Some hd100 wedding stills
 

Here are some Wedding Stills from a wedding I shot yesterday.

http://www.digitalmosesvideo.com/ima...os/Image20.jpg

http://www.digitalmosesvideo.com/ima...os/Image21.jpg

http://www.digitalmosesvideo.com/ima...os/Image22.jpg

http://www.digitalmosesvideo.com/ima...os/Image23.jpg

Very nice look you got there. I don't like getting in the tight with my shots at weddings, personally. Takes away from the whole "grand" feeling of the day. But none the less very nice.

Matthew,

I don't know these guys but it's a good example of how tight shots work for weddings. Anyone can shoot a wedding in it's "grand scale" but what about with cinematic style?

http://streaming.tbteam.com/streamin...eo.cfm?id=4463

Yea, I am still wading through the footage and will post some wide shots as well. Overall, the camera did performed well. The footage was mixed with dvx100a and jvc 300u footage during the ceremony. This might pose a challenge mixing progressive and interlaced footage together. Have you guys ever mixed camera footage together?

Tim I loved your demo reel. How long have you been shooting weddings?

That is not my demo reel, but that is definately my style.

Did you shoot your wedding in 24p or 30p?

Hd100 shot in 720 24p...

I'm having my friend shoot my own wedding this Saturday using my HD100. I'm still trying to decide to do 24p or 30p and slow it down to 24p (when audio is not crucial) to give it that subtle slow mo look. If you have seen Andrew Young's Madagascar footage it was projected at 24 and shot at 30p.

I am used to a dvx100a when shooting weddings and the Hd100 is alot bulkier to carry around for run and gun shooting. It will take awhile to get used to the over the shoulder shooting. My wrist still hurts from 6hrs of shooting.

Also, I constantly depended on the focus assist feature.

Tim what I meant is not "that tight" and not frequently. Maybe I'm just used to shooting wide since my employer refuses to go tighter then a medium shot. And yes his still do give a great example of how they work well.

Matthew, I as referring to the video example: http://streaming.tbteam.com/streamin...eo.cfm?id=4463

Many tight shots in it.

Your wrist shouldn't hurt. If anything, I'd expect your shoulder or neck to hurt (though not with such a light camera), but I've never had a problem with my wrist. I think you might be trying to carry the weight of the camera with your hand still, don't. Let the weight rest on your shoulder, which is much stronger, and only use your hands to aim the camera and work the controls, using as light a touch as possible. Above all, RELAX, otherwise you'll cramp up. One trick for steadier camerawork and taking a load off your right arm is to take your left hand off the lens when you're not focusing and tuck it under your right elbow.

Welcome to manual focus. No matter what camera you're using you'll always need some sort of edge enhancement in your viewfinder to help focus.

Do you have any still shots from the reception at night? I am in a huge debate with a fellow shooter who thinks HDV isn't good enough for night time shooting.

Ask him why he thinks HDV has problems with low light shooting.
I'd be interested in hearing this.

Because he keeps reading how much lower in sensitivity the chips are on the HDV cameras compared to SD cameras. This is a guy who is used to shooting with a 2/3" SD camera. He actually feels that it is better to shoot interlaced DVCAM than to shoot HDV that may need a little bit more care in terms of lighting.

I'm really confused on the logic of wanting to use 2/3" cameras to give the client the highest quality and then end up giving the client 720x480x4:1:1 that will at some point get bob'ed to 720x240x4:1:0 on a digital display.

I'm hoping some still images will convince him that it isn't as bad as it sounds.

