where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I watched Photoshop TV today and a well known commercial photographer said he's only learning video so a potential client can't say "so and so shoots video, why don't you". He really doesn't want to shoot it, but learning just in case. I read some photographers say their clients ask for it, but I've never ran into it personally. I hear others say it's the "wave of the future". Any commercial photographers here that make use of video...commercially?
Jon
Hi,
Yes. I also occasionally DP wildlife shows on Outdoors Channel (but to be accurate, it's the 'Heads segments' - I don't run after moose much anymore), and produced a long-running PBS series 'Painting Wild Places'. We have done other things, large and small.
Video making isn't very lucrative and requires a lot more know how than photography. It's sort of nuts to get into it in a big way. The pay isn't as good, the hours stink, and unless you own the brand (and you won't), you'll certainly get screwed. Although I sound like it, I have no complaints. I enjoyed doing it because I was eyes open, and was working, teaching and had an income.
I would learn the basics (if you shoot weddings, for example). It's a terrific add on to get a microphone kit and learn how to use a D7K (and I do mean learn it) to do first kiss, vows - abbreviated, toasts, cake, first dance) roll that into a DVD and put that with the pictures - it would be a value added for little additional cost. That's _something_ one should consider to add value for an addition cost of learning how to do it, $300 for the tools, effort, but worthwhile.
The guys who really earn money making video (and they are very, very few) are, well, the few that I know aren't doing 'art' and they are businessmen and women who are watching the bottom line and satisfy a lot customers with a lot of product they pay for.
My best,
Mike
Mike Gunter said:
Video making isn't very lucrative and requires a lot more know how than photography. It's sort of nuts to get into it in a big way. The pay isn't as good, the hours stink, and unless you own the brand (and you won't), you'll certainly get screwed.The guys who really earn money making video ... are businessmen and women who are watching the bottom line and satisfy a lot customers with a lot of product they pay for.
I agree completely. I'm in a somewhat different position than Mike... I work at a TV station so I get a weekly paycheck (mostly for editing, but I get to shoot some DVCPRO on the rare occasion they let me out of my cave), and this takes the pressure off... I don't have to spend my own money or time promoting my product or worrying about money for equipment. Still, I do see the reality of economics... most of the commercials we do are modest undertakings for local merchants who want to get on the air quickly and don't want to spend a lot of cash on production (since most commercials have a limited lifespan and any increases in production cost must result in a reduced run schedule... the old quality vs quantity argument rears its head here as it so often does in business).
I can see how the D7000 might dovetail nicely into our workflow ... we've already got support equipment like tripod, wireless mics, lights, reflectors, etc. And the D7000 is a lot easier to handle than our field cameras which are large and heavy. I'm still waiting for a simpler project to try it out on (maybe product shots, store interiors... something without synced audio), and I guess I'm also waiting for a certain comfort level with the D7000 since I've only had it six weeks and haven't shot a whole lot of video with it so far.
To address the OP's question, I'd offer up the simple fact that you're curious about the video side of the D7000 and video in general as reason enough to explore it's capabilities. Since the aforementioned comfort level and confidence are essential to shooting good video, I'd say that Mike's suggestion that you learn the basics first is very sound, offering it as value added, rather than promoting the service prematurely. Though I personally don't have as much experience with video as with stills (40 years vs 20 years) I can tell you that they are not as similar as you might think... less similar than say drawing is to painting, perhaps more like drawing vs animated cartoons? Yes, the basic skills of lighting and composition still exist, but motion and sound are HUGE new skills to master, not just in shooting but in editing. Proceed slowly but with enthusiasm... don't be too quick to offer up a product, enjoy the learning process, allow your creativity to guide you, feel free to experiment and make mistakes. I don't think the attitude of the photog you saw in the video is a good one (to offer the service because others do. even tho he doesn't really enjoy it). I think if you offer this service it should be something you do with the same level of creativity and personal satisfaction with which you do your stills... this is probably the best reason of all to proceed slowly and explore the medium on the side at first (without the added pressure of a client to please) to see if video is a good fit for you.
I have a technical question. The D7000 shoots 1080 at 24fps and 720 at 30fps. From what I've learned, 24fps is used in cinema and 30fps is used in TV. Does that mean you'd shoot TV commercials in 720?
If that's true, does that really make much of a difference in the video's quality? Thanks.
