Getting the Ceremony (1 Videographer, 2 cameras.)

[mark-mvs]

Hello gang. So I have a quick question about how to handle taping a ceremony by myself. (I have two cameras but I'll be the only videographer and I'd like to get the entire ceremony.)

Seems like the only two options would be:
a) Stand just behind the person performing the wedding so that I can get frontal shots of the bride and groom. But I think my presence there would be way too distracting for them and the guests. Even if the camera was on a tripod and I wasn't behind it, I think it might steal focus.

b) I could also use two cameras kind of behind the person performing the wedding but way off to the side. One on a tripod on the groom and then me manning the other camera trained on the bride. I could probably get some great face time on both of them individually like that but not so much in the way of a single shot of both of them.

Any ideas?

Mark

[BillGrant]

Mark,
Here's my take for what it's worth from somebody who does 90% of ceremonies alone. If I'm in the back with my 20x lens on my a1, I can get pretty tight on the couple and I can assure that I'm not distracting and I don't get blocked by anyone (including the minister if you're in the front) Also, I am in the south and I am just plain not allowed in the front of the church most of the time. Heck, I'm not even allowed "in" the church sometimes. So, I've just settled on being in the back. I am either at the back of the aisle for the processional until the bride gets down the aisle and then to the balcony, or if there is no balcony, I am at a convenient spot in the back. My second camera is always a wide shot and I can usually get my tripod high enough to go over people's heads if there is no balcony. My overwhelming principle and what has helped me to sleep at night is simplicity and safety over creativity. That works every time. Good luck. Oh, and no matter what people tell you, my brides still RAVE over my videos. I don't use 5 cameras and 3 camera operators and (sorry Hank) a jib and 19 audio sources and my brides RAVE and the new ones line up every year. Simple and safe lets me relax. And when I'm relaxed, I make better videos.
Bill

[HankCastello]

Advice from someone who is used to shooting in your style (1 operator, 2 cams) is invaluable, so I would pay heed to Bill's words.

However.. (aw, you just knew this was coming, didn't you?)..Some other things to consider are:

1] 20x tele cuts down the light reaching your sensors.  In some venues, this may not be practical.  Also, many cameras only do 12x, which would eliminate the possiblity of close-ups from the rear in most venues.

2] Many wireless mic sets just won't reach to the back of the church (depends on the wireless and the size of the church).  You need to monitor the audio, so it's important to have the receiver(s) with you (though perhaps not all 19 of them).

3] The first part of the ceremony can last several minutes and usually has the couple with their backs to the guests, hence also to any rear-placed cams.  This means -

  a] no face shots during this time
  b] you miss the processional (unless you think the rear view is "covering" it!)
  c] you miss daddy giving away his little girl*
  d] you miss the groom reaction shot**
 
* When on guest-side wing position, I begin front row inside asile to cover processional, then move forward of row #1 on outside aisle to cover father giving away the bride, then move to my third row (give or take) outside aisle position until just before recessional.

** The guests are standing as the doors open and the bride and father come down the aisle, generally blocking you from getting that all-important "groom reaction shot" if you are in the rear.

In light of the above, you might also want to consider covering from the wings, either from the guest side or from behind the officiant, off to the sides.  In either case, the operator should be positioned to cover the bride and the static cam to cover full (head to toe) on the trio (officiant & couple) on opposite side or even wider view from that side or rear.  I really would prefer at least a third camera wide on the whole wedding party.

By being in the wings (like outside aisle third row or behind trio off to sides) you can pick off occasional shots of parents and guests.  These add a lot to what can otherwise quickly become boring if you just concentrate on the couple.

Best of luck and please post back and let us know how things turned out.

PS - we also shoot mostly in the south, having done weddings in Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, Seattle, Washington and "southern" New York.

[Waldemar]

Like Bill, most of my weddings are shot alone with several cameras.  I'm rarely in a Church.  Mostly shoot outside. When I am shooting a church wedding I always have an assistant, even though he/she may not know much about the camera.
My gear includes:
• two 8' ladders modified to work as camera platforms.  Still have some bugs to work out, but no more blocked shots.
• two cameras, one on each ladder.
• One HD DSLR around my neck.
• Audio varies according to the situations, but is based around four wireless systems, an mp3 recorder with mic, shotgun mic, and audio mixer (Hank probably thinks I'm nuts on this one).

The camera flow is one camera always wider than the other and me constantly on the move between cameras to make minor adjustments in framing.  The DSLR allows me to grab snippets of video when and where it is bot appropriate and convenient.

