Last Week - Luke & Lynsey

[DavidPartington]

Ok - I'll throw one in for people to look at.  This is not my normal trailer style, because I usually use the couple's first dance music for the highlights - but this couple had a live band and it wasn't going to work out.    Also note that it's not as common to include the vows in UK highlights / trailers because too often the B+G don't leave enough clear air between being told what to say and saying it.   B+G reading their own vows is not yet that common (though it does happen).  So, with that in mind - don't be too concerned about no talking bits.

Also, this Groom was a bit emotional, something you can't see if you only play a small screen.  Full screen is better (1280x720).

Several shots I'm not happy with (plugs/sockets on the wall) but we were severely limited for space from time to time.

http://www.exactimage.co.uk/My-Wedding-Show.php?Wedding=223

Password : Griggs

This was a two person 4 camera shoot.  The venue is the Hospitium in Museum Gardens in York dating back to the 14th century.

[HankCastello]

Good camera angles (having four cameras makes a difference, doesn't it!), technically sound and solid work.  I would have liked to have seen more closeups, but then I'm always saying that, aren't I?  I notice a lot of straight cuts, which are less common in most music-tracked highlight work.

Found myself thinking, yes the photog is there, but how is he keeping him from blocking shots - you always seemed to be on the shooting side of the couple and the photog on the backside - nice work!

[DavidPartington]

Thanks for the comment Hank.   

I would have liked to have seen more closeups, but then I'm always saying that, aren't I? 

There will be more in the final DVD... especially during the ceremony, photo shoot and the speeches.

I notice a lot of straight cuts, which are less common in most music-tracked highlight work.

Is that bad?   We do use dissolves quit a bit, but this one not so much.

Found myself thinking, yes the photog is there, but how is he keeping him from blocking shots - you always seemed to be on the shooting side of the couple and the photog on the backside - nice work!

Isn't this one of the major benefits of multiple cameras?  You can take your pick of angles and if the photog gets in the way you can switch angles   Actually this photog was pleasant to work with, unlike some of the others recently who seemed to go out of their way to be 'in the way'.   

[HankCastello]

Straight cuts vs dissolves in highlight videos is merely a matter of style and taste, oh and a bit of whatever you've gotten used to.  I've seen so many with dissolves (and lots of slow dissolves) that it was almost a bit jarring for me to see the straight cuts.

But cuts, are a bit like texture in oil paintings - you use them to help set the mood that you want your viewers to have.  It isn't "bad" per-se, unless you don't achieve the affect you're after, or unless you've chosen a cut style without thought to mood and how it affects the overall video.

Yes, those multi-cam shoots do wonders with keeping the photogs in their place!

As to the close-ups, video-basics-101 tells us to mix up our shot types, but remember those close-ups are the jewels of video, the other shots are merely the settings for those "stones".

[BillGrant]

Pardon me for being that guy, but here goes. What cameras here? The look is very nice. The shots look very good. My only caveat is the slow motion and pacing. Every shot slow motion; it just drags and drags. I watched about 54 seconds of it. Also, as a casual observer, I felt separated from the wedding because of the combination of slomo, all wide or medium shots, and no ambient audio. Again, it looks great. Good color balance and I love the richness of the colors, but who are these people? Why are we looking at them? This is really what we are doing, is retelling what happened for them, because they just aren't going to remember...
Bill
 

[DavidPartington]

Thanks for your input Bill.   I posted here for feedback on how others see things so your observations are exactly what I am looking for.

Taking things in order..... the cameras are Panasonic HMC 151 (150 in the US).   They work very well and because they are CCD they don't have jello or flash banding problems.

Not every shot is slo-mo, but I do take your point.   It's supposed to be a little dreamy because that's how their wedding was.  Not sure where 54 seconds gets you to, there are some climaxes in it where the bride enters and then the first kiss etc - but set to the music as it happened. The music dictated the pace to a certain extent - but couple told me they wanted to see what each other was doing before the ceremony because of course they don't get to see it on the day.   I showed this at a wedding fair last Sunday and several brides to be (and their mothers) were actually crying with emotion and started asking about availability, so clearly it hit a nerve with some people.   

There are 'some' close ups but I agree there could be more.  I'll keep that in mind if I ever need to re-edit this.

