This week’s GPVA meeting featured I Do Stream, a company that markets a live video feed to the Internet. It is an interesting concept, You connect a camera via Firewire to a computer hooked to a broadband Internet connection. I Do Stream provides a way of allowing people anywhere to watch the feed live (or almost live). I don’t know how many wedding videographers will use it. We have enough trouble trying to get audio hookups at churches and reception halls to work without adding Internet connections, but at other more controlled venues live streaming video could be a reliable source of extra income.

GPVA member Joe Donato presented a very informative presentation entitled “How Ballroom Dancing Save My Videography Career”. Besides being a videographer, Joe also teaches ballroom dancing. He showed the audience how to apply dance concepts as a way of getting smoother handheld footage.

To cap of the evening, we had a surprise guest. Ron Dawson of Cinematic Studios in Cupertino CA, spoke via iChat from Las Vegas, where he is attending the WPPI Expo. WPPI is the organization of wedding photographers. Ron explained how he made a shift from wedding videography to corporate by producing videos for professional photographers. Ron is also well known in the blogging community and his talk at the WEVA Expo last summer on blogging is what got me going on this blog.

At the conclusion of the evening many of us headed up the street to Champps where a lively discussion of things video continued until past midnight.

The Next GPVA meeting will be held April 15, 2008 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in King Of Prussia, PA. Go to the GPVA website for more information.

Getting the right white balance is one of the challenges that we have to deal with when shooting a wedding. Video cameras like film do not compensate the way our eye-brain system does for differences in reddishness or bluishness of light. If we set the camera for daylight and move indoors, we end up with video which is excessively red. The same happens if we have the camera set for tungsten light and we move outdoors. The resulting video is too blue.

Professional video cameras have a variety of ways to set the white balance. We can use a preset (usually either tungsten or daylight), set the balance to a specific color temperature, or we can balance to a white card, letting the camera’s electronics calibrate to a known standard. There is also an auto white balance in which case the camera makes an educated guess based on the light coming through the lens.

The problem that is often encountered is that the color temperature of the light that we are shooting in, may vary considerably with a single room. Take a church for example. There is daylight coming through windows, but they are often stained glass, thus coloring that light. There is also incandescent light from lamps inside the church. If we were shooting a movie we would light the interior so there is little variation in color temperature, using whatever Hollywood techniques are required to get it right. If you have ever seen a film being made, you know how much effort and special equipment is used to light a scene.

But wedding videographers don’t have that luxury. We have to work with whatever available light there is. Particularly when filming a wedding ceremony, we don’t want to use additional lighting. So what do we do? The bride might be coming down an aisle that is mostly lit by light coming through the windows. The altar area on the other hand might be largely incandescent lighting. Every situation will be different.

The first step is to analyze what you are dealing with. I usually eyeball the location. I decide first what the primary source of light will be in different parts of the room. I then decide how I will compensate.

Here are some ways to compensate for mixed lighting.

• Set the camera to one setting, either tungsten or daylight and leave it there. Then correct in post. While this has the advantage of setting the white balance to a known setting, it often requires considerable work in post to compensate, and the results will never be as good as if you had it right in the first place.
• Balance using a white card. This will give the the correct balance for the location where you are holding the white card. The problem is that it may not be correct for other parts of the room. Also if lighting changes you will have to set another white balance, not the easiest thing to do in the middle of a wedding ceremony. When I set white balance this way, I do it at the spot where most of the action is taking place, usually the altar.
• Use auto white balance. While modern cameras often do a good job with auto white balance, they can be fooled. It is like any other automatic setting, you are giving up a degree of control over your camera. That is not to say never use it. Many times using auto white balance will give you the best results in difficult lighting conditions. Just use caution and don’t rely on it.
• Set the white balance manually to a certain color temperature. Not all cameras let you do this (you can’t on a PD-170, but can on an A1). If you have the experience to know what setting to use and a good eye, this will often give you the best results. You can also change this setting on the fly as your subject moves from one area to another.

If you have a camera that allows you to preset multiple white balances, you can do this for different locations and switch between them as needed. As I mentioned, there is never one right way to white balance, you have to look at each situation individually.