I don't usually chime in just to say nice job but if your total footage is indicated by image 21, you see things that alot of people haven't yet learned to; lighting and how we use it. I think sometimes we are, completely in the interest of helping, all too ready to address poorer quality issues or problems with the camera. Rob Kositcek said something the other day at lunch that I value greatly proving even people at 48 years old after 20 + years in the industry can learn something new. We were in a deep discussion on what we'd be talking about on an upcoming segment of 2nd Unit and I was deep into discussing the issues of 1/3" CCDs and DOF and focus and a hundred other technical issues and he said simply, "You really are a gear head. I bet you can't even tell me what color the boat is right outside the window." His point was that in his class at USC, her gives his students, the first day, each their camera and tell them to go see the outside world, shoot what they FEEL and come back to the classroom. He can teach gearhead things but feeling the outside world is what separates the average camera operator from a successful DP. "My greatest success is when I'm able to help people get the emotion they see in their heads and feel in their hearts out and onto film, tape and the bytes of a digital world." he said or something like that. Anyway, I just wanted to say I think you did a wonderful job in that shot with the light and all the others fighting the DOF issues attached to the camera.

Exactly Jonathan!

I often see event photography/videography that is no different than someone shooting with their home camera. Sure the quality of the picture and resolution might be better but the shots don't "say" anything.

Since this thread is on Weddings I'll use this as an example. After your big day is over and you have had some time to get back to normacy, you may have some friends or family over that may or may not have attended your wedding and you want to show them your nifty wedding video that you payed 4-8K for.

Do you think most people want to sit through an hour of ceremony footage watching a wide shot of the church with a few close ups of the vows? You will bore them to death. Now throw in a 15-20 minute highlight reel with footage that really says something, conveys the mood, and lets everyone relive what they were all feelign during the actual event. The eyes are the window to our soul, they say much more then most ever notice, yet most wedding shooters never get close ups of this? Why?

Shoot something that isn't intrusive, but makes the viewer see and feel what we are thinking, not just watching another home video.

Here are a few of my engagement photos - these should give you and idea of what I mean about shooting the world around us as Jonathan said.

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_1073.jpg

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0881.jpg

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0656.jpg

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0394.jpg

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_1199.jpg

what lens
 

Which lens did you use on the camera? (to the original poster Steve)

Tim is exactly right. There used to be a time where "Wedding Photographers" were looked down on in the heirarchy of production. It was due principally to the limited availability of tools out there with each con-or prosumer camera pretty much the same as the other. There was no opportunity to differentiate yourself; to dream up and execute artistry. Today, however, with the availability of performance cameras, the wedding photographer has the opportunity to distinguish him- or herself in an arena that, quite literally in the forum of life-importance, dwarfs the movie industry. The wedding shooter now has an opportunity and an expectation to create a film; a memory that will last far longer than Mission Impossible or American Idol; a movie that really does survive through the years. With today's cameras, you're limited only by your own imagination and desire to learn your craft and tools. And with that, unlike before, comes money, something that wedding shooters have historically had a hard time requesting. The creation of a wedding reel that shows a fine DP's use of his tools, painting with light, framing with focus and camera movements with thought and finish and the shooters ability to explain in simple but discriptive terms why his reel is the way it is and others' aren't can elicit in the prospective client an understanding of why $25k is an acceptable charge that, unlike the theatre ticket, they can amortize over a lifetime each time they relive the memory. They spend that for food and drink, flowers and music and other expendables that only live on in memory. Wedding films don't wilt and blow away like flowers or turn to urine like food and drink. A finely crafted wedding video shot like their client's own favorite movie can provide the rightful foundation for a high price where the audience can afford it. And with a finely crafted reel marked in the right place, the audience makes itself because there are so few out there that are making the wedding video an art of rememberance. You couldn't do it handcuffed by the technological limitations of the past but with the tools available today and an understanding of those tools and the light that brings those tools to life, a wedding shooter can make a very comfortable living and that's why I commend Steven for what his stills show. Heck, I paid $10k for my wedding videographer back in 86 and it's nothing compared to what today's technology makes possible.

Excellent examples, Tim.

I used the Standard Fujion Lens on the Camera. I have not had a problem with split screen yet.

I agree with you Tim on your observations. I only wish Wedding Videos in the South were looked at the same as in New York or Cali. Here in Mississippi, the photographer gets precedent. But, all that is changing every year I do this. Especially with the advent of High Def. I am excited about the future of wedding videography as my profession.