Thanks guys. I really don't want to shoot video. Secondly, what was pointed out on this show that I watched was the fact that to do a really good commercial job, you need much more in the way of equipment...fluid tripod head, tracks, etc...would you agree with that? I would have loved to have done video of my son growing up, and maybe vacations.
I don't shoot weddings at all, but I could see how this could be a great addition for the wedding photographer.
The photographer that was on the show(Jeremy Cowert) is famous for shooting Hollywood celebs etc. I guess he was asked a couple of times if he could do video, so that's why he's learning it.
Jon
TheCaz said:
I have a technical question. The D7000 shoots 1080 at 24fps and 720 at 30fps. From what I've learned, 24fps is used in cinema and 30fps is used in TV. Does that mean you'd shoot TV commercials in 720?If that's true, does that really make much of a difference in the video's quality? Thanks.
Hi,
Some of the networks are 1080 and some are 720. NTSC in North America is a mixed bag for interlaced and progressive, _NTSC_ is 60i or interlaced, but some networks are doing 60P or 60 progressive frames in 720p.
ATSC has changed the landscape in that 18 different resolutions are acceptable in the broadcast milieu, so it can be quite confusing. Local stations can broadcast different standards.
More confusing is that cable stations aren't restricted by 'broadcast' standards.
Local HD programming is generally 720P, 30p, but a call to the local station wouldn't hurt.
Still, the kicker is that would have to 'get' everything I just wrote and be able to apply it to a software package, too, easily.
As for quality, the 'size' of the video and number of pixels has changed. So has the number of frames per second.
My best,
Mike
JDeV said:
Thanks guys. I really don't want to shoot video. Secondly, what was pointed out on this show that I watched was the fact that to do a really good commercial job, you need much more in the way of equipment...fluid tripod head, tracks, etc...would you agree with that? I would have loved to have done video of my son growing up, and maybe vacations.I don't shoot weddings at all, but I could see how this could be a great addition for the wedding photographer.
The photographer that was on the show(Jeremy Cowert) is famous for shooting Hollywood celebs etc. I guess he was asked a couple of times if he could do video, so that's why he's learning it.
Jon
JDeV said:
Thanks guys. I really don't want to shoot video. Secondly, what was pointed out on this show that I watched was the fact that to do a really good commercial job, you need much more in the way of equipment...fluid tripod head, tracks, etc...would you agree with that? I would have loved to have done video of my son growing up, and maybe vacations.
Hi Jon,
To do an 'outstanding job', one would want a ton of stuff - a never-ending list of stuff. The camera would be the least expensive item in a long, long, list of stuff. A tripod, crane, a large monitor, a sound rig, a focus puller, any of these things would cost far more than a D7000.
To get into serious DSLR filmmaking is very expensive, not as expensive as filmmaking, that's a lot more, but still...
And as I put my perspective on it, I don't think one, on the whole, gets much out of it.
If I were to recommend one with a DSLR to shoot for family video, I might suggest trying to shoot with a 'wide-ish' lens, VR or on a tripod or very stable support, a table or propped on something. If if the audio works for you. Turn the autofocus off; the seeking noise will kill the audio. And turn the exposure to manual. You don't want the exposure to shift during a take.
Good luck!
My best,
Mike
30fps = NTSC = US
25fps = PAL = EU
TheCaz said:
I have a technical question. The D7000 shoots 1080 at 24fps and 720 at 30fps. From what I've learned, 24fps is used in cinema and 30fps is used in TV. Does that mean you'd shoot TV commercials in 720?
Short answer: No.
Most national commercials are still shot with 35mm film at 24fps at 1/48th shutter (then digitally telecine'd at 1080). However, more and more are being shot with high-end digital cine cameras like the "Panavised" Sony F35. Some DPs prefer the optical head-end of the gorgeously crafted Arri Alexa. There's also RED. And, of course, all those TV shows, commercials and musicvideos being shot on little 'ole Canon 5Ds and 7Ds.
All of these digitally acquired assets are typically being captured at 1080p24 at 1/48th shutter. The lower-resolution of 720p is sometimes used for high-speed capture (slow-motion) due to sensor/processor limits. Once the 1080p24 digital camera masters are acquired (and, the telecine'd film-originated assets are acquired), a digital master is created, and then various downsampled versions go to various broadcasters for air: 1080i versions for NBC and CBS, and 720p versions for ABC and FOX. These can be in any form, from a 50mbit/s IMX file via optical or sat line, to a FedEx-delivered, standard-definition Betacam tape for smaller, SD affiliates and locals. All US broadcast stations are now transmitting digitally, in either 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i.
