The war of the web has begun. Where does it go from here?

You want a great wedding video but you’re on a really tight budget. So you start looking at the guys that offer really cheap prices, and you wonder can a $500 wedding video look as good as a $5000 wedding video?  Guess what? It absolutely can…if you get really, really lucky.  The reality is that most videographers at that bracket are either awful, new, or they’re just going to breeze though your wedding video with their eyes closed, no worries who cares, it’s a cheapo?   Agreed, if your expectations are rooted in reality, the $500 wedding video might just about satisfy your needs. But if you’re  thinking top-notch, think again, because the finished product  will almost certainly fail your expectations, even if you’ve found a gifted videographer. It almost always boils down to the same equation, dollars versus time equals effort. How can I be so sure? It’s human nature, not rocket science.  Besides, I’m a professional videographer.

Broken down it looks like this: the $500 videographer is unlikely to spend much time, if any, in preparation–like arriving early to scout the location or to seek out special filming angles that might be photogenically better for the bride or the esthetics of the location, and he is unlikely to take the time and effort to bring along extra gear like soft lights (if he even owns them) that can make all the difference in dimly lit areas, or to bring along back up sound just in case the primary sound system fails. Then, after the wedding, she will have to squeeze time in the editing suite because it simply does not make dollar sense for her to do a time consuming creative edit. Okay, maybe it won’t be a total loss. He/she might give you better looking images than your uncle Bob. But not necessarily by a wide margin.

Fortunately, you don’t have have to settle on the el cheap videographer and you don’t have to throw out your budget. That’s right. I’m not advocating that you alter your budget.  There’s actually a very simple solution to this problem.  Think of your video in 2 stages: the filming and the post production. Who says you need to post produce your wedding video right away? It’s not going to spoil and grow moldy. If you’re on a tight budget simply defer your post production to a time when you can better afford it, six months later, even a year or two years. As for stage one, there are scores of gifted videographers whose daily shooting rate is in the $500/$600 range. While you won’t be getting an edited film you do have the upside of receiving your wedding video footage right away. Now you might very well ask, what will the editing cost later? Here you have many different options. You might want to try and edit yourself. These days, video editing software programs, even pretty elaborate ones, can be purchased inexpensively. You don’t need Avid or Final Cut Pro, two of the broadcast industry’s standard editing programs, to edit a wedding film to professional standards. Pinnacle Studio, Adobe Premier Elements and Sony Vegas HD on a PC cost under $100, or Final Cut Express on a Mac can be purchased for under $200. Just a few years ago these programs would have qualified as the best of the broadcast world. They are amply powerful, and they are not difficult to learn even for the uninitiated. What’s more, you might really enjoy editing. But if it’s just not your thing, you might want to consider a student who’d be interested in doing your video editing, maybe even for free. Of course finding said student might be easier said than done. Your next choice is the pro editor. Most of these guys own their own workstations and some work smaller jobs in their spare time for less pay than their usual studio rate.  If you post an ad on Craigslist you will almost certainly find an editor. One caveat: he or she might keep your project on the back burner for months, and charge you upwards of $1500 anyway, so get the deal in writing.

Now you might think that if you’re going to spend an additional $1500 on the editing, isn’t it better to stretch your original budget to $1500 or $1800 and request from your videographer a finished film from the get go? The answer is maybe.  While it might be reasonable to expect a nice looking film for $1500 (it’s a sum close to the national average), to a professional videographer, not a student or hobbyist, who has to deliver a polished wedding film requiring 30 or 40 or more hours of post production, your $1500 sum is still meager. Needless to say, some couples receive decent looking $1500 wedding videos. Competition in the wedding vendor business is fierce, but once you say yes to the videographer, he or she might think that the fee is too slight to warrant a master’s eye for detail during the editing process, and you might be in for a big letdown.

Bottom line is do your homework. Don’t hire your videographer/editor based upon short demo reels. Ask to see complete films that represent what you’ll be receiving. Ask a lot of questions, especially about the editing. Editing means more than making shorter. It is the process of selecting shots, cutting them up and carefully placing them into a creative order, and like I’ve said, properly crafted wedding films require 30 or more hours of the editor’s time.

