The music, being one of my favourite sound-tracks, is "Honour Him" from Gladiator. (-:

As for the video...yes it beautifully shot, etc etc etc...(artistry etc)...

I LOVE the story telling. Captures the entire day. How many wedding videos are 30 minutes of the service and then other clutter of the reception.

The culminatio nof a love story, beautifully told. Great stuff. Video-journalism at its best.

Great stuff.....you have a real talent for making people look quite beautiful.....fantastic imagery....great pacing....and evokes a hauntingly ethereal beauty.

Well done.

Stonefield

Beautiful footage, editing, pacing, shot selection...

Talent...

Thank you for sharing this with us.

Nice work! An inspiration to all use wedding videographers. I'm in the process of doing a demo reel as we speak, i hope i can get it to look half as good as that short.

Thanks everyone for the kind and encouraging input.

GmElliot-- Compliment/Challenge:

Very nice piece. What effect(s) do you use to obtain the soft focus/fog? I prefer the Nikon soft 1 filter on my camera--it utilizes silver crystals (not just a white haze) to acheive a very nice result.

I have to challenge your assertion made previously:
Q: "4. Any filters on camera during taping, or is that all in post?"
A: "All post. I have more lattitude and flexability that way."

While I agree that the use of on-camera filters does limit flexibility later on, I must argue that avoiding filters DOES NOT give more latitude--in fact, it is quite the opposite!

The whole idea of a filter is to alter or remove some aspect of the image. Examples: removing part of the color spectrum (via a skylight or color filter), removing glare with a polarizer, removing lens flare with a hood or barn doors, removing a "bright sky" with a gradient filter.

You will have MORE latitude in editing if you remove unwanted elements with a filter BEFORE capturing an image because the camera's latitude is not wasted on those same unwanted elements. For example, if you utilize a gradient ND filter to knock down a bright sky, thus reducing average brightness, the camera iris can then be opened to better capture shadows.

I love to utilize a polarizer to reduce glare and reflections. This web page shows some great examples of a polarizer filter!

Thus, there is a trade-off between post-editing flexibility and image latitude when deciding to use filters. You get one or the other--not both.

Comments anyone?

I've always wondered this myself....

Can the use of still camera filters be compared to the same effect they would have for video cameras ? I know that video and film emulsion are by no way close to reacting the same. In fact, video "emulates" the effect on it's CCD (s) to approximate what it would look like on celluloid.

If I put a blue filter on my Nikon, I'm gonna get all the richness and sharpness I would get normally except for the strong blue cast....BUT....

If I shoot normal video and then COLOR BALANCE a segment of video to favor a blue cast, I find that I've degraded the original video .

Also in regards to soft focus filters, I'm curious if a soft focus filter ( glass bubble, black netting ) in front of a video camera would have the same effect as on a 35 mm still picture.

Filters--still vs. video: Yes, filters have the same effect on video as still photos. Remember, the still world is using CCDs now, too! And, after all, video is just a bunch of stills!

"Thus, there is a trade-off between post-editing flexibility and image latitude when deciding to use filters. You get one or the other--not both."


. .. oh yes . . . oh yes . . .


Q: Anybody use the onboard ND? - Sure you do!

Q: Anybody use the F Setting? - Sure you must!

. . . in my mind these by themselves are filters. In a real sense I'm preparing the camera to take the "shot". I'm filtering the light falling on the CCDs. Where does the placing a piece of glasss/resin in front of the lens constuitute something else or other? Hey, can you remove the effect of an onboard ND in post? Would you want to? Yes you would and might try.

I use my matte box and filters: ND 0.6 full & hard Grad; 0.3 Grad; linear Polariser; Supermist Black; skin tone enhancer & tabac grad ( hey, ok these last 2 are a whim! - BUT they are extraordinary on Cloud formations ). Using the extra grads allow the iris to be open more fully and offering me more DoF; I get contrast to be more apparent; the pola brings UP the blues and I think I can now create a useful "hot" and not "washed-out" feel to a Spring/Summer day. Do this in post? Hmmm... maybe . . .. However using filters gives me that "immeadiacy" that I need for my filmic/video approach.


