One thing that we sometimes hear from couples who do not want video is that they don’t want any bright lights shining in their face. This misunderstanding comes from the early days of event video when cameras lacked the sensitivity that they have today. Modern equipment is not only smaller than a decade ago, but much more sensitive. There is almost no situation short of a candlelight ceremony where we would have a hard time shooting without additional lighting. Even darker churches usually have enough light for a good image.

Receptions are another story however. It is common for reception locations to turn down the lights so low that if we go with just the light in the hall, we will get nothing but dark grainy images. We just can’t shoot in the dark and expect to get anything worthwhile.

I always advise my clients that I would prefer to use a small on-camera light during the reception. Of course the more light that there is in the room, the less light that I will need to use. Another thing that I request is that they talk to the banquet manager about leaving the lights up for the introductions and main dances. If they do, we can often dispense with the light for these. Unfortunately this is sometimes not communicated to the staff and the lights are turned down anyway.

There are some videographers who bring in lights mounted on stands to light up the dance floor. We do not do that as it would create a safety hazard as well as ruining the atmosphere. But having some additional light is a given at most receptions. I usually use a 10 watt light on top of the camera. It doesn’t flood the room, but provides just enough light to make the image pop.

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.

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.