The 'no ambient audio' is not normal for me either because I like to add it to the highlights when ever appropriate to make things more personal.  There is some ambient later on - clapping etc at the ceremony (first kiss) and first dance but it is minimal.  These were not vocal people

Who are they?  Why are we looking at them?   Hmmm.  Obviously they know who they are, and this is really for 'them' rather than for other people. I guess it asks a very valid point when using it as a demo video though.  What else did you have in mind?  How could I have made this better (for them)?  I can't use the vows because they were jumbled. Both B+G rushed them a little and there is no clear air between the B + G speaking the vows or exchange of ring and the registrar speaking, so I can't pull that audio out to help you know their names etc in their own voices. If only I could!  I do mention this to all parties before hand but clearly they have other things on their mind at the time.   The speeches weren't suitable for the highlights either.   So, if you have constructive ideas for alternatives I'm all ears

Thanks again for your input.

[DavidPartington]

As to the close-ups, video-basics-101 tells us to mix up our shot types, but remember those close-ups are the jewels of video, the other shots are merely the settings for those "stones".

You may notice that in the bottom right corner there is a woman playing the cello.  They had a small orchestra playing before, during and after the ceremony.  I had major problems getting my camera there in the first place and it had to remain there unmanned.  Consequently all the shots from that camera were of a fixed nature - no close ups from there

In terms of rear shots, the rear camera does go closer when appropriate, usually for exchange of rings and first kiss, but he stayed wider on this first kiss for some reason.   I got close shots from the side but unfortunately the photog did steal the location I really wanted for the alternate (close-up) from position, and since we had 4 cameras there it was pretty hard to argue, especially since I needed her cooperation throughout the rest of the day. During the vows and exchange of rings I couldn't see either face from my position and there was no way to move.   There are however one or two close ups from this camera in the highlights, during the readings (close up on their faces) at 2:19 and 2:28, then outside at 2:54 (this was max zoom from a LONG way back due to the crowds!), and cake cut at 3.06 etc.

It's also interesting as I re-read my notes, the bride didn't really want a video in the first place, only the groom wanted it.  The bride made it clear she didn't like close-ups and I have a feeling this had some effect on our shooting that day.

However, as said before, your feedback is being taken on-board.... thanks!

[HankCastello]

Both B+G rushed them a little and there is no clear air between the B + G speaking the vows or exchange of ring and the registrar speaking

I have this problem frequently, but I've never considered not using the audio because of it.  I lay out the separate audio tracks (lavs for minister; groom; fob; and all vocalists and instrumentals, or taped music) and rubber-band the voices as needed.  Sometimes they overlap so much that I won't even rubberband, but blend them together so they'll sound as good as possible.

In my experience, it is usually the groom who is most nervous during vows, perhaps because many brides have been thinking of this moment for years and are better prepared.  So I have a talk with them during my prep shoot.  I tell them to not rush to repeat what the officiant tells them to say and not to say it to the officiant, but to look into their bride's eyes, take a breath and speak the vows TO HER, like he means it!  It helps, because even when the bride is quick and overlaps the officiant, usually my groom is calmer and speaks more deliberately, probably thanks to my tip.

[BillGrant]

Strangely David,
I read your comments with a british accent. Like Jeremy Clarkson. Maybe you don't sound like that, but that's what I imagine. Ok, let's say I wanted to make it more personal. I would certainly, without question use more close ups. I always look for kids who make alot of noise, etc. beforehand. I would say that even incessant chatter and the sound of the car pulling up and away would be fine. Again, not really working if you use slomo. I agree with Hank, the minister said something, the vows probably weren't that bad. There was some audio somehwere to be used I reckon. My major issue was not with audio but with pacing. It felt so slow. Even with dreamy, I try to keep the energy up. That's my thought; BUT you are right in that the bride and groom will love it. You asked, we answered. 
Bill

[DavidPartington]

....and thanks for the answers.   It's stuff like this we all need to hear... because at the end of the day I was there so am a little more involved.    Some one who wasn't there has a different viewpoint and that's often more important than many people imagine. 


Thanks again!

[BillGrant]

Right, but do you sound like Jeremy Clarkson?
Bill

[DavidPartington]

I hope not !