. .oh the other thing filters do is allow for me to capture detail at an angle - meaning I can angle the grads and pola to force back a bright area and allow me to "emphasise" a darker area. This in turn busts open a lanscape or city/town scape.

I can really see that grads for event type work - weddings here - would be a bit of an annoyance - try setting an angled grad against a moving event like a wedding!?!? - eh? . . . . nope!

For my money? Filters are amazing tools that aren't a trade off . .. I kinda think they are more like another set of tools to give me what I want. Yes, I know I'm being picky - but would you also say using the onboard ND a trade off? Maybe you would? Bottom line here, My NDs allow me to add something like 1.5, getting me to 2.4 (?) this in turn punches a massive hole on my Iris setting giving me more lit detail than I've ever, ever had. I think I got this right . . ? Anyways, my DoF in the open is now staggering . .that's what I know.

But, I don't think what this is reslly about anyway. What I think this is REALLY about is being "risk-taking" . .and you know what? One thing you don't risk is an event that you are being paid real money for. Film at the "best" clarity you can achieve - and if your camera is quick enough, nothing wrong with Auto if you need too! Taking risks using additional filters, IMHO, is a bit of a no-no when weddings are are the game! On Event type work - Weddings - achieveing "filter-like" work in post is just plain sensible. Knowing you've got the image at the best you can - AND think of post FXs while you are doing it - makes shed-loads of sense. However, this is NOT filming WITH filters - big difference. Yes?

My 2 bobs worth!

Grazie

Grazie-- well spoken. I didn't think of the iris, but you can see that I mentioned a lens hood and barn doors, eh? So, then, can we also think of artificial lighting as a "filter"? Maybe not, but the whole idea is to effectively utilize your camera's LATITUDE--yes!

Risk taking not wise at wedding shoots? Probably not. Therefore, the aforementioned trade-off of latitude for flexibility instead!

Yup! - That hole in the front is controlled by the Iris. Open and close it get more or less light in. I can force mine to a certain amount, but I can then - literally - "expand" its range by sticking NDs in front of it - I know you know this!

Now lighting certain areas - lighting rigs here! - then allow me to emphasise OR, more likely, balance a shot. Lights, reflectors, windows etc make this happen .. it is ALL artificial . . or is it? What is artificial? For me? For you? For the client? Soft focus/glow FXs? Was that real? Nope!

My point here is that we/I use words to communicate WHAT are, in any event, only concepts, concepts of tools and what they can do. Filters? Filters are just part of the light adjustment arsenal we use. Barn doors are another. BUT, speaking of a barndoor immeadiately TELLS me what you are talking about. Are they filters . . er . .no . .BUT they can adjust the light - as do filters; as do soft focus; as does gauze; as does blown smoke . . etc etc . . Mia Culpa too! I use words and think I'm using them to explain WHAT I'm doing - when in actual fact what I'm doing is inviting somebody to understand WHERE I'm using something - now I'm confusing myself - I think?!?!

I hope I have shed some light on my dim understanding of the semantics of this craft - hey I'm still learning too?

. .The latest - in this past year - has been my understanding of the phrase,"Wow! What great Depth of Field!?" . .here the commentator is actually saying that the depth of field is so SMALL that the final effect is to throw the B/G or F/G out of focus! This in turn produces "layers" to the look of a captured piece. This in turn presents to the viewer a more "natural" and more organic look OR empahsises a certain layer. This in turn "imitates" that which my own eyes have become used too iover the decades. Now if I can capture this "look" then the effect on the viewer of my vids will feel more at ease or at best responssive to the images on the screen - yes? So, the use of the phrase - What great Depth of Field - actually means what very very short DoF .. the word "great" means here small! this had me "thrown" for a long time indeed.

Again, as to "trade-off", choose the tools for the job - but first of all "choose" the job you want to do, then see if there are any clients that can supply you with the necessary work!

Use and MY use (ill-use) of words? Huh . . most likely WHY I've taken to video!

Best regards,

Grazie

Wow--terrific wedding video--normally its the old story--only the family really cares--but in this case I found it totally enjoyable!