So, to answer your question, if you're shooting a commercial on your Nikon D7000, and you want it to look like a 35mm national spot, then shoot it in 1080p24 at 1/50th (since there's no 1/48th).
TheCaz said:
If that's true, does that really make much of a difference in the video's quality? Thanks.
The visual difference between 1080i and 720p isn't that noticeable. That said, the better the camera head and capture/recording fidelity, the better everything looks on the final distribution end. That's why we still use cameras that cost $70,000 at the show I shoot for (despite the fact that a kid with a 7D can shoot a :30 spot or musicvideo that still looks incredible).
The uber-expensive digital cine cameras give you the following:
1. Improved dynamic range.
2. Excellent colorimetry.
3. Highly customizable characteristic curves.
4. Extremely low-noise pictures.
5. Near-zero video artifacting (luma/chroma aliasing, stair-stepping, weird stuff, etc.).
6. Deep color sampling: 4:4:4.
7. Higher resistance to rolling shutter ("jello").
JDeV said:
Secondly, what was pointed out on this show that I watched was the fact that to do a really good commercial job, you need much more in the way of equipment...fluid tripod head, tracks, etc...would you agree with that?
Yes! A typical network episodic, when shooting on location, often brings between three to six, full-sized, tractor-trailer rigs full of gear and support. On the larger shoots I work on, we rent literally tons of lighting and grip. Making TV takes a lot of crap!
Mike Gunter said:
To get into serious DSLR filmmaking is very expensive, not as expensive as filmmaking, that's a lot more, but still . . .
Mike is right. And you guys thought photography equipment was pricey? Wait 'til you see how much "filmmaking" equipment is! It's frickin' insane how much this gear is! I think an 800W HMI is like what, $7,000? A Chrosziel matte box, what, like $4,000-$5,000? The Sachtler tripods we use at work are like $9,000. The list goes on . . .
I personally bought my D7000 for filmmaking. I need to buy three mounts for it: a shoulder mount, a tripod mount, and a Steadicam mount. Yeah, that adds up to about $4,000. Plus I need a follow-focus, a wireless FIZ, an AC, a Cinevate slider . . . . it just never ends!
Hi all,
Studio was far more erudite than I, and thanks for filling in the blanks for the Grand Canyon-size holes I left. My comments were to local viability and not even across networks where the complexity is, as Studio points out, far greater.
I've done some film work years ago before I re-enter service and some in the service, too. Film is a money incinerator. I was not much more than a camera operator on a few projects, enough to know that it's fun to do and know how different it is.
My best,
Mike
JDeV said:
...to do a really good commercial job, you need much more in the way of equipment...fluid tripod head, tracks, etc...would you agree with that? I would have loved to have done video of my son growing up, and maybe vacations.
Mike and studio460 make some great points and there's no getting around the fact that video is an expensive business. However, by examining the harsh realities of the industry today I'm hoping they didn't mean to leave you with the impression that all this stuff is absolutely essential to do acceptable work, any more than one would suggest that a fast $5,000 telephoto is an unavoidable expense for someone who wants to shoot wildlife. There are alternatives out there for those of us with limited budgets... maybe Nikon's 80-400 is slower and softer than the 200-400, but it is still capable of producing some fine images.
I say this not to contradict Mike and studio460, they obviously know what they're talking about. I only bring it up because I don't want you to be scared off... video/film is an amazing medium, and not all of the impressive work you see is done with an impressive budget (tho one does need to be skeptical when reading that a short film was produced for $5,000 and they list RED, Maya and Avid in the credits). My only point is, if there are things you enjoy shooting as stills, like wildlife or airshows, there's no reason not to try shooting them as video... yes, there will be a few new tools you'll need, but with careful planning you should not have to take out a loan to produce a nice looking finished product.
Unless you stick to locked-down shots you'll definitely need a fluid head, and if you want natural sound you will almost certainly need to supplement the DSLR's on-board mic. Lighting presents some of the same problems as still work... you may be able to use available light or you may not, it depends on the conditions and your intended result. There are a few basic editing programs that are not too expensive and will allow you to produce fairly polished productions. These things will get you started... I'm not saying it will solve every problem or that you won't experience some frustration at the things you can't do right away, I'm just saying that for about the price of a new lens you can get some basic support equipment that will allow you to explore some of what the video medium has to offer.
