[Mark Suszko]

Digital Juice is hard to beat. Also try Artbeats.

[Mark Suszko]

You can take the cassette shell apart relatively easily. Just watch out for the latches, pawls, and spring that keep the door of the tape shut. It takes a kind of three-fingereed salute to activate the hole where the latch release is, and lifting against the spring tension to get the door open. You can actually play a tape just fine without that door on the cassette at all, it’s just there to protect the tape from getting touched or dirty.

What I suggest is you buy a cheap blank tape cassette from the dollar store to practice on first, without pressure, and it will also give you spare replacement springs and screws if you lose some on the actual patient. One of the 2-dollar eyeglass repair kits with tiny screwdrivers, sold in drugstores will also be handy for this job.

You can tape the end of the magnetic tape to the hub, and gently play the tape off to another backup… or pull out the little friction plug in the hub that anchored the original clear leader tape, insert the edge of the magnetic tape, and reassemble. This will lose you playback of the first ten seconds on the magnetic portion of the tape, but many times the only thing on that part would be black in the first place, so your chances for full recovery are good. Once a few turns of tape are around the hub, you can even shuttle the tape, but you don’t want to fast-forward it very hard all the way to the end or it will snap the tape off the hub again. Most likely this tape is old and brittle, and the glue joint on the leader is the break point, or the leader tore from stress of hard-stop fast-forwarding.

[Mark Suszko]

Old comedy bit I think I remember seeing on Rowan and Martin’s “Laugh-In”:

“New Soviet pocket video camera a leap forward in portable technology”
“That still looks big, Dan.”
“Well, you have to wear the special pants with it”.
The visual part of the gag; a full-size tube camera and turret lens, stuffed into the special leg-length pocket of the pants like an enormous goiter.

That’s what this thread reminds me of. People listening more to marketing propaganda than common sense. There’s always something new coming around the corner that may or may not make your existing rig obsolete, but “obsolete” is a relative term. People are still buying up old Auricons and ‘blads and whatever else from Ebay and using them. Did they not get the memo the cameras are too old?:-)

I would say the bigger problem is that the continued fracturing and mutation of formats and standards means that you just can’t tell clearly when anything is past it’s prime or not. Maybe you don’t need to. The DSLR as a motion cam, well, heck, they’ve been using that at Aardman for Wallace and Gromit movies for years already. Of course, their actors hold still for long periods of time, but you get the idea. I understand this new one can shoot real time motion in a new way, but as has been mentioned “not all accessories included, some assembly required”. Not everything barely out of the lab is ready for prime time, and unless it really offers a unique benefit for your specific needs, there’s no reason to panic. The camera is just a tool to tell the story with: if it still does that to your satisfaction and you can make money with it, it’s not obsolete.

You can sit paralyzed with fear of buying “the next MII” all you want, but it doesn’t get any work done or stories told. Plan on making back the price of any camera purchase in the first year, whatever that takes, so that it pays for itself every time thereafter, and stop distressing yourself over might-have-beens and things to come.

This race is not a sprint; it’s a marathon, and you have many laps to go yet.

[Mark Suszko]

Something I’d like to point out is that everyone on the job should be clear if you are trying to shoot Noir or Chiaroscuro, versus something more flat. There is actually more to shooting good B&W than just cranking down the chroma level on color footage.
There are matters of contrast to figure out.

I saw some behind the scenes production stills, in color, of some old Flash Gordon and Buck Rodgers movies as well as some Robin Hood type things, from the 30’s and 40’s and the colors in the stills look like they were picked by someone on acid with color blindness, pinks and oranges and purples etc. that clash horribly. WHY choose such psychedelic colors? Because of how they READ in B&W.

If you look at some color footage with your monitor’s chroma turned off, you can see that two colors that look very different in full color, like a yellow and a green and a blue, can read exactly alike in shade and brightness value or contrast when you take the chroma away. I like to check my graphics on a B&W screen before final output for similar reasons; if it reads great in monochrome, it will pop even better in full color. If it is hard to distinguish in monochrome, the color version is going to “feel” weak and not pop as well as it might. If your monitor has a blue only button, this is a quick way to check. On a set, look thru some night blue or heavy gray gel.

This leads back to your upcoming shoot. You might, depending on the look you want to achieve, deliberately slant some colors in the sets, and especially the clothing, to better control the apparent contrast in monochrome. This might also mean say, washing a wall with a bizarre color choice, or picking a really “loud” tie, that improves the contrast in monochromatic view and “reads” properly.