Regardless of what you spend, If you really want a phenomenal looking wedding video, one that will not only swell your heart but the hearts of others too,  discuss in detail your wedding film with your videographer. Do you want a snappily edited ceremony or do you want it left long? Do you want your videographer to do guest interviews at the reception? Do you want an animated photo montage? And how about dolly shots and crane shots so that your wedding video has a look similar to a feature film?  Discuss your music preferences. Discuss the film’s length. Its color tones, sound track.  Work on the design of your wedding video with your videographer before the wedding. Of course, if you keep piling the groceries into the cart, the person at the register isn’t going to tell you, “free, free, free.”  When I’m hired  to produce an intricate wedding, as described above, my price does shoot up a bit, but if the wedding couple tells me, “we know exactly the music we want in our wedding film and we’ll have a CD ready for you before the wedding” I’ll know that I won’t be spending wasteful hours searching for appropriate music, and my price goes down.  So while requesting photo montages and stylized color correction and soft focus techniques and dolly track and film cranes stretches the tab, being prepared and knowing what you want can keep it level.

Lastly, I have one more price reducing tip that I cannot fully endorse. But I know it works, sometimes. It’s the last minute booking gravy train. And it works like this. You seek out about a dozen videographers that you believe would do a great job for you, but you do not attempt to book any of them, yet.  Then a week or so before the wedding you start calling.  If your first choice is already booked, you try the next on your list, then the next. If you find one who is not booked, explain that you’re looking for a last minute deal.  Picking up a booking date at the last minute is truly gravy for a videographer, and he/she is much more likely to slash their price, maybe by 50% or more. But of course the risk is that you might be left high and dry without a videographer, or be forced to chose an unknown or that $500 el cheapo guy after all.

D.F. Marsh is a freelance writer in Kauai.

]]> http://beverlyhillsvideographer.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/brides-guide-to-wedding-videography-part-2-by-david-marsh/feed/ 0 beverlyhillsvideographer http://beverlyhillsvideographer.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/alien-crash/ http://beverlyhillsvideographer.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/alien-crash/#comments Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:00:09 +0000 Indigo Empyrean http://beverlyhillsvideographer.wordpress.com/?p=156 ]]> Alien crash is the name of our Doritos Superbowl Competition entry.  You can check it out at http://www.crashthesuperbowl.com/#/video/3825

I ask because when you think about it, wedding films are not for now, they are for the future, to a distant road in time when, we must assume, our memory of the day will have turned a little foggy. Some of your old friends or relatives might have moved on, and when you look at the video, boy, what a treat it will be to see and hear them as if it were yesterday. And let me emphasize “hear them.”  There again, depending on the type of wedding film that has been created for you, you might not hear them. Perhaps  you’ll only see glimpses of them in one or more music-video type sequences stylized without the natural sounds of the day.

My point is, think hard before deciding on an over-stylized wedding video.  While the greatest. hippest, rad, bad, premo wedding video might be a lightning rod of pace and style awash in sepia tones, jazzy edits and special effects, and your videographer’s enthusiasm of YouTube jerky cam might be contagious,  be cautious. Know this: classically crafted wedding films are much more likely to endure the test of time. It’s true that a fast-paced 12 or 17 or 20 wedding minute film edited by deft hands might be easier to watch by outsiders, but a traditionally well edited 60 or 90 minute grand vision of your wedding day is much more like to be appreciated by you and your family years down the road.

There’s nothing wrong with having sequences cut to music in your wedding film, or having a particular section finished in black and white or sepia tone, or looking like old film with scratches, but if that’s all you’re going to get for your wedding film, you might not be satisfying your future needs.

If you’ve decided on a classically stylized wedding film, whether your videographer describes it as a journalistic style, classical, or documentary film, as long as you are in the hands of a skilled wedding video professional, your movie will unfold in a linear timescale, following the events of the day as they happen, and your film will forever be a timeless keepsake.