As videographers move towards the world of HD, delivery is still a problem. One issue is the format war. Even though the balance seems to be tipping in favor of BluRay, HD-DVD still needs to be considered. The other issue is media. BluRay writers are out there for around $500. HD-DVD burners are more difficult to find. Media costs are still quite high. In addition software can be an issue, particularly for Mac users. Apple’s DVD Studio Pro at this time only supports HD-DVD, while  Windows users have a number of BluRay authoring products out there.

Regarding media, there is a solution to producing HiDef DVDs without investing in a new writer. Both BluRay and HD-DVD can be written to a standard (red laser) DVD. Using H264 encoding it is possible to put 30 minutes or more of HD video on a single layer disk and more than an hour on a dual layer disk. I have made HD-DVDs using H264 that play fine on my Toshiba A3 HD-DVD player. For wedding videographers this means that we can put our short form and highlights videos on a single disk. That is what I plan to do when I go HD.

Of course a lot of experts say that neither BluRay or HD-DVD will ever catch on. There is certainly some good reasons to believe this. Most people are quite happy with the image that today’s up-scaling DVD players deliver. If there isn’t a significant jump in quality, the public won’t buy. This happened a few years ago when two competing high resolution audio formats, SACD and DVD Audio,were introduced. The improvement wasn’t noticeable to most people. In addition all DVD Audio disks (as well as some SACD disks) would not play in an ordinary DVD player. At the same time, online delivery of music was getting popular. As a result consumers stayed away, and both formats died out.

This could happen to HiDef DVD video.  If the consumer isn’t interested, and online delivery of video takes off, High Definition DVDs could fade away. I for one hopes that this doesn’t happen. My clients would not like it if they only way that they get their wedding videos in HD is to download them. When we have gone HD we will still deliver our videos on standard definition DVD. In  they will still look great, even on a big HD television. We will be watching how the BluRay HD-DVD war plays out. Most likely we will also deliver on one (or both) of those formats. There is also the option of creating a high definition file that can be played on a computer. If high definition DVDs fail in the marketplace, we may give clients the option of getting their video in HD on an external hard drive.

Note: This review was first posted in the Video University Members Only forum on Jan 13, 2008.

Last Sunday I used the Canon XH-A1 for the first time at a wedding. This wedding is being delivered as 4:3 standard definition. However to get used to the A1, I shot some 16:9 HDV. The 4:3 guides on the LCD were turned on to keep the important action within a standard frame. The ceremony was inside a building with light coming mostly through skylights. So I white balanced the camera to 5500K using the manual color temperature control (thanks to Darrell Aubert for that suggestion. Much better than using a white card). There was enough light to shoot open at 1/60 sec with 3 to 6db of gain. I used the “Panalook” custom preset that I found on the DVinfo site (it is supposed to emulate a DVX100). This preset gave me very rich color, with nice skin tones. The result was very pleasing. At 6db gain, there is some noise, but nothing objectionable. As noted above, colors are rich but natural.

For the reception I tried both 60i and 24F. The room was typical, with light coming from incandescent fixtures in the ceiling. The toasts were shot as above (except for changing the white balance). I used my NRG Varilux light with the 60% diffusion filter. Using that filter really didn’t put out enough light. In the future I may use the 30% diffuser or shoot with the bare lamp.I experimented more during the dancing. I tried a couple of “high gain” presets that I found, but didn’t like the results. I also shot a large portion of the dancing at 24F. Using a shutter speed of 1/24 allowed me to shoot in lower light with very nice results (very film like). I was able to use my Sony 10/20 with 6db gain selected. At least there was some light on the dance floor at this reception. The results may have been different if they turned the lights down as they so often do.
What I like about the A1:

• An iris ring on the lens barrel.
• Peaking in the viewfinder. This makes manual focusing much easier.
• 20X zoom.
• 24F mode. Much better than the faux cinema mode on the Z1 and FX1.
• Audio level controls on the side of the camera. This is much nicer than the audio setup on the PD170.
• Excellent image stabilizer. Better than the GL2 and much better than the PD170. Hand holding is really easy with this camera.
• Instant auto-focus. Works quite well.
• Zebras can be selected from a range of 70 to 100 IRE. I used 75 IRE during this shoot.
• Extensive customization. There are a lot of parameters that can be modified. Much more than the Z1. This allows the user to get a lot of different looks. Some have commented that the A1 doesn’t look that impressive out of the box, and that you really have to tweak it. Fortunately there are lots of presets to be found on the Internet.