Making that choice of course means it would be expensive to go back later and re-edit a color version, you’d have to do a lot of time and cost-causing color correction. But to my mind, you really need to take a stand in pre-prod, and commit to doing the B&W RIGHT or not doing it at all.

[Mark Suszko]

You could also just export a still to photoshop and right back into FCP. Sometimes edits like this are built in reverse, that is, all the motion is built up first, then you go “backwards” to create the still the motion comes out of. Does that description make any sense?

[Mark Suszko]

Something I just thought about regarding monopods without a pan head. That implies using the threaded bolt hole in the bottom of the camera, but without a flexible pan head to absorb shocks and bending forces, you could easily damage the camera body at the attachment point if a sudden force , magnified thru the moment arm of the long monopod leg, were to apply just a little leverage. On a plastic-bodied camera it might not take much force at all to crack the body or crack the bolt attachment point loose, becuase those parts are not designed for loads in shear or for a lot of torque. So I would say *any* kind of pan head on a monopod, even a cheap spring-tension one, is better than none at all.

Take a look at the Flo-Pod monopod and the Studio One brand.

[Mark Suszko]

“And what bride wants a tripod setup in the middle of the dance floor while you wait for the toasts to come up? Besides the safety concern of people tripping over it, it’s ugly.”

Ridiculous. I don’t buy it. I did weddings for years just like this, with way bigger cameras than today, and it NEVER was an issue, ever. Just be smart and scope out the area beforehand; hopefully, you are there at the reception before the couple have made their formal entrance! And don’t use hardwired power and/or audio to the tripod at that point, or if you must, gaffer tape the wires. This is something I did, if needed, while waiting at the reception for the couple to arrive. Pre-prep work is key. Generally I’d have a battery charger and the deployed tripod off in a far corner or behind a wall-side table, out of harm’s way, but easy to grab on a second’s notice. Comes time for the toasts, you keep your eyes open and take your cues from watching the DJ or MC, and you have plenty of time to be rolling and ready. I generally don’t sit and eat at receptions, it invariably conflicts with being ready to react to something important. I’m there to work, and I use a news photog’s eye to keep scanning the entire for shot opportunities at all times.

First, with any halfway decent telephoto lens, you wouldn’t need to be in the middle of the dance floor anyhow. You could even just pick out a chair near the dance floor periphery before the reception starts, mark it, say with your biz card and some gaffer tape, leave the sticks there on low height, and go sit at it with the tripod at low height, and not be obvious at all. Guests that see the tripod in advance will choose not to sit behind it naturally. Generally as well, the lighting is set to highlight the head table during the toasts, and anything on or near the dance floor is in semi-darkness compared to that anyway. In any case, if you take any care at all in placement, nobody will mind or notice you and your tripod for the few minutes you’re there. Because the head tables are usually elevated on a short riser, it is harder to block someone’s view than you think. And you have all the time in the world to remove the sticks after the toasts as people continue to eat and drink a while. There are also portable risers you can buy or make, like the spider-pod, you could put at the back of the room, and do a great job with. Just takes advance planning.

Second, a simple all-black Velbon or similar tripod is not that obvious or ugly, and takes up very little room, plus it is easy to fold up and toss into a nearby corner right after the toasts are done and people start eating or whatever. You have tons of time to gab the tripod from near the DJ’s table, for instance, plop it down, pop the camera onto the quick-release plate and go.

Regarding monopods, you’ll pay more for one with a fluid head on it. If you pick one that has no head, just a threaded stud or non-tilting QR plate, then all the panning and tilting comes from moving the whole monopod around. This is uncomfortable to do, but possible. Monopods built for 35mm still cams and the like may not be sturdy enough for video use. Shop around. If you can find one with a built-in or add-on fold-out footplate, those will work great, very stable once you plant a foot on the plate, but pick it up and GO in an instant.

In a pinch, to save money, you might find a cheap but sturdy used tripod with pan head and re-build it into a monopod by amputating two legs and the spreader mechanism. How elegant it looks would be up to your mechanical skills. I made one once in a cave from a box of scraps, but I don’t like to talk about it…

[Mark Suszko]

Zoot Alours!