How times have changed. Who today could claim never to be have been captured on video, or for that matter to have captured another? You’d have to be a hermit that never steps out into the open. Today’s world is a video world. Whether we notice them or not, video cameras are everywhere, in all shapes and disguises. High definition ones, standard definition, prosumer, consumer, professional, spycams, high-cams, tiny, not tiny; they’re in phones, wristwatches, still cameras, on buildings, in space, and they’re embedded in our computers. We use them for security and surveillance: you’re captured every time you go to the market or to a movie, or even just for a stroll in the park. We use them them for conferencing in business and pleasure, we use them for recreation, for fun and games, we use them to document our kids birth and first step, and a thousand steps on the way to graduation day. We have others videotape us at parties, anniversaries, funerals and weddings. Our computer drives are full of video images, shots that we’ve taken and shots that others have taken of us. Yet this does not come close to describing the addicts of video.

In the early 90s. with the advent of the webcam, the notion of a true video junky was born.  Many with narcissistic tendencies found that they could sit hour after hour at their computers and video themselves and upload the content for someone else to watch. They could vent, flaunt and tease, pose and pout, or just stare at the screen for an endless amount of time. And they could produce a score of videos like this and place them on the Internet at will. Then, with the release of Youtube in 1995, individuals began broadening the scope of their videos, documenting their daily activities about town, on vacation, interviewing people,  dancing across the world, creating mini shows, and best of all, building fan bases. It’s not unusual for an average Youtube Jill or Jo to have tens of thousands of fans with millions watching a single mindless video.

Is this good for our society? Are most of us video addicted, and if we are, does mindless watching create mindless minds? I’m not an expert but their again I don’t need to be an expert on global warming to know that human activities have definitely impacted earth’s climate. But again, is that bad?   Youtube has so many addicts it would be well justified to call it Gluetube, but if I’m to be honest with myself, it’s no worse than the other opiate of the masses: TV.

Yes we live in a world of video, a world of screens. We love to be caught, we love to catch, and we love to watch.  I wonder what will be next.

Stay tuned for I have more coming, bits ‘n bytes on global warming, H Potter, and the Iquana, not the lizard thing which has a G in it but something entirely new on our planet.

Up for some is the fact that Los Angeles is the entertainment hub of the world. Down for some is the fact that Los Angeles is the entertainment hub of the world. Los Angeles has more gorgeous residential areas than most cities, an “up” for those that can afford to live in them, but the traffic in Los Angeles stinks and getting to and from those million dollar homes is a big down. Even the great Los Angeles freeway system, originally built for drivers to travel the fringes of one side of Los Angeles to the other in 20 minutes or less, has become the bane of every Los Angeles driver, a plainly true “downer” for anyone keeping tabs on the merits of Los Angeles living. Los Angeles is prone to earthquakes, but they come infrequently unlike the annual hurricanes and twisters that plague the eastern and midwestern states.  The weather in Los Angeles is an “up”  however the late summer fires borne out of months of high Los Angeles temperatures and the water shortages caused by this rain-free living are down marks. Los Angeles has a very eclectic and diverse population, with restaurants, markets and stores of varying flavors and contrasts, which is probably a good thing for the city of Los Angeles especially for those appetites yearning for something new.  Los Angeles is a beach, desert, and mountain city, positive attributes to some. But the smog in Los Angeles, although responsible for some spectacular orange and blue and pink late evening skies, is a choker and disgrace to both secular and religious worshippers of Gaia.  Los Angeles is a city for liberals, a downer for conservatives. Los Angeles has more than its fair share of beautiful people (not necessarily true) which is an “up” for those who care and a “down” for those that do not. It’s been said that Angelinos, the affectionate term for the residents of Los Angeles, are shallow, that their depth only extends to their reflection in the mirror, which is likely to crack anyway given its overuse. This is a sad indictment for the people of Los Angeles especially for those who are trying to find meaningful relationships.  And of relationships, finding true love in Los Angeles is elusive, claim many, an absolute downer. Though Los Angeles weddings are plentiful indeed, Los Angeles divorces are as common a breed.  Should such a notion be a factor for a bride to make a decision of marrying in Los Angeles?  Come now,  Los Angeles is where fairytales do come true. After all, Disney started here In Los Angeles.  And where would the world be without Mickey Mouse? Akin to its name,  Los Angeles is the home of many angels in the likes of  humanitarians, philanthropists,  neighborhood saints, and more, and for that we certainly deserve merit, but in contrast darker forces are afoot, perps are plentiful, so sad.  Los Angeles gives home to gangs,  thugs, hardened criminals, and sinister types by the barrel load, many of them drawn to Los Angeles by the notion of easy pickings.  Los Angeles, arguably, is not a pretty city but rather a sprawling mess.  Los Angeles is the city I dreamed of,  Los Angeles is the city I migrated to, and Los Angeles, paradoxically, is the city I cannot wait to leave. I love Los Angeles.  I hate Los Angeles.  Los Angeles is the city of promise. Los Angeles is the city of cracked hearts.   Where else can one live if not in Los Angeles? Would the same be true of New York or Philadelphia or any other city? Smog aside, weather aside, population density aside,  Los Angeles has its ups and Los Angeles has its downs.  But in truth we do not live in Los Angeles, we live in our hearts.