That said, let's get back to the original quote... you ask about the requirements of "a really good commercial job," but you also mention video of your son and vacation trips. Obviously, the requirements are quite different, but there may be more overlap than you think... my only point in writing this long-winded message is that most of the good video productions that have left a lasting impression on me have done so because of their creativity, not their budgets. I know some local producers who have made some incredible commercials and never laid a foot of track (heck, I'm not sure Ozu ever did either for that matter ;-). On the other hand, I know a guy who rented a jib for his kid's birthday party. But in the end, the appeal of the video comes down to how creatively one interprets the subject matter for the viewer... pretty much the same deal as shooting stills. And if you apply the budgetary common sense to video that you do to stills when it comes to equipment, you may often yearn for what you don't have, but you'll still probably be able to produce some fine work.
Hi bhoveyga,
Terrific post!
My best,
Mike
Awesome info, studio, Mike, and bhovey. Even though I'll never be serious enough to justify anything you've mentioned, it's nice to know where to innovate. Thanks.
All of these posts are great, and while I'm not sure this will match them, there's an entirely different avenue that I think video opens that has nothing to do with follow focus systems, three point lighting, tracks, etc.
Here's the scenario. You're in Grand Teton National Park looking to see if you can spot a moose or two. You walk down to a river bed and find a couple of people fishing, which means that the moose have skedaddled. So you look up and see two large birds flying towards you. To your astonishment, it's an eagle chasing an osprey to steal away the fish the osprey caught. So you shoot away with what's on your camera (55-200mm) to capture life as its happening. You can see the sequence at http://www.yellowstonecaz.com/chase.html, including a couple of shots where you can see the fish in the osprey's talons.
My interest in video is whether these cameras are good enough to capture such a sequence in video instead of just a few slices of it in photos. When you're shooting photos, you can keep the camera to your eye in a great position, and snap as you follow along. For video, you'll have to look at the lcd in bright sunlight and keep the camera very steady as you pan to capture such motion ... and how will you be able to keep it in focus? In short, is it realistic to use today's dSLRs to shoot video in a spontaneous fashion like I just described or will the result likely be out-of-focus gobbledy-gook in which I also would lose a good photo opp.
Incidentally, I learned the potential value of a longer lens like a 70-300 or 80-400 during that sequence, but that 's not the issue. It's can dSLRs be used reliably to capture spontaneous video.
TheCaz said:
My interest in video is whether these cameras are good enough to capture such a sequence in video instead of just a few slices of it in photos . . .
Absolutely!
TheCaz said:
For video, you'll have to look at the lcd in bright sunlight and keep the camera very steady as you pan to capture such motion . . .
You would need an LCD loupe like the Hoodman 3.0, or the Zacuto, plus a good fluid-head tripod.
TheCaz said:
. . . and how will you be able to keep it in focus?
Most likely, the old-fashioned way: by muscle-memorizing the focus ring's rotational travel as it relates to changing distance (i.e., practice). I haven't yet tried the D7000's auto-focus feature in D-Movie mode yet--it may or may not be practical for the shot you're describing.
TheCaz said:
In short, is it realistic to use today's dSLRs to shoot video in a spontaneous fashion like I just described or will the result likely be out-of-focus gobbledy-gook in which I also would lose a good photo opp.
Only if you happen to have the loupe and fluid head with you.
bhoveyga said:
Mike and studio460 make some great points and there's no getting around the fact that video is an expensive business. However, by examining the harsh realities of the industry today I'm hoping they didn't mean to leave you with the impression that all this stuff is absolutely essential to do acceptable work . . .
Absolutely! Certainly, microbudget filmmakers have improvised many successful solutions with less than top-line gear. V-DSLRs, such as Nikon's D7000, offer a whole new world of creative opportunity for filmmakers today. Such capabilities, in an $1,199 camera, were simply unheard of just a few short years ago. Similarly, a new generation of moderately priced filmmaking tools have been developed to complement this type of filmmaking.
bhoveyga said:
. . . maybe Nikon's 80-400 is slower and softer than the 200-400, but it is still capable of producing some fine images.
I own the 80-400mm Nikkor--it's super-sharp, and a damn fine lens! And, in my opinion, this is the real beauty of the V-DSLR revolution: a huge array of excellent-quality, affordable glass (the Canon 2/3" HD lenses on our cameras at work cost about $36,000 each).
bhoveyga said:
I only bring it up because I don't want you to be scared off . . . video/film is an amazing medium, and not all of the impressive work you see is done with an impressive budget (tho one does need to be skeptical when reading that a short film was produced for $5,000 and they list RED, Maya and Avid in the credits).
