who has seen the mark II Video Engage by Robert evans and Curt Apanovich??

[candice]

<p>OMG Have you guys seen this promo film made all by the 5D mark II??? Here is the link. <a href="http://engagingfilms.com/">http://engagingfilms.com/</a> Looks so hot!!! I was reading there budget was around 3k. The question I wonder is how many of our brides are going to start demanding Video as well as photography. from us???</p>

<p>FILM IS AMAZING!!! Kick A@@ Job!</p>

[greg jansen]

<p>I would say the film is far from amazing. A nice production that took some time and planning, but nothing new there. There are many videographers who use HD cameras at weddings. The fact that it is also a still camera would mean nothing to a bride.<br>

Right now, still and video are two very seperate things. Both require different editing software and presentation.<br>

Are brides going to want short video snipits in the future, as opposed to only still images? Who knows. If they do, the workload, I.E. post production work, is going to double. Not interested. <br>

IMHO all that digital has added to wedding photography is an increased workload for photographers, which means less profit in an already low paying field. </p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>I guess we'll soon find out how much brides are willing to pay extra to include video, if only snippets. Because anyone who does video on top of stills and doesn't charge 'extra' for it will be losing money. Personally, I plan to wait and see, and then wait some more before I decide whether to actually incorporate video. I think there is room for stills only and fusion, but money will have a great deal to do with whether brides will 'demand' as opposed to buy or not buy based on budget.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>With the 2009 inquires and the prices they are requesting --there will be no room for the additional cost of a video this years' market.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>I kind of dread the thought of offering video through still cameras and so far no one has asked! 15 years ago I was interviewed for a wedding magazine asking me if digital will be the new trend for wedding photography. I said no, saying film will always be the wedding photographers first choice. Needless to say I was so wrong.<br>

<br />Based on what happened, me having to eat my words, I have to say as photographers we need to be open and expect to offer this in the near future. If we don't offer this the bride will find someone that does. It's not happening this year, but I'm sure we will need to offer it within 2 to 3 years - not by choice, but because of demand.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>You think editing is time consuming for CS -- I have been editing video for 20 years > Yikes ~! Not goin' there.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Such a copycat...</p>

[laronge photographie coutu]

<p>Compared to the other 5dII vids out there, this one is a B- to B.</p>

<p><em>Candie Everton -</em> <strong> </strong> <em>"The question I wonder is how many of our brides are going to start demanding Video as well as photography. from us???" </em><br>

I have been a still photographer for a long time and make my living solely from photography (and now video too). I am in my third season of offering video along with still work. I entered into it for two reasons, the first was perosnal interest and the other was brides were asking if I did video or who I recomend. I suspect most other still wedding pros have been asked the same question many times and brides who want video will continue to ask it. Does it mean a still photographers need to offer video, no (at least not right now). It needs to be a personal choice by the photographer and requires substantial investment both financial and sweat to be successful at it.</p>

<p><em>Bob Bernardo -</em> <em>"I have to say as photographers we need to be open and expect to offer this in the near future. If we don't offer this the bride will find someone that does. It's not happening this year, but I'm sure we will need to offer it within 2 to 3 years - not by choice, but because of demand."</em><br>

100% right on. While still photography may never go away (its predecessor of image capture, painting, is still around) it will change and it will migrate to moving images. There will come a day when prints and albums are no longer the common way to display images and electronic display will be the norm.</p>

<p>So, should you run out and buy a 5dII, N90 or video camera not necessarily but, if you're a serious pro and your living depends on it, or you're starting out and plan wedding photography as a career heed Bob's advice and at least pay attention to the technology and market demands.</p>

<p> </p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>I don't know if it's transition effects or capture issues, but there are a lot of focus and dof issues. Pans are anything but smooth.<br>

Squeezing a video from the 5D2 is the Swiss Army Knife approach to video. Sure, you can do it, but specialized tools do it better.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know if it's transition effects or capture issues, but there are a lot of focus and dof issues. Pans are anything but smooth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main reason is that you can't really adjust the focus on a still camera lens without a zooming effect, so you can't "pull focus" on a moving object.<br /> Modern video cameras have sensor/lens combinations that make for a deep depth of field. A dslr sensor/lens combination-- especially in interiors where a large aperture would be desired-- would not. On a wide aperture, if something moves even a few inches or so on lens axis, it will go soft.<br /> On 35mm motion picture cameras with a similar depth of field, there is often an assistant whose job it is to keep the camera in focus, using "witness marks" on the lens or an attachment and marks on the floor. There is really no way to do this consistently on a still camera lens. That's why good motion picture lenses or prime sets cost tens of thousands of dollars.<br /> Plus, the ergonomics of a still camera are horrible for shooting motion pictures.<br /> This subject reminds me of still photographers who are new and want to use hot lights or even florescent lights instead of strobes, and haven't thought through all the technical issues. Sure, it will work, but will it be worth the hassle. Why not just use the right tool for the job?</p>

[er1]

<p>As a pro photographer, if I were to offer a wedding video of this quality with my digital images, I could seal the deal on any wedding package. However the editing alone on this video was very time consuming.</p>