video help for wedding

[pem]

Hello, this is my first post and am hoping I might get some helpful information. I contacted a videographer regarding our wedding. In order to save some money I thought I'd just get the raw video and edit myself. I asked the question

"What is the format of the raw footage and is the format editable using video editing software."

The reply was

"The format is Quicktime.mov files. Our Videographers use DSLR Camera equipment. We compress the files to a DVD. In order for you to Edit on your own, you would have to purchase the Master Files, otherwise you can try and edit from the DVDS but the quality will not be that great at all"

The master files are an additional $200. As I am not familiar with video etc. Is above accurate in that quicktime.mov files compressed to DVD will not have good quality for editing? Are there any additional questions I should ask to ascertain whether the raw video quality would be good for editing for making our own video.

Any