My desperate last minute plea

shAi said:
i felt stupid to carry this HUGE thing on my shoulder when i knew that this small camera could do so much better, in all means, but making my boss earning his bucks.
Click to expand...
Agreed! But sometimes you have to...

We did a convention where the budget was pretty big and the DVX was not going to "cut it", looks-wise. I rented the lowest-cost shoulder-mount cameras I could find, a DSR300 for the main camera and a DSR250 for field work, so it would "look" pro, and the client was quite happy. It was a pain in the neck (and back and everything else) to haul around the DSR's with the Anton Bauer batteries (each battery weighs more than the DVX does, or so it seems!)

On the third day of the convention they were going out on a boat, and I didn't want to bring $25,000 worth of rented cameras, so I brought out the DVX. Client raised an eyebrow, but by that time they trusted us completely and were so far thrilled with what they were getting. But -- get this -- the footage I got was BETTER with the DVX. Not that the "video quality" was better, but the interaction with the people was much better. They were far less intimidated by the little camera; the big camera put them off their game, but the little camera was much friendlier, we got much more candid footage that made for a better experience.

We edited the footage together each night, for presentation the next day. Client saw the results and was thrilled with what the DVX was able to do.

The DSR's stayed on the sticks in the convention hall the rest of the shoot, we used the DVX for field recording after that. My back was happy, and the DVX 6-ounce battery lasted for a full day, rather than 45 minutes out of the bricks... so my back was very happy.

The looks of the camera *are* important, for some jobs. If I'd shown up on the first day of that gig with a DVX, I would have been laughed off the premises. Once they saw what we could do, and knew and trusted us, the looks of the camera became irrelevant (and, in fact, the smaller size became a bonus!)

For shooting your own stuff, nobody cares what the camera looks like, but if you're bidding on $25,000+ jobs, you have to look the part -- at least until the clients learn that a camera that looks like the HVX can deliver what they're expecting.
 
Couldn't agree more Barry!

I was doing a similar thing two weeks back. The main cameras were sony DSRs (can't remember which models as I didn't use them) and I was doing handheld shots with a XL1.

The DSRs looked the part and I had a few audience ask which channel we were from, however the editor told me yesterday that most of the footage used is from my handheld XL1. I could move so much more freely than the other guys and got some far better angles. I wanted to use my own XM1 (GL1 in US I think), which I prefer to the XL1, but the boss said that it looked too amateur. I reckon the footage would have been better still with it!

Damn the public for not realising this!
 
mmm said:
Damn the public for not realising this!
Click to expand...
The convention crowd may be clueless, but broadcast television companies are not. I worked on a reality TV series last fall and we used 10 DVX100a cameras for the show. Get this: IN 24PA!! Crazy for a reality show, imho, but it was well enjoyed by all.
 
True.

The advantage is that the public don't feel threatened by small cameras and that can help for many things I suppose... :thumbsup:
 
I want it small and ugly, so when I whip that thing out in a foreign country people think I'm a tourist with a tourist camcorder. Now if I get just get the mattebox to look like...
 
I shoot in foreign, video-crew unfriendly countries, and a small camera is almost a necessity. Less hassle from the police; and I can setup, get the shot and move on before a crowd forms.

Just a couple days ago a future client (a large government organization) asked me what equipment I use, and I said Digital Betacam (borrowed from local TV station) or a MiniDV DVX-100. They said I'd only get the job if I used the DVX because large cameras attract too much attention.

So small is also good!

Unfortunately tripods tend to exude professionalism, so I'm looking forward to taking handheld HVX footage, stabilizing in Shake, then cropping down to SD so the wobbly edges don't show -- perfect stabilization without a tripod! (Should also be able to do mild zooms.)
 
mmm said:
but the boss said that it looked too amateur.
Click to expand...

I bet that guy has a cell phone the size of a paper clip though :laugh:

It's funny how smaller is better and better and better in so many other aspects but the "big=pro" perception still lingers. I've experienced that in pro-audio stuff as well, we recently wanted to upgrade to a 'physically' (with actually better dispersion and more power) smaller and far more efficient system but the first statement was "where are the 18s and 15s?!?!? It looks wimpy!!!".
 
Don't discount how much more production value a small camera can add. You can use far smaller and cheaper jibs, dollys, car mounts and stabiliziing devices that you can't get a 25lb Beta on. I can hold a DVX over my head and get an 8 foot high angle for 10 minutes. Try that on any shoulder mount. As far as ugly goes, it is, so what, most of the time I'll be looking at the LCD anyway.
 
Someone should design an outer shell for the DVX and HVX, just for those clients that judge a camera by its exterior. I want mine made out of coconut. :)
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Someone should design an outer shell for the DVX and HVX, just for those clients that judge a camera by its exterior. I want mine made out of coconut. :)
Click to expand...
as weird and not-serious it may sounds, this idea is not so bad at all.
oh btw.. my own solution for the "pro" looking - dvRigPro :) it works!
 
I was being serious. I want an outer shell for the clients that judge a camera by its exterior, and coconut so I can watch their faces drop at the end of a shoot when I swap the serious shell with the coconut one. :shocked:
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I was being serious. I want an outer shell for the clients that judge a camera by its exterior, and coconut so I can watch their faces drop at the end of a shoot when I swap the serious shell with the coconut one. :shocked:
Click to expand...
Put the lime in the coconut and drink it all up! Put the lime in the coconut, put the two together!

:beer:
 
Last edited:
Of course - the techs are great. But it is a ugly duck! Hate to say this, and maybe I will be hated for the rest of my life on this forum - but the Qualia002 - that`s design. I dont care if its HDV and ... you know, all the other bad stuff - it looks great. How about a HVX200 in Piano Black. And yeah - you can pick up girls with a camera. ;)
 
If one is concerned with how they look with the camera, maybe they should find something else to do.
 
I think the question is more how paying clients perceive you with the camera. A small camera can make them feel short-changed.

For indie film, the same applies to cast and crew who may have no evidence of your skills and a small camera may make things look like amateur night.
 
mmm said:
I think the question is more how paying clients perceive you with the camera. A small camera can make them feel short-changed.

For indie film, the same applies to cast and crew who may have no evidence of your skills and a small camera may make things look like amateur night.
Click to expand...


agreed. its no big secret that people tend to judge things based on first impressions or how things look. its only after they get to know somthing that they look beyond these things most of the time. the civilized world is shallow.. stupid.. but true.
 
It can be an advantage to have a small camera sometimes though... so people don't notice you and react to the camera. Also a handheld form factor is easier to swing around and take to places a bigger camera wouldn't get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top