Personally, I don't like working alone, but logistics and price point make it more common.

[BillGrant]

Just heed my warning, the more complexity, the more nightmares. I love a boring ceremony that focusses on the bride and groom. I get face shots as they walk in and never get the "all important" groom reaction shot. It's cool. I'm safe. and safe is better. Less ulcers than a need to get creative. That's my take. Less equipment, less people, less chance for things to go wrong. TRIPLE BACKUP AUDIO. Don't trust a monitored wireless. BAck it up with a wired device. Mic the minister, mic the podium, mic musician's. Video can be faked, audio cannot. Simple as that.
Bill

[HankCastello]

I like Bill's videography style.  He's ten times more creative than I.  But I love a good debate as much as being behind a camera, so...

* [Less equipment, less people, less chance for things to go wrong]

Really?  I often shoot ceremonies with up to five cameras and never fewer than three.  The worst thing I have had go wrong video-wise, is an operator getting caught off guard (perhaps picking off shots of guests, parents, etc.) when the vows begin and being a few seconds late on the bride or groom.  Do you really mean to say that if I didn't have those extra cameras, I would have been better off?  Those other cameras meant I had a good shot to go to (not just an extra-wide from rear) for the three seconds it took the operator to reframe. 

Having extra cameras not only helps make the video more interesting, but they CYA.  While the concept of "less is safer" sounds good, in our biz, it is often the opposite.

I could give a similar example with audio.  If I only mic the officiant and lose the reception, I have no usable audio.  But if I mic officiant, groom, fob, readers, soloists & musicians, I not only have better audio for each, I have backup for everything (depending on placement of musicians & soloists, etc.)  If you agree that this is actually safer than only one mic, then you agree that the concept of "less is better" isn't always true.

* about rear-only camera placement

When the fob & bride come down the aisle, their backs will be toward any rear-placed cameras.  Depending on the officiant, they could stay in this position five to ten minutes before being turned to face each other.  Five to ten minutes of only the couple's backs is acceptable?  I guess that is up to the videographer.  It wouldn't be acceptable in any of my productions.  Nor is it acceptable to miss close-ups of dad giving away his daughter or the groom reaction shot to the bride's entrance.

[HankCastello]

As for Wald's situation -

I'm wondering if he's maybe not in the US.  We do get some outdoor ceremonies spring through fall, but they are still rather rare (about 15% of ceremonies shot during this time).

When shooting indoors, many venues will not permit much operator movement and I would never even consider bringing two ladders, which I would fear would be distracting and present a potential hazard to guests.

My tripod goes to 7.5 feet (nearly 2.5 meters) and I coordinate camera placement and any op movements with photographers before the ceremony.

The only thing I don't like about his audio setup is the mixer.  When you mix audio in the field, it is like writing in cement - you can't change it very well later.

There are a host of problems that can arise to ruin all mixes on a track, but I'll illustrate just one - the case where you set check your mic when placing on the minister and reception is great, but for some reason, when he takes his place at the podium (or whatever) you get interference.

Now that interference is going to blend right over all tracks mixed into this one, ruining not only the officiant's audio, but groom, fob, soloist, etc. - everyone you've mixed together.

If recorded separately, you could use the groom's audio for the parts when they stood close enough together and use noise reduction techniques on the rest or perhaps a soundboard tap.

Live sound technicians can use mixers, but videographers should never.

[BillGrant]

A couple of points here... 
1. The more equipment I have to carry and set up by myself, the more chance that I'm gonna get stressed and forget to do something right. I usually use 3 cameras, but sometimes I'll use 2. Three is less stressful than 2 usually because there's a 3rd cover, but if I had any more equipment it would be too much.
2. I say mic everybody. Minister, groom, podium, musicians, etc. Digital Recorders are cheap, and I have had 2 sources of audio fail on me, and the third saved the day.
3. 95% of the time in a church, I am not ALLOWED past the back row of pews, but the times that I have been, my shot almost always gets blocked. I apparently don't work in the same churches that you guys do. And, Hank, Texas and Oklahoma are not the "south" hate to tell you. There is a firm belief here that capturing someone's image is an affront to god and to allow photographers or videographers in a church is blasphemy. It is rare that we get a church with enough space to go up front, so I have reconciled myslef to the back where it is safe and easier. And, my brides are perfectly happy with their backs and missing the all important groom reaction. Maybe these restrictions are something you are placing on yourself. I prefer less stress. The important thing is to understand what your tolerances are and stick to them. I figured those out after a few years of doing this. Until then, I woke up in a cold sweat worrying about the ceremony and getting it "right". Now, I just document it. Nice and easy.
Bill

[Waldemar]

Waldemar's location:  The San Juan Mountain Range of southwest Colorado.  Home city: Durango, CO.