What I don’t like:

• The iris ring is too close to the zoom ring. Too often I ended up stopping down the lens when trying to zoom manually. I also found myself moving it inadvertently when reaching for other things. I am sure that I will get used to it though. The autofocus switch is too small and hard to find. A nitpick, but I am used to the PD170. The same thing with the menu button.
• While I love the ability to select zebras in a range to 70 to 100 IRE, I would like to have the ability to switch between two settings without having to go into the menus.
• The LCD could be bigger (but then I am used to the equally small LCD on the PD170).
• The viewfinder and LCD were hard to use in sunlight.
• The viewfinder needs a bigger eyecup, and the LCD needs to be a hybrid like the LCDs on Sony camera.
• Low light – I shouldn’t complain here. If I wanted to have PD170 low light capability, I would have to spend more then twice as much for a Sony EX1. Running the camera at 1/24 sec shutter speed in 24F mode helps a lot, but it is no 170. I am keeping my PD170 for those cases when I can’t use an external light. However the A1 seems to be the “best of the rest” if you don’t count the EX1 (although Z1/FX1 owners would argue otherwise).

Overall I am very impressed with the A1. For what I paid a couple of years ago for a PD170, I have a very configurable, well built HDV camcorder. Canon really listened to what videographers wanted. The positives far outweigh the negatives. I am hoping to get another one later this year so I can start shooting weddings entirely in HD.

While at the WEVA Expo last month I attended Larry Jordan’s excellent Soundtrack Pro seminar. Now for all of you who are wondering what Soundtrack Pro is, it is Apple’s audio editor for video. Version 2 was released as part of Final Cut Studio 2.

After getting back from the Expo, I was eager to put into place what I had learned. So last weekend I started refining the audio on my current project. This is a wedding that we did in June. I had promised the bride that she would get her DVDs in early September. Anyway, after a few false starts, I got the workflow down in Soundtrack Pro’s multitrack editor. Once I had the sound the way I liked it, I was ready to export the project back into Final Cut Pro (the video editing application). This is where things went wrong.

The export function creates a new audio mixdown file. Unfortunately when I opened the file in Final Cut Pro, the audio levels were all wrong. Some tracks were too loud, some were too soft. I figured that it was my problem, and that I did something wrong. I treaked things some more in Soundtrack Pro and exported again. The audio still wasn’t right.

Today, I looked on Apple’s Soundtrack Pro forum. It seems like a large number of people have had the same issue. Soundtrack Pro screws up the levels when exporting a file. This is a bug that makes this product unusable for me. Apple never should have released the new version as it is. This is too bad, as Soundtrack Pro is really a nice audio editor. I will wait until they fix the bugs before using it again.

The 8 to 12 hours that we typically spend shooting on the wedding day is only a fraction of the time spent producting a wedding day movie. Most of it is in the editing phase. This often runs anywhere from 40 to 80 hours.

In the beginning, much of this is routine, even tedious. After the footage has been captured into the computer, I have to go through all of it and pick out what I want to use. Then it is assembled into a rough cut. The next step is to refine this into what we call our “Documentary Style” program. This means that we edit the day’s events in chronological order, keeping all the major events, but cutting it in a way that keeps the video interesting. At the end of this phase we usually have a program that is from 1 to 2 hours in length.

If our client has ordered the Basic Package, we have completed most of the editing. If they are getting the Deluxe or Premium Package, we have just begun. Here we start on the Highlights program. Even though this only runs anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes, it takes longer to edit. Why? Because this is where the artistry comes in. The Highlights program doesn’t document the day, it tells a story, the wedding story.

For me editing the Highlights is the biggest challenge. Distilling the essence of the wedding can be frustrating at first, but soon it all comes together and I have something that I am truly proud of. Most of all however, is what the couple will have. Perhaps fifty or sixty years from now, long after I am gone, they or their children and granchildren will still treasure it.

That is the real reward.

I returned Friday from the WEVA (Wedding and Event Videographers Association) Expo in Las Vegas. As always, I spent most of my time attending seminars (gambling and Vegas shows don’t really appeal to me). This year attendance was up. The show moved back to Bally’s after being at Mandalay Bay last year, and the Hilton the previous year.This was a good move, as Mandalay Bay was not set up well for this type of convention. Too much walking. At Bally’s the conference rooms were right downstairs.