She streams from her wand a never-ending flow of magical ideas, dropping spells and curses with such wild abandon, it’s hard to imagine her in reality not being the real deal.  I’m talking about the witchery of J.K. Rowling of course, and when her latest “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” reaches the big screen, save for a hack director or screenwriter, it will no doubt be the best of the series, with battles on the ground and in the air, with sieges and fallen heroes, secrets and lies, dreaded Dementors and Death Eaters. It’s war. And this tale has more action and destruction than in her previous six books combined.   That one author could create such an elaborate and complex world, with so many characters carrying baggage of all shapes weights, and weave their intricate stories through this epic tale of good versus evil, proves that J.K. Rowling is indeed a goddess of imagination and creativity.  Sometimes, however, her charms are so thick and plentiful in “Deathly Hallows” it’s hard to follow the narrative. In fact, there are times when the narrative seems disjointed and unfocused. There are also some lengthy dead spots when, for example, Harry, Hermione and Ron, fugitives on the run from Voldemort’s newly formed government, take refuge in a tent, and later on a farm, not knowing what to do or where to go next, so they do pretty much nothing but wait and bicker, all the while hoping for inspiration and a new course of action to pop into Harry’s noggin, perhaps mirroring J.K. Rowling’s need for inspiration at that time. I also believe J.K. did not serve herself well delaying the introduction of the instrument called the Deathly Hallows until the 300-page mark because the quest for the horcruxes, leftover from the last book, begins to falter quite early on.  I think if she’d defined the quest with sharper goals from the start and built toward the climax in a deliberate and foreboding manner, her readers would have felt a greater level of tension.  Remember in “Lord of the Rings” Frodo braving obstacle after obstacle on his journey to Mordor to dispose of the ring in the fiery Mount Doom while Sauron’s armies rage against Rohan.  The plan is well defined early on, there are just obstacles to win over on the way. Still, these minor flaws in “Deathly Hallows” will vanish on the big screen.  Ultimately, the big finish is really big, and noisy—at least in my mind—and very exciting.  One thing I would have liked to see….  Spoilers coming!!!  When Harry is struck by Voldemort, I think J.K. should have deceived the reader into believing he was truly dead, and delayed the truth for as long as possible, building upon that shocking emotion as the news of his demise spreads inside Hogwarts.  There again, if I were J.K. Rowling I’d have all her fame, money, and power.  Boy, there’s an interesting thought.  Now how do I conjure that spell?  Hmmm, let me see.  All in all I really liked “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” It’s probably the second best of the 7.

Now that I’ve seen the movie of the Half Blood Prince, I’m really looking forward to the last chapter.