Agreed! I didn't mean to leave the impression that quality filmmaking can only come from buying expensive filmmaking gear. Many have done with far less, and have produced both critically acclaimed work, and commercially successful work, with the most modest of filmmaking tools.
jonnyapple said:
Awesome info, studio, Mike, and bhovey. Even though I'll never be serious enough to justify anything you've mentioned, it's nice to know where to innovate. Thanks.
I think I over-stated my case, jonny--my apologies. If you're an experienced still photographer, many of these skills transfer quite well to motion-picture photography. As for expensive movie-making lighting equipment, with Nikon's huge array of super-fast primes, you could shoot an entire, gorgeous-looking movie, using just available light and cheap household practicals.
Here's a $20 daylight-balanced household lamp I used to light the shot below for a short film.
Frame-grab of the scene lit by the lamp above, shot with a traditional 2/3" 24p video camera.
Also, you don't need expensive HMIs--you can always just buy a cheap reflector, and use the sun's massive footcandle-power for filling daylight exteriors. For daylight interiors, inexpensive Home Depot lights can do the job nearly as well as a fancy KinoFlo, at a fraction of the cost. You also don't need a premium, German-made, $4,000 matte box, or a $9,000 Sachtler tripod (also, German-made) either. There are cheaper solutions for nearly every piece of high-end, movie-making gear there is, and more coming, thanks to the advent, and growing popularity, of the modern V-DSLR.
Above, two of my $30 daylight-balanced, Home Depot lighting instruments.
This daylight interior was lit only by available light, and the Home Depot lights shown above.
Although still photography and motion-picture photography are different disciplines in many ways, many of the tools from the two crafts are similar. Some other tools are not, or may be just unfamiliar to some still photographers. Really, the one thing that you would need to start making films, is just a good fluid-head tripod. A decent one for the weight of a D7000 would cost less than a $1,000. The fluid-head tripod I have is a Vinten Vision 5 that I bought used for $1,000.
But, even that isn't necessarily mandatory (though, highly recommended!). If your handheld technique is good, you could invest in a decent handheld rig. Good handheld cinematography has become very popular recently, and has a great aesthetic all of its own. Of course most filmmakers own both. But again, there are less-expensive versions of nearly every tool. While a $2,400 RedRock Micro handheld rig is awesome, you could just as easily lens similar shots using a $200 rig found online somewhere.
studio460 said:
Absolutely!You would need an LCD loupe like the Hoodman 3.0, or the Zacuto, plus a good fluid-head tripod.
Thanks studio460. I understand the LCD loupe entirely. It looks absolutely indispensable if you're gonna shoot video, but why is the fluid-head on a tripod any more necessary than a regular tripod for a still shot? Can't you hold the LCD loupe to your eye and pan in handhold mode just like you might look through the viewfinder? Sure, it won't be as steady as a tripod, but wouldn't hand-holding the camera still be functional?
JDeV said:
I watched Photoshop TV today and a well known commercial photographer said he's only learning video so a potential client can't say "so and so shoots video, why don't you". He really doesn't want to shoot it, but learning just in case. I read some photographers say their clients ask for it, but I've never ran into it personally. I hear others say it's the "wave of the future". Any commercial photographers here that make use of video...commercially?Jon
I never directly replied to the OP's original post, because I'm not a commercial still photographer, but I did witness something that relates to the OP's query . . .
It's an odd thing that's happening. I was at a camera store here in L.A. the other day, and a guy was buying some KinoFlo bulbs. By the questions he was asking, he seemed clearly inexperienced in shooting video (yet, he may have been an experienced still photographer). I asked what he was shooting--he answered, "An interview." Corporate? "Yes." It may have been another scenario where some staff still photographer was suddenly cast into the corporate video role as well. What was he shooting this corporate video on? A Canon 7D. His lighting kit consisted of a KinoFlo Diva 200 and an Arri 300W Fresnel.