The ladders aren't quite what you are imagining, Hank.  They started out as three-step home improvement ladders, visually about as far removed from a contractor's ladder as one can get.  Lightweight with wide comfortable steps. I added a detachable extension that allows a camera mount at about 8'.  The ladder takes up a smaller footprint than any of my Bogen tripods, as well as just (and I mean just) fits inside the pews of one local Catholic church.  It certainly capture's attention, but in a most comfortable professional sort of way.  I've noticed people quickly forget about it.  In any case these ladders have made my ceremonies much easier to capture.

Regarding my use of an audio mixer in the field, it significantly simplifies the capture process of a ceremony because I can choose which audio source I need when I need it.  The audio quality is very good and it eliminates syncing at least three other audio tracks in post.  Key to using an audio mixer as I do is understanding how audio mixers work and using that knowledge to advantage.  Careful planning is essential, as are backup contingencies.  One needs to identify all the weak links in the method and have a backup plan before starting.  The bottom line is that audio mixers in a live event can work, do work, and for me simplify the post process.

It is important to remember there is no one right way to do anything.  There are lots of different ways.   The correct method for the situation is the one that fits technically and comfortably.

Never say never.

[HankCastello]

Thanks for clarification on the ladders.  I am unswayed about the mixer though and here is why -

You increase by a factor of the number of sources being mixed, the chance of interference ruining the recorded (mixed) track.  This is acceptable when handling audio for guests at a live event.  I've even seen presidential speeches interupted by audio glitches.  People understand, the event gets put on hold while the tech fixes the glitch, then the speech continues.

We don't have the luxury of yelling "Cut!" or putting the event on hold.  If the audio gets ruined, it's just ruined.  Bad enough one source, but to risk however many sources you're mixing together is an unnecessary and, IMHO, unacceptable risk.

Not trying to change your opinion - just want to make the risks clear for the many "lurkers" out there who might be thinking of saving money by buying a mixer instead of extra recording tools.

[kwshaw1]

I've tried various solutions to covering weddings both solo and with an assistant, and one thing I try to avoid is getting stuck toward the front in a location where I can't move without distracting the guests. I'll make an exception when the bride is walking in so I can get a shot of her coming up the aisle, but after that I prefer to work from the sidelines, rear or balcony. Most couples would probably be happy with a single fixed camera from the rear showing their ceremony as guests witnessed it, and everything else we do is arguably as much for our own creative satisfaction as anything else.  If someone really wants every angle covered I suppose I could try to emulate the 100-camera ceremony our local association arranged a few years ago, but that turned out to be a bit over the top.

[BillGrant]

Wow, Kevin. We agree.
Bill

[mark-mvs]

Wow! Thanks for all the info you guys! I really appreciate it (as I'm kind of new and kind of nervous.) I've been shooting videos since 1998 but only just started doing weddings recently. I think what I'll try for my next wedding is a camera on a tripod behind the officiant and off to the side on the groom. Then I'll be behind the officiant off to the other side manning a camera so I can get the walk down the aisle, hopefully the groom's reaction and the bride during the ceremony.  The only thing I'll be missing is the audience pov of the ceremony. (If I ever get a third camera I could put that on a tripod in the rear to get that.) But since I can only get 2  of the 3 things I want, I think that's what I'll try. I mean the video is mostly about the bride and groom anyway right?

[BillGrant]

Mark, just be careful that you think of every possible block for your second shot. It could be disasterous if your shot gets blocked by a groomsman or the minister or a plant that gets brought in at the last minute or a crucible (which has happened). Anyway, good luck and be sure to tell us how it comes out.
Bill

[HankCastello]

Good points!  They're not likely to block if he's behind the couple (though it is possible), but they can be a real pain from the forward positions.  Nobody seems to know where those plants will go until right before the ceremony, and then the florists strategically place them to block as many camera shots as possible!   

Tall groomsmen (and even tall bridesmaids) can block from either forward or rear positions.  I always check shooting lanes out at the rehearsal and talk to the wedding party about blocking cameras and chewing gum.

Did I say I attend rehearsals?  Oops! - there's another debate!