Reviews by David Marsh
contact me at davidm617@aol.com

David Marsh, April 6, 2007

LOS ANGELES, California – The deadly cyclone that tore through the island of Madagascar last month affecting more than 130,000 people was caused by global warming, claims a local scientist –

The BBC’s green bashing documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” which aired last month in Great Britain is now causing a flash storm in the United States –

No doubt you see the connection in the two sub-headlines. But is the connection real? To me, the divisive debate on global warming is mind boggling. Temperature anomalies aside, from my eyes our world does not look remotely as clean and lovely as it did 35 years ago. As a kid I remember swimming in the glorious French Mediterranean, and the sea looked and felt nothing like it does today, oily and green. The night skies were alive with millions of clear bright twinkling stars, the air in the city still smelled of trees and flowers, not nausea inducing gas fumes, and the Antarctic was a continent of ice. So I know first hand that the planet has changed significantly over these years. You don’t need to be a scientist to figure out that our planet is reeling from pollution, you just need to use your God-given noodle.

Most of us pick up our news intake in mini bytes, a few minutes at the computer, another few flipping TV channels, a conversation at the water cooler. Not surprisingly, truths, falsehoods and rumors spread fast.  After the BBC aired their documentary on global warming lies, many of my friends and colleagues were quick to point out that the documentary had presented a solid and sensible argument debunking the entire theory of  global warming. For a moment I too began to think of the possibility of global warming as nothing but a hoax of enormous proportions.  Was Al Gore’s documentary “Inconvenient Truth” slanted? Just months prior, after watching Gore’s film, I pretty much had thought to myself, well, that’s it, game over.  But now the BBC had presented other theories and facts on the subject, and it seemed that everywhere I turned others were decrying global warming. I listened to scathing counters by the likes of TV commentator Glenn Beck and journalist Robert Tracinski who wrote a post “Guilty Until Proven Innocent” in which he slams certain media outlets for calling carbon dioxide a pollutant, and my thinking of doom and gloom began to soften, which arguably might be a good thing.

But the oceans still look ugly, I reminded myself.  The stars in the night sky are still concealed by blankets of smog, and the debunkers of global warming tend to make people forget these things. “What about your own eyes, what do you see?” I asked my colleagues. “What about commonsense?”  My point is that the debunkers make us lose sight of what we really observe on our planet, so much so that when the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their latest findings on Global warming, almost every person I spoke to about the report, and it wasn’t a few, laughed it off. These people, it seems, would rather drown in our polluted cities or maybe die of thirst in them rather than entertain the notion that our planet is conveying some sort of message.

Let’s play the devil’s advocate for a moment. Let’s say the IPCC is wrong, and the changes in our climate are temporary and very normal, a view akin to the stance of the BBC documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Governments will spend fortunes needlessly implementing environmental changes, many industries will be forced to conform to the new paradigm or fold, people will have to curb their environmental onslaught, new clean power inventions will overtake the old systems, the skies and oceans will take on a cleaner look and feel, and smog and fuel stinking streets will become memories of the past. What a terrible thought, huh?

Though technically correct with his commentary on what carbon dioxide is,  journalist Robert Tracinski and others of like mind who decry global warming activism, are guilty of making millions of Americans lethargically indifferent to environmental pollution, which, rightly or wrongly, is locked hand in hand with global warming. Keeping the status quo is not a good thing. Debunking the hundreds or thousands of climatology scientists who are 90% certain that human produced carbon gases are contributing to global climatic changes is not a positive thing. Perhaps, in a court of law, these scientists who believe in global warming would lose, failing to prove their case by 10% of reasonable doubt. But does the world really want to let global warming go free, which really means letting polluters go free? Can humanity afford to guess with our future? Surely it makes more sense to err on the side of caution, even if the climate concerns are overstated and even though the clean up and conservation will cost billions. Is it better to spend billions on the war machine or the clean machine?