A "commercial videographer" typically comes as a one- or two-man crew (the second person does audio), with a well-equipped ENG package ("ENG" stands for "electronic news-gathering," but has become synonymous with the term, "portable field package"). A typical package consists of camera, audio, and lighting. Of course the complexity of various lighting set-ups are infinite, but a typical "ENG" lighting package might include the following:
1. KinoFlo DivaLite 200 or 400 ($900/$1,200).
2. Two Arri 300W Fresnels ($400 each).
3. Two Arri 150W Fresnels ($300 each).
Basically, a $3,000 lighting kit (with stands). Also, part of the purpose of this post, contrary to my earlier post, is that you can't show up to a commercial client's shoot with just a bunch of Home Depot lights. They're fine for personal filmmaking, but real clients expect more professional tools.
While lighting and audio gear has pretty much remained unchanged, the "camera part" of a typical ENG package is fast becoming replaced by Canon 7D and 5D V-DSLRs for lots of "boutique" production (commercials, musicvideos, etc.). At an awards event the other week, I saw a shooter with a 7D, partnered with a traditional soundman, and a standard ENG sound package (field mixer, boom, etc.). The only difference was the camera he was shooting with.
The corporate stills/video story, I think, is presently far less common than the fast-growing, V-DSLR "boutique" crew trend, but I think the story of the stills guy being asked to shoot video as well, is happening with more and more frequency. Stills and video are similar crafts, but different enough, that employers shouldn't expect still shooters to jump right in and shoot professional-quality video the first day out . . . but that day may be coming.
TheCaz said:
Thanks studio460. I understand the LCD loupe entirely. It looks absolutely indispensable if you're gonna shoot video, but why is the fluid-head on a tripod any more necessary than a regular tripod for a still shot?
You're welcome. You need the drag of a fluid-head to smooth out your pans and tilts. The smallest inconsistency in panning speed is very noticeable in motion video. Friction heads just can't offer this kind of performance.
Ahh . . . I think I missed the point of your question. Many types of shots demand absolute, lock-off steadiness. Anytime I do a stand-up (where the reporter talks directly to the camera) for the show I work for, I always put it on sticks--it just looks more "broadcast." Formal sit-down interviews should be shot on sticks. Also, you don't want to try and handhold a steady shot for 20 minutes. Anytime I shoot for a "big show" (Dateline NBC, etc.), I always shoot on sticks. If you're shooting a speaker at a podium a zillion feet away, you DEFINITELY need sticks.
TheCaz said:
Can't you hold the LCD loupe to your eye and pan in handhold mode just like you might look through the viewfinder? Sure, it won't be as steady as a tripod, but wouldn't hand-holding the camera still be functional?
Handheld video is quite functional. But it's near-impossible to do with a V-DSLR with professional results without a good handheld rig. A handheld rig can be described as a structure of metal rods which mounts the camera's LCD/loupe in an ergonomic position, with an integrated shoulder pad, and an adjustable, rear counterweight. These also allow for mounting matte boxes and follow-focus rigs to your V-DSLR set-up, if desired. Professional shoulder-mount ENG cameras are large (20-26 pounds), and well-balanced, making fluid, steady handheld photography much easier than handholding a small, two-pound V-DSLR.
I was going to thank Mike, then I saw studio's reply then Caz etc., so I'll just say that everyone here did such an outstanding job of giving out such great information, that I'll just say thanks to everyone. This truly should be made into a "sticky" since there's so much information here. My camera buying options are still up in the air. My main interest is something with great ISO for my available light still work.
Here's a funny story about my experience with moving images. Back in the late 70' early 80's, I bought a Kodak film camera. I had a friend who was the NE Ohio chairman for the AAU Bodybuilding, Powerlifting Assc. I shot all the stills for all the meets as the official photographer. He was going to put on a seminar and asked if I could put together a slide presentation of bodybuilders posing. I told him I could do that, but I had also filmed the last meet with my movie camera. I set everything up, but couldn't attend. I asked him how it went. He said everything was great except when he played the movie, the bodybuilders would be posing and then it would change from a horizontal to a vertical format, so the audience had to all lean over to watch until it straightened up again. I guess when I filmed this contest, I would switch from horizontal to vertical just like when shooting slides. That may have been the one of the last times I shot movies!
Jon
Thanks guys. I'm starting really understand this -- at least at a theoretical level. I won't really understand the limits until I upgrade and start playing, but this has really been helpful.
Hi all,
Studio is the one with the details. Give him the kudos; he's earned them.
What is key to success in that whole realm is sticking to the story. Film has to engage the audience.
My best,
Mike
Thanks everyone! High fives and hugs all around! Yeah!
You must log in to post.
