Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
I started getting into video long before DSLRs were capable of it, and completely separately from my photography.
But, the two do seem to be merging together more and more. I suppose it depends on the type of clients you have (personal vs. commercial, portraits vs. weddings, etc) but quite a few seem to want both these days.
Working on two documentaries back in the 90's with Bill Day, I've always been drawn to the the medium. I've been adding some inexpensive video for my clients and they seem to really enjoy it. I post on Vimeo which is a real quality boost over YouTube and allows/encourages 18+ video.
I will often do a safe for work version for the model to post. I assume I will be doing all video before too long.
I have been doing video for a while with stills. Video tends to eat space like candy I go through about 3TB every 2 weeks. Production costs tend to be lot higher. Sound is as important as the visual. Overall most photographers make the mistake of thinking of video and trying to shoot it the same way as stills. One of the big differences is still is about capturing a single moment of time and expanding it allowing the viewer to explorer the capture moment. Video is about compressing time. It is about taking a compressing it down. You might record 2hrs plus and only show 3 minutes.
Biggest mistake I did in video was not get formal training youtube does not cut it for information. Luckily i found good local video people to learn from. Self taught in video is more inefficient than self taught in photography.
I started dabbling in video before the DSLRs where capable of it also. It was too much for me to handle on my own, production, lighting, sound, editing. So I kind set it aside until I got involved in a team. Now I am one of the Camera operators on a small productions team using the DSLR to our advantage.
It is definitely a lot more work to capture one shot compared to photography, in my opinion. We have spend 1-2 days filming just to produce a 4 min product video.
Lighting is different, presuming people will be moving through space. If not, save yourself the effort and go "Ken Burns" on it.
Then there's continuity - also known as making a series of shots consistent with each other, unless you're going for the undisciplined public access look.
And while I like a series of pretty pictures as much as the next guy, there is still something to be said for narrative structure.
Tripod head requirements for motion are more stringent, your moves will need to be smooth enough to not draw attention to themselves. (See my "public access" comment above.)
I'm living primarily in the video world. It's not as simple as some might want to make it seem. It's not as difficult as others try to claim, either. It's really more of its own world with its own conventions.
I have dabbled a bit in video shooting. I mostly do it at events like weddings or family reunions. I haven't done it seriously enough to put time and effort into learning better techniques and things (especially since my current DSLR is lacking in a lot of areas) but I do like the challenge it presents. The idea, for me, is to capture footage that will enhance the production I'm currently working on while also allowing me to use that footage in another one somewhere along the way.
Not all footage can be reused but it's nice when it can be.
I was into photography first but bought my 60D for video...the camera is just a small part of video production....or better stated good professional video production. If you are going to move into video, know that audio off the DSLRs is essentially just there for reference, it is absolute crap. At the very least get a shotgun mic to mount on the camera but secondary audio recording is very important. Give the same amount of importance to audio as you do to video. ISO is also another factor...in stills you can go pretty high on ISO but for video stay below 1000 if you can and have ISOs in multiples of 160...
and one last point before this goes into full out rant about video is that ND filters are a big deal...
NeufeldDesigns wrote: I feel like it's a natural progression...
I don't really, stills and video are two different things. This isn't a rant on your video, just in general.
With video a person needs to worry about all the extra things that we don't consider with stills - how the movement goes, how long of a shot, how the lighting is for the shot, sound, how different types of shots give different emotions, editing, not to mention actually directing... (I'm leaving out a bunch, not a video person here)
What I personally find is a lot of photographers try video, and fail at it - or at least fail when they aren't showing it to their facebook friends. I think a lot are trying too much or trying something that is beyond their skill set. Along with that I find a lot of these videos to be a bit too long, poorly edited, poorly directed, and not refined.
I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't, as photographers, get into video, just that we really need to take a step back and review what we're doing and keeping things simple.
I'm reminded of an incident in my metalwork class at school, when one of my fellow students was taking ages milling something. I wanted to do the same job, but, because I couldn't get to the mill, I had to do it another way. I proudly showed the results to the metalwork teacher.
"Well done," he said. "Now think of how much better it would have turned out if you'd used all your skills and knowledge on the right piece of equipment for the job."
That's how I tend to look at using a DSLR for video work. Fine, but wouldn't it have been better...
I've found a lot of the same things mentioned, there's much more to consider when capturing a scene over time than with a still photo. It's also a lot of work for a one man team to put something decent together once you take into account directing, setting up equipment, editing, colour grading, etc. That being said, I love the extra dimension it offers for creativity and am enjoying the challenge.
I've invested in some new equipment more specific to video including a camcorder. As good as the video is becoming on DSLRs, they are still made for photography first and require some cumbersome rigs and extra audio equipment as mentioned to get the most out of them.
Some of you also getting into video might actually find the camcorder worth a look, the Sony NEX VG30. It's almost a DSLR/video hybrid. It can do both and offers the benefits of interchangeable lenses like DSLRs but in a camcorder body with video being the primary focus.
I actually started video back in HS. Got back into it in 2010 when I purchased the 7D. I never had one intention to do photography at all, but when I was shooting video, I took pictures and well, it went from there.
Tips I would say is learn the camera. Learn your framing, shots, and get your own style. Look at who is the best and take bits and pieces from them. Study film. That's what I do. I mainly shoot rap videos and I don't pay attention to rap videos, I watch movies and tv shows to learn and get better.
