Wedding Video Shot with FX1/Z1

[Jim Michael]

Originally Posted by Douglas Villalba

Light drops in intensity in exponential proportions. For example a 100 watts light gives you X/1 lumens at 1 foot distance at 2 feet it gives you X/2 lumens at 3 ft it gives you X/4 at 4 ft is X/8. So a light at 4 ft needs to 8 times stronger than the light at 1 foot to be equal. you would need an 800 watts light to give you the same amount of light of the 100 watts light at 1 foot distance.

A quick back of the envelope calculation I used to do with flash photography at events was to use "f-stop feet". If you know that your exposure is correct at f-8 and 8 feet then you have half the light at 11 feet and half again at 16 feet, so your flash exposure at 16 feet would be 2 stops open from f-8 or f-4. The inverse square law works for point sources, the falloff isn't the same for broader sources, e.g. with a large diffuser. So, similarly your lumens at 5.6 feet are half that for 4 feet and half again for 8 feet, half again at 11 feet, etc.

[Craig Terott]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Try comparing your sample to mine at the following link using less than half the bandwidth: I don't think you're getting much from the extra bits. (But maybe others will see something I don't.)

http://www.videomem.com/weddings/gor...highlights.wmv

I guess I'm one of those "who sees something" you don't. I think he's getting a lot from those extra bits. To my eyes, douglas' video was clearly HD and the clarity was impossible to ignore. (Kevin) I'm just trying to be honest so please don't be offended - except for a few stationary scenes, when the effects of compression weren't too bad, I think your clip could pass for 16:9 SD.

Not sure if you were looking for critique but ...overall I was not too impressed with this production because of the audio. There's more to videography than pixels and I really think you should have had a mic on the podium. There's no getting around it in my opinion.

my .02

[Mike F Smith]

She really does have good skin and nice makeup. It did make me think that for weddings resolution is low on the list of important elements. I really like the look of a soft filter with a very sharp lens as well. In still photography I have found the Nikor #1 Soft to be unparalled. I used to print all my color weding prints in the darkroom. The Nikor #1 Soft worked almost as well there but not quite. That leaves me wondering if using that filter at the time of shooting could have benifits for HD.

Mike

[Douglas Villalba]

Originally Posted by Mike F Smith

She really does have good skin and nice makeup. It did make me think that for weddings resolution is low on the list of important elements. I really like the look of a soft filter with a very sharp lens as well. In still photography I have found the Nikor #1 Soft to be unparalled. I used to print all my color weding prints in the darkroom. The Nikor #1 Soft worked almost as well there but not quite. That leaves me wondering if using that filter at the time of shooting could have benifits for HD.

Mike

I still have one of those soft#1 for my Nikons, but I haven't used them for years. I personally preferred a custom made one that I made out of black tooling material. That filters gives the feel of old lenses with low res. but still focus. The soft #1 has a little diffraction since that is what it does. The black tooling only blocks some of the light from reaching the film plane. The soft #1 would provably look good at the cake cutting making it look more romanic with some slow motion applied. Maybe I'll bring it out of photography retirement to work on my nest wedding video. ;-)

By the way I want to sell my Nikon F4 and FM-2 with lenses if you know of anyone that collects antiques. ;-)