What really amazes me is why there are so many outspoken voices against global warming awareness from individuals without any deep-rooted knowledge on the subject, without any vested interest in industries that produce vast quantities of pollution such as the automotive industry, the oil and chemical industries, etc. To the millions of plain, hardworking people in America who believe wholeheartedly that global warming is hyped to the hilt, not so bad, a liberal minded ploy, all I can say is this: Are you ready to bet your life on it, and the lives of your children and grandchildren? How sure are you that the massive species extinction our planet is currently experiencing is normal, and what makes you think man is exempt from this current trend?

While some scientific/media reports paint an alarming picture of our future on this planet, and others make light of those reports, and while the political posts use each viewpoint at whim, bending and distorting the facts, you would be hard pressed to find a practicing, employed scientist who rejects with complete and absolute conviction the notion of man’s involvement in global warming. Even Dr. John Christy, one of the leading climatologists in America, most notably recognized for his outspoken contrary opinions on some global warming issues, has publicly stated that, “It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn’t been increased in the past century.”

As the climate debate rages, as fierce as the weather in the southern hemisphere this year, we seem to lose perspective of one of the core values of the green movement: loving the earth. Even if carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming, pollution from industry, cars, boats and planes definitely affects all living things on our planet, and not in a positive way. So the bottom line is this: If commonsense tells you that global warming awareness will lead to planetary respect, maybe you’d like to pass on this message of hope and change. If, on the other hand, you don’t feel we should err on the side of caution, feel free to e-mail me why we should carry on as normal.

David Marsh is a novelist and freelance writer in Hawaii. You can reach him at davidm617@aol.com The BBC documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” a counter to Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth,” aired in Britain in March and briefly appeared on Google video. Last month’s Madagascan cyclone, hardly mentioned in the American press, was just one in a series of cyclones that marked one of the worst cyclone seasons on record.

It’s a common misconception that when you shoot for six hours you have six hours of film. You don’t. Even with an un-edited wedding video, your videographer cannot possibly shoot non-stop from the moment he or she arrives at the venue, and in all practically even if he could, that would yield the most boring moments ever recorded on video. How much time can one spend watching empty pews before the throng arrives, and how many slow panning shots over splendid flower arrangements can one absorb before tedium sets in?  You get the point.

So how long should the wedding video be?  First off, you need to decide up front what style you want.  Classy? Modern? Retro? Jazzy? Do you want it edited or would you prefer the look of watching a home movie, raw and in its original form?  It’s your choice, and you should discuss this with your videographer. Now, taking into consideration budget, stylistic preferences, practicalities, etc, a wedding video can be delivered to you as:

(1) Raw unedited footage:

(2) Assembled, meaning the shots are compiled into a basic order but not tailored:

(3) Edited, meaning an artist called an editor will spend days, even weeks, fashioning your wedding film into a movie experience. They say that time is money, and certainly edited films cost more, but there again most people find it easier to watch a tailored film. Bear in mind, the method for filming a wedding, knowing that it will be edited, is vastly different from the method of filming for instant playback.

You might have heard of a few different name tags for film styles: journalistic, traditional, progressive, documentary, cinematic, all very confusing, because really, in essence, all wedding videos are documentaries of the cinema verite order. In other words, these type of films unfold with very little dramatic direction, the camera or cameras are just there (positioned properly hopefully) to record what happens. In todays world of wedding movies all the styles really boil down to 2. The first uses cinema tools of the trade such as movie cranes, dollies and Steadycams to capture much of the day’s footage, and in the other category they don’t. Let’s call the first a cinematic film because of the cinematic tools of the trade, while the other is simply a documentary.

There is nothing wrong with choosing a documentary style wedding film. While it is likely to have a lot of handheld shots, major theatrical films have them too, and a good documentarian will seek to get that live news type feeling, and keep his camera (or cameras) rolling as much as possible in effort to capture as much of your wedding day as possible.  The highly tailored film will include music, titles, etc.

The cinematic style edited wedding film will likely cost more. It is designed for cinematic impact and a “wow” factor. Multiple cameras come into play and at times specialized camera supports such as Steadycams, dollies and video cranes are used to make the cameras float poetically close with the action, almost inside the action. The editing is complex and tight because, like any film you’d see in the theater, the story has to flow, it has to have smooth pacing. A cinematic styled film is more likely to contain specialized color sequences, dream-like looks, black-and white and sepia sequences, and maybe even an animated photo montage, but the documentary style can also be designed with these techniques.