I agree with you description of more latitude when using a ND filter outdoors. However I meant latitude in regards to effects, not standard filters like UV, or ND. Things that artistically change the image.

If I shoot with a pro-mist filter and I want a sharp image...I can't. It's gone. Thus I feel shooting for the most neutral flat image out of the camera to start with is very beneficial. Even grad filters can effectively be replaced by effects in post. The shot at 0:46 of the Chruch. That sky didn't look like that- that look is compliments to Magic Bullet sky-grad.

However in some instances if you KNOW your going for a specific look, like diffusion- using filters will always yield better results in post. Especially beings the footage doesn't have to be recompressed with digital filters to create it. Thus yeilding a cleaner image.

Thanks for the clarification on "latitude", you arose a good point.

Agreed. So then, again, what effect are you using to achieve the fog effect and specular highlights as in the chair shot at 3:01? Very nice.

It is possible for PRESETS to be shared. I think we have been here before insharing presets/FXs. . . and that would be really neat to SHARE . . Edward has got a place where FXs could be shared. It would stop all the guessing.

It's over here, half way down, called "Shared Effects":

http://www.jetdv.com


I've got a couple up there too!


Grazie

Agreed. So then, again, what effect are you using to achieve the fog effect and specular highlights as in the chair shot at 3:01? Very nice.

3:01 was Vegas Light Rays.

The video looks great. What a small file for how good it looks. Do you know you could save even more bandwidth if you rendered to a wmv file that was 640 x 360 instead of the letterboxed 640 x 480 where you are using up bandwidth on the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen?

Very nice work. I've found other posts of your work in previous threads but they appear to be down; any chance that you would make the files available again?

thanks for sharing!
David

Unbeliveable! Great job!

Newbie question? How did you get such moving panning?

Do you use a tripod on wheels? It looks as if the camera was moving pass the objects.

Please explain how you did it.

Thanks ZION

The video looks great. What a small file for how good it looks. Do you know you could save even more bandwidth if you rendered to a wmv file that was 640 x 360 instead of the letterboxed 640 x 480 where you are using up bandwidth on the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen?

You know...I always wanted to know how to do that. So you just manually change the frame size and it'll automatically crop it from the top and bottom equally?

Is 640x360 the frame size for a pan crop using the "1:85:1" setting. I'm not using 16:9....1:85:1 is even narrower than 16:9. Thanks in advance.

Unbeliveable! Great job!

Lots and lots of practice with handheld camera techniques. One of my videographer friends just released a training video explaining how to do them. Check it out here:

Regarding cropping:

I doubt that cropping the black areas will save as much bandwidth as you think. Remember, this is highly compressed video and any uniform area compresses extremely well.

Nevertheless, it makes sense, so here goes:

First, I gather you are using Vegas' render to WMV facilities. While you can set a custom frame size in Vegas, I'm inclined to guess that Vegas will stretch or shrink your frame rather than crop it. Anyone try this?

For truly high-quality WMV files you should be using the full-blown Windows Media Encoder 9 Series freely downloaded from Microsoft here:


Render to a high quality such as DV-AVI, then use Windows Media Encoder to convert to WMV.

Windows Media Encoder allows fine control over many encoding settings not available in Vegas. One of these is cropping! You can finely control compression bit rates; and, you can embed Title/Author information that will appear in Windows Media Player. Copy protection is another option. There is a ton of information on the Microsoft web site regarding all of the settings available.

One feature I utilize is encoding to multiple bit rates within one file. In order for this to be useful you need to serve the file on the web with a Windows 2003 Server machine running Windows Media Services. To explain: Say you encode a video at 256K, 512K and 1000K. All the streams go into one file. When a user views the video, the Windows 2003 Server detects how fast the user's Internet connection is and streams the highest quality bit rate that the user can view. A very neat feature!

Another really great feature is that Windows Media Encoder lets you watch the input file video next to the output video (or in a split screen). This allows you to compare the input and output quality difference during encoding.

You can keep commonly used setups in templates just like Vegas so that they are always the same.

Get the full-blown Windows Media Encoder.