Here are some of the seminars that I attended that I feel will make an impact on our work:

Canon A1 seminar with Rob Neal. A good introduction to the camera that we will probably purchase when we make the move to HD.

Tim Sudall’s excellent seminar called Destination Success. Very inspirational.

Soundtrack Pro with Larry Jordan. One of the best that I was at. I have been wrestling with this audio application from Apple for awhile now. In one hour I learned enough to make it useful.

Blogging For Videographers with Ron and Tasra Dawson. An excellent seminar on improving my blog. Should be a big help here.

Moving Camera Techniques with Mark and Tricia Van Lanken. As always, the Van Lankens put together an informative program on making wedding video more cinematic.

There was also a “mock wedding” where 12 experts demonstrated techniques for getting better ceremony and reception coverage.

Every year local videographers associations compete to produce a 60 second commercial for wedding videography. I am pleased to note that our local orgranization, The Greater Philadelphia Videographers Association, won for the second year in a row.

We tried something new at the wedding we did on Saturday. My second shooter and I have never relied on anything other than hand signals to communicate during the ceremony. As a result we have sometimes been out of sync on our shots. There are dedicated wireless intercom systems that would allow us to to communicate, but they tend to be expensive and some say unreliable.

So last week I went to BestBuy and picked up a pair of GMRS/FRS 2-way radios for about $70. These little wonders are designed for communicating over a range of a mile or two, and are (at least on the FRS channels) low powered enough that they shouldn’t interfere with the church PA, or the wireless mics. I also purchased a pair of cheap computer headsets.

First thing, a few words about GMRS/FRS. GMRS stands for General Mobile Radio Service. In the US you will require a license from the FCC to use it legally. The cost is $85 and all members of your family can use the radios under a single license. It is not supposed to be used for business communication (family businesses excepted). You can operate at up to 50 watts, although most low priced handhelds run in the 1 to 5 watt range. FRS stands for Family Radio Service. No license is required, and there is no limitation on business use. Power is restricted to 1/2 watt.Most of the radios that you get at a typical retail outlet at 22 channel combined GMRS/FRS units. Channels 1-7 and 15-22 are for GMRS and channels 8-14 are reserved for FRS (technically FRS can operate on channels 1-7, but only if the radio is approved for FRS use on those channels).

For our purpose, the FRS channels are best. If you want to get a license for GMRS, you can apply on the FCC’s website (fcc.gov). I did that on Tuesday and got my license on Saturday. However for communicating inside of a church, the power levels available for GMRS are overkill, and you are more likely to cause interference. Plus do you really want to spend $85 for a license if you don’t need it? I only got one because I want to use it for other purposes.

I bought a model that has standard microphone and headphone jack so I could use an inexpensive computer headset with it.So how did it work. Actually quite well. Before leaving for the wedding, I did some tests to make sure that it didn’t interfere with my wireless mic, iRivers or Edirol recorders. The only problem that I found was if I was running high power and came within 6 inches of the PD-170, it could screw up the picture on the LCD. When we got to the church, I made sure that we were not interfering with the church PA. This is really important. Make sure that the PA is turned on, and that you are not being heard in it. There are some very badly maintained sound systems out there, and it doesn’t take much to have your voice coming out of the church speakers. That goes for your wireless mic too.

The church was one of those with a center aisle and two side aisles radiating from the altar. We positioned one camera in each of the side aisles. The priest requested that the back camera be up in the balcony, so my plan was to follow the bride down the aisle with the Glidecam, then run up to the balcony where the camera would be on a tripod for the remainder of the ceremony. This was a good test for a communications system as most of the time we would be widely separated.

During the ceremony my assistant and I were able to keep in touch and coordinate easily. When we had to change tapes (it was a typical 1 hour+ Catholic service), we let each other know so nothing was missed. The only problem is that it is sometimes hard to be heard clearly when you are talking in a whisper. We had to repeat things at times.Later, driving to the reception in separate cars, the radios again proved their worth when we drove right by the reception site (despite my GPS telling me that we had arrived), and had to turn around.

To sum up, a GMRS/FRS radio is a good low cost alternative to an intercom system like an Eartec. It isn’t full duplex, but do you really need that? You also have much more range available (particularly if your use GMRS) when you want to use it for other purposes.