There is one other type of film, but it should not really be classified a style. It’s the assembled film.

Assembled films can be shot either with big cinema tools or without; what sets them apart is the editing, or should I say lack of. The viewing experience is close to that of an unedited film but with titles and a semblance of order to the shots.  Whereas it takes a week or more to craft an edited wedding film, the assembled film is usually put together in under a day.

The length of your edited wedding film also depends on hours on scene, how many cameras, guests, wedding elements (bride and groom getting ready, pictures in the park, DJ napkin games, live band coverage, etc ) but the biggest element determining the wedding video length is the editing. Do you want all of the ceremony in the finished film or can some of the officiant’s monologue be shortened?  Do you want to see the guests arriving in real time, or do you want those sections fashioned to be short and snappy? Fortunately, all this information does somehow translate into a quasi equation, which is as follows:

Raw footage from an 8 hour shoot with 2 cameras will typically yield 3-4 hours of video.

Assembled footage (but not edited) coming from an 8 hour shoot with 2 cameras will likely produce 2-4 hours of video.

Edited films: This is a very nebulous arena. Some videographers produce their films in a style akin to music videos with breakneck running times in the 15-25 minute range. Personally, I do not think this style serves the founding idea of a wedding video.  Years down the road, when you look back at the film, you might wish for scenes that match your memory only to find that they do not exist in your edited film. Personally, I try to maintain a linear flow of the day’s events, therefore my edited cinematic style films derived from 2 cameras on an 8-hour day runs anywhere from 65-90 minutes long.

If you desire a long wedding film (more than 90 minutes) 2 or more cameras are usually required, and the documentary style, unedited film, or assembled film might be best suited for you.  A long cinematic film might require special elements such as bride and groom interviews, and maid of honor and best man interviews, perhaps a musical romantic sequence shot on a separate day.

Most important of all, discuss your film with the videographer. Really discuss it.

The author of this article, David Marsh, is a novelist and screenwriter who, from time to time, produces high-end cinematic wedding films. He can be reached through his websites www.beverlyhillsvideographer.com and www.wefilmweddings.com

We quickly learned some shocking truths about the Blu-ray functionality in FCP7. To be blunt, this element of Apple’s new software is primitive. It’s not a full fledged authoring program like DVD Studio Pro or even iDVD. The software does not allow for self created design from within the program and  Apple’s so called beautifully  designed HD templates are skeletons without enhancement or alteration controls. As these templates are only displayed as thumbnails, there’s no way of seeing what the template really looks like until the burn is complete. So if you don’t like what you see after the burn, you have to start all over again, and I’m talking about a waste of a day, folks, it takes that long for the burn. The next cruddy thing with this software is a real humdinger. After the burn, the Blu-ray H264 file is saved on the computer, but there’s no way to ingest the encoded file back into Final Cut Studio to burn a repeat disc. Yes you can use the file in another authoring program like Adobe Encore, software that would eliminate the entire need for FCP in the first place, but as far as the Apple program is concerned the Blu-ray file becomes defunct. In other words, unless you decide on duplicate discs from the onset, every burn in FCP or Compressor requires encoding from scratch, a chore that, with our first 84 minute wedding film, took 16 hours. To add insult to injury, once you create a Blu-ray disc, you cannot play it back through the computer to verify it as the OS-X operating system is unable to read Blu-ray. Way to go Steve Jobs!

Okay, we admit, we’re glad to be able to produce a Blu-ray disc, but after waiting 3 years for Apple to get on the Blu-ray bandwagon, and after forking out for the upgrade $299 per machine so that we could be fashionably Blu-ray equipped, it’s sad and shameful that we’re still in the dark ages.

Video tekkies take note: At Beverly Hills Videographer www.beverlyhillsvideographer.com we’re open to sharing tech information and helping any technophile who needs to confer.