Andrew Thomas Evans wrote: What I personally find is a lot of photographers try video, and fail at it - or at least fail when they aren't showing it to their facebook friends. I think a lot are trying too much or trying something that is beyond their skill set. Along with that I find a lot of these videos to be a bit too long, poorly edited, poorly directed, and not refined.
What's happening is the same thing that happened when dSLRs started becoming affordable: people got lazy. They found a "video" button on their camera and decided that that must be enough.
For promos and montage videos and to some extent even music videos, you can get away without a whole lot of skill in pre and post production. For documentaries and narrative films though, things get a LOT more involved, not just because you're shooting 24 frames per second, it's also because you have to craft a story, get talent, sets, costumes, lighting, and locations together to get the imagery you need, and then shoot it... out of order... and put it together in post so that it flows as if you shot it in order, and so that no one notices that you edited it, that you cheated shots, that you shot night time scenes in daytime, and that you shot the scene in the bedroom of the director's house and the scene in the living room in someone else's house across town two weeks later.
When it comes together though, it's incredibly rewarding, even when it's just a short film with a one-man crew.
I keep meaning to because fashion video can look amazing, though I am a photographer I do think good video is often more powerful.
What I quickly learned from messing about is that DSLRs are a pain to use as video cameras and even the simple video requires a lot more gear like follow focus, monitor, fluid head etc. and that is before getting into sound and lighting. You do need really good models too. For stills it's ok if her look comes together for just a few frames but for video is not quite so easy.
I created this for a Dallas based non-profit client this past summer in South Africa. I love the whole process and different way of looking through the lens that video brings out but I still prefer photography overall.
I've come to view the comparison between the two genres quite simply. Capturing a photograph and crafting it into what you want to say is akin to writing a poem. It can range from a short and tight haiku to an Homerian epic. Creating a video/film is much more like writing a novel. You have to get into fleshing out characters and developing a longer narrative.
When transition into video you want do also buy video equipment to go with it. Audio is everything if you are not shooting a music video where you add the music.For audio I would suggest buying a RODE Mic. You can also buy LED lights for lighting. You can also buy shoulder rigs for stability as well.
But a lot of videos I shoot are BTS because i shoot a lot of models.
As Gweneth Paltrow said at the Academy Awards, "now with every phone having a camera, we can all be Cinematographers" and then she introduced the nominees for Best Cinematography...
IF you are not worried about image quality and have a YouTube release party then your iPhone is perfect.
I'm coming the other way (motion to stills), I am a member of the ICG/Local 600 (International Cinemtographers Guild) as well as the SOC (Society of Camera Operators), and I shoot stills when not doing commercials and Features. credits are on my profile, but In the past 8 months I've done underwater DP jobs for LEXUS, Burger King, and LAX (airport art installation), and Operator/2nd Unit DP for 2 features (2013 releases) and a TJMaxx campaign as well.
There is a huge difference in shooting stills vs. motion, coming the other way I found that capturing that one frame was the hard part, I am always used to thinking in terms of scene and film as a whole, so we put togethers shots that work together for moments, none have to stand the test of time and be stared at for minutes on end, BUT you have to match from shot to shot, the project has to be visually cohesive, and enhance the story throughout without being intrusive. and 'fixes that are a few minutes in Photoshot are now expensive!
The DSLR is fine for amateur video, weddings, corporate, and (seriously) documentaries (watch Witness on HBO photographed on 5Ds and a 1Dx). Unfortunately Music videos have fallen into the DSLR world, even some big names have their videos shot on 5Ds (a DP I used to work for started when they were huge videos o 35mm with tons of cash...now he gets a DSLR some lights and that's it...some pretty big names too). The TOP names can get film or an Epic/Alexa (GaGa etc).
Features and Commercials have greater demands that a DSLR was never meant to fulfill, although our BTS guys have them. (sure, find a few exceptions...there always are). Now if you aren't film, it's Alexa. Sure Red and Epic have their shows, but the majority is Alexa for the way it reproduces skin tone, and that it fits into your production package (no waiting for some dude to make a piece, Arri/Panavision have it all already). John Toll ASC's First digital film...on the ALEXA.
I apologize if it came off as snobby but this is what I do for a living, and I wanted to make the differences clear. if anyone wants advice on their video productions, please ask through PM.
I don't pretend to be a big-pro photographer, I have fun, shoot pretty girls, and use bounce cards and my ring light. I respect professional Photographers for what they do, it is a different skill set than what I do for a living.
billy badfinger wrote: ...it still takes me 5 hours to finish a 7 minute clip!!!
^^my problem with video^^
I hate that about it.
I just tried to edit 1080x1920 x3tracks using a MacBook with Motion 5... absolutely ridiculous! Futile!
Even Premier Elements on a quadcore Win 7 is slow... but it kicked the living shit out of the Mac performance for the very same material. (granted, we're talking laptop vs tower, Motion vs Premier... but still...)
I'm wondering how Final Cut would handle full res video with multiple tracks on a MacBook?
The Private Collection wrote: As Gweneth Paltrow said at the Academy Awards, "now with every phone having a camera, we can all be Cinematographers" and then she introduced the nominees for Best Cinematography...
Well, one thing for sure is true.... "boring" is not a function of format.
I've fallen asleep during half the movies I've rented this year out of sheer boredom. Big camera, and all the special effects... BUT NO STORY = B O R I N G !
The last one was Total Recall. I don't recall when I was THAT bored by a movie before.