioned and the person said that he handled it in the demo. I simply rejected him. To me that guy is simply untrustworthy. In client situations I can't trust him. He can always try to grab my clients. Neither can I believe that he has really worked in the places he is mentioning in his resume and the demo reels are his etc etc. I have no idea how people view about this in your country. So you can take whatever I am saying with a pinch of salt.

Nevertheless, there is something else that I agree with you. In your later post, you say that microphones remain for a long time. I agree with that. Microphones, lenses and tripods/fluid heads are the three things that remain with us for a long time and retain their value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top