Interview Shots from a Corporate Project

Spartacus said:
Clients.
Click to expand...

Not all of them. If you have credibility they also take your word you're using the most appropriate equipment possible given the task and budget. I never depended on equipment to impress clients on a set. But that's only a personal point of view.
 
Spartacus said:
I wouldn´t hesitate to use this setup in any non-commercial or indie production, but for corporate work?
A pimped HVX still is very convincing if only because of its size.
Click to expand...

Once they see the final result, all their worries (if they had any) will have disappeared.

From the grabs I'm seeing, it looks like it was shot on $50k worth of equipment (maybe I'm exaggerating, but come on).
 
Wow. These are just inspiring shots. It's hard to believe they're grabs instead of stills.

Great work. Mind if I ask what you used for lights?

-- Greg
 
taubkin said:
Not all of them. If you have credibility they also take your word you're using the most appropriate equipment possible given the task and budget. I never depended on equipment to impress clients on a set. But that's only a personal point of view.
Click to expand...

Very very interesting statement and basically spot-on in our case. The most important thing to the client is that we were as low profile as possible. The photographer has worked with the client many times and they trusted his judgment; they simply wanted a very quick "hybrid" shoot with stills and video for their annual report to be integrated on the web. The client has had some negative experiences hiring out entire film crews for some of their shoots, and they didn't like the disruptive nature of larger crews, especially at hospitals and smaller clinics.

The idea was to be as lightweight as possible. We were just a 3 person crew. (well, we had a makeup person too) Our entire shoot was powered by batteries and we never plugged in anywhere, which helped speed up everything. We used LED lights for almost everything and they worked great.

It's funny because on one hand you might have some people who wonder why we would use still cameras for video, but once we showed them some footage on the laptop that ended any skepticism.

I also found that shooting with DSLR's does help by simply not being as intimidating as a big ENG camera, or even a pimped out HVX, XL-H1 etc.
 
Last edited:
GregJ said:
Wow. These are just inspiring shots. It's hard to believe they're grabs instead of stills.

Great work. Mind if I ask what you used for lights?

-- Greg
Click to expand...

Don't worry, they really are video grabs. I don't post anything that isn't genuine. I just downsized the ProRes converted clips to 720p and exported jpegs from QT player.

We used FloLight 500's with battery modifications. We also used a lot of little micro LED lights mounted to clamps that we would hang in strategic places in a shot.

I'll try to post a few clips sometime in the near future. It's interesting stuff to look at.
 
Elton, I love the grabs.

Would it possible for you to post a couple of audio clips demonstrating the difference between the Zoom h4 files and the input from the Canon.

I own the D90 and can't stand syncing the external audio tracks.
 
Elton said:
Don't worry, they really are video grabs. I don't post anything that isn't genuine. I just downsized the ProRes converted clips to 720p and exported jpegs from QT player.
at.
Click to expand...

Oh, I trust you! As a matter of fact, your work on display here (along with that of disjecta, aka Steve Dempsey) inspired me to get the XHA1; and just recently helped push me off the fence and decide to get the MarkII.

Okay, I admit I probably would have bought it anyway, but seeing what you've done assures me I made the right decision, i.e., if I can achieve half the quality you have, I'll be happy.

--Greg
 
Slice said:
Elton, I love the grabs.

Would it possible for you to post a couple of audio clips demonstrating the difference between the Zoom h4 files and the input from the Canon.

I own the D90 and can't stand syncing the external audio tracks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I could probably do that sometime relatively soon. If we had a better converter box like a Beachtek, the difference might not've been as dramatic, but the combination of our cheaper converter plus the pumping limiter/AGC/whatever in the 5D2 made for some fairly hissy audio, but it's still useful as a backup pilot track.

I don't mind syncing audio in post. It's very quick for us and the value of 24bit audio is not to be underestimated. We had a number of shots in noisy environments where the 24bit wav file held up extremely well when processing for noise reduction/filtering frequencies, etc. Way more latitude for that stuff.
 
Oynk said:
There is some nice interview footage in this piece. I am sure it is representative of what is possible with the right set up.

Look forward to seeing the finished piece when you are ready.
Click to expand...

Wow, great piece. Man, the potential of this camera with skillful use is just staggering.

I feel like I'm using a mostly painless 'light-gaining' 35mm DOF adapter.

When it's done I'll post a link to the web site it's going to be presented on, in addition to a few higher res bits on vimeo possibly.
 
taubkin said:
Not all of them. If you have credibility they also take your word you're using the most appropriate equipment possible given the task and budget. I never depended on equipment to impress clients on a set. But that's only a personal point of view.
Click to expand...

I guess you´re right in some cases, but if they are the norm or the exeption is what I´d like to find out here.
I guess so far you have at least shown up with a DVX for a shoot, still looking "big" enough for most clients.