I can’t find anything obvious to explain it. One possible theory would involve dew buildup inside the camera, which is possible in high-humidity conditions where you move in and out of air-conditioned temps rapidly. Normally a dew sensor in the camera detects this and stops the camera if humidity or condensation inside is too high, and you have wait for the dew to evaporate or run a blow drier on low or no heat into the open mechanism to clear it faster. If the sensor or sensing circuitry didn’t stop the camera in a dew causing condition, an effect called “sticktion” could occur and create clog-like behavior by disrupting the even tape speed, when the tape no longer slides evenly on guides and the head drum assembly.

An even more far-out theory would involve intermittent electromagnetic field interference from something close to the camera like a Blackberry PDA or cell phone in your pocket near the unit, particularly a web-enabled phone that continuously
checks in” with remote data sites even when on silent mode… Blackberries that are doing this “pinging” screw up my audio all the time, even hardwires. But usually only for a few seconds at a time, not minutes or hours. But my favorite theory is a choice between a simple head clog and accidental setting changes while paused or while changing batteries, also known as “pilot error”. Very sorry.

That’s it, I’m out of ideas. Bon Chance, Mes Ami.

[Mark Suszko]

There’s no reason not to be on a tripod for the toasts. And nothing handheld beats the look of a tripod- steadied shot for looking better than uncle Joe’s camcorder footage. Everyone is seated, you can pick a spot by a pillar or something and get a stable shot from a distance so as not to interfere with anybody’s view. Just be sure you’re tapped into the PA or plant some mics on the dais. You certainly can use a quick-release plate and pop it off the sticks immediately afterwards to work the room, I never saw a reception that moved so fast you couldn’t do that.

If you really just can’t do a tripod, then a good monopod is an excellent combination: gives you the real stability of a tripod on long telephoto shots, can be raised momentarily for “crane” shots above the crowd at receiving lines and during dances, and acts as a damper while moving hand-held. Look at the Lo-Pod for a monopod that is also a motion-stabilizer.

The Easy-rig may work great, so would a full-on steadicam arm, but I would not be caught dead wearing either at a wedding, too distracting and attention-grabbing for a job where you want as much as possible to be ignored so you can get good candids. Show me a tux and Easy Rig or steadicam combo that doesn’t look ridiculous and obvious.

[Mark Suszko]

It boils down to whatever they ask for and you negotiate. Just be sure it’s understood and on paper before the event. It is going to cost more to shoot a lot of wall to wall coverage and then edit it down, than to “edit in camera” and just hand off a tape or disk of that at the conclusion of the evening or the next day, budget accordingly.

Some brides and especially the moms, will want a copy of every last second, not for immediate use, but as an archive for when Aunte Gertrude passes away or whatever. Others like to have the entire receiving line recorded somewhere, as a way of putting faces to names of people you don’t know, to “take attendance” for thank-you notes later, etc. but this is usually not a highlight of a wedding tape. A LOT of the parents paying for the catering asked me to take shots of the reception room, tables, and food before and during the reception, whether for accounting purposes, possible legal documentation, or what, I dunno, but they really insisted on it. Often the M.O.B. takes a lot of credit and pride for how this part comes off, so neglect the coverage at your peril; since it is short-lived, only photos will preserve it. But would it make the final short version edit, likely no.

Some folks insist on the entire service word for word, and the customer is always right. Others want the best highlights compressed into a fast montage of about 15-20 minutes. Remember, while TV programs are called one hour shows, they actually are closer to 43 some minutes after commercials and etc. so for audience of short attention span, less is more.

Regarding formal photos, one of my favorite tricks was to tape a lot of the post-wedding formal stills being shot, then, wherever the still guy hit his strobe flash, do a white transition to a scan of the stills in post, with a slight pan-and-zoom move on them. This is a good visual section to lay down some voice-overs from the family members and wedding party wishing them well or commenting on how pretty a couple they are, etc.

Putting the formal stills in front before the ceremony I think is a spoiler to the story. Either put them in here and there during the whole thing, like chapter markers, or add them all afterwards as if they were an end credit sequence. Maybe run a crawl of names from the guest list below it, or text of their vows, or some appropriate verses or poems.

That’s my opinion, anyhow.

And we didn’t even get into any special added bonus stuff like music video montage mixes or the popular montage of stills from the bride and groom growing up, etc.

So I would say the optimal deal, since you’re going to edit, with their permission, is to do a shorter, tighter edit, then offer all the raw footage on a long-play DVD as “added value” for the completists in the family. Add in a coupon with the raw footage that says for a one-year anniversary you’ll cut a different version of the footage, or a music vid, for a slight discount, maybe adding voice-over interview comments from the bride an d groom a year later, etc. or whatever.