I have clients who couldn´t care less how things are shot. I have clients who would like me and the crew to be unnoticable most of all. But a general "it all depends on your talent and credibility" is an oversimplification in my view.
Some clients LOVE having a filmcrew around and LOVE seeing how their 50K are beeing spend - maybe I just have the wrong clients in the end:beer:.

Anyway, I´ll wait a little more how this DSLR filming will develop and than I´ll probably add one to my stuff, if only for personal projects or stills:)
 
You can put a dress on any rig to make it look big and important.


The most important thing is the material you are getting from your equipment but I would say that it is also important to have good looking gear whether it is an HV20 or Panavision either way you can make it look the part just to help as a lubricant for your authority as it were.
 
Spartacus said:
I guess you´re right in some cases, but if they are the norm or the exeption is what I´d like to find out here.
I guess so far you have at least shown up with a DVX for a shoot, still looking "big" enough for most clients.

I have clients who couldn´t care less how things are shot. I have clients who would like me and the crew to be unnoticable most of all. But a general "it all depends on your talent and credibility" is an oversimplification in my view.
Some clients LOVE having a filmcrew around and LOVE seeing how their 50K are beeing spend - maybe I just have the wrong clients in the end:beer:.

Anyway, I´ll wait a little more how this DSLR filming will develop and than I´ll probably add one to my stuff, if only for personal projects or stills:)
Click to expand...

With due respect, I find it amusing how the only thing you seem to be worried about is the size of the camera. Thats just silly, in the end that's the least important factor.

A client will remember you by the quality of the product, not the complexity of production.

You are hired to do a job, not show off. I agree that presentation is somewhat important but if you notice the trend all cameras are getting smaller. From the Arriflex to the EX1.
 
Spartacus said:
Some clients LOVE having a filmcrew around and LOVE seeing how their 50K are beeing spend - maybe I just have the wrong clients in the end:beer:.
Click to expand...

They should believe they are spending their 50K on you, a piece much more important to the equation, IMHO. :)
 
Spartacus said:
This all looks like a well budgeted corporate shoot.
But when looking at your setup, I get mixed feelings.
I know the final product will look stellar.
But how did the various clients react, when you showed up with this DIY setup?
Click to expand...

Well, admittedly it was considered a bit experimental to the client, but they had complete trust in our judgment. We had an HVX on standby if we had any problems, but we'd done plenty of testing ahead of time.

As far interviewees and others, I think they were more relieved and less intimidated than they might've felt in front of a big ENG, pimped out HVX or something like a RED. We could've used much more expensive cameras for the shoot, but the wonderful thing about shooting with DSLR's is that they just don't draw attention to themselves. Nobody comes up to you and asks "is this gonna be on the news"?

That has a lot of value when you're on an extremely tight shooting schedule.

It's definitely true that there are a lot of paying clients out there that want to see their money in the form of big 'I'm expensive'! gear, but those ones usually have no taste either.
 
Last edited:
Spartacus said:
This all looks like a well budgeted corporate shoot.
But when looking at your setup, I get mixed feelings.
I know the final product will look stellar.
But how did the various clients react, when you showed up with this DIY setup?
No matter how many things are attached to it - people will still see the bare DSRL in the end.
I wouldn´t hesitate to use this setup in any non-commercial or indie production, but for corporate work?
A pimped HVX still is very convincing if only because of its size.

With this setup I´d feel the need to explain to the client why we choose this tiny cam that looks like the one he got himself last xmas.
And I prefer NOT to get too technical with clients, but I make shure they know we´ll use the "big toys" for their production.
Maybe this all breaks down to the point where people chose the XL2 over the DVX, just because of its more impressive formfactor.

Anyway, please share your experience!:beer:

PS on that shoot at the hangar - are these Richards LED lights?
Click to expand...

Do you make good work?

Did your clients hire you based on your good work?

If so, if and when they question what equipment you use, just tell them that you are using the same equipment you used for the project they saw that impressed them enough to give you the job.

Some clients care, most don't. They care about the bottom line and final result. I would say very very few would know the difference between an HVX200 and HVX200A or HPX170.

Yes, the Canon 5D Mark II looks like a DSLR and not a big "impressive" video camera, but if your work is good nobody really cares.

We as filmmakers, photographers, etc. get so caught up in the nerdiness of what specs this and what gear that, that it keeps up from focusing on the final product... which is the final product.

I could show you my photography portfolio and would bet that you couldn't tell whether I shot a photo with my 6MP 300D, the 10MP 40D, or the 21MP 5D Mark II.

Better gear doesn't make you better. Striving to be better makes you better. And the better you are, the more clients will want to hire you. And that brings me back to the original point -- if they like your work, they won't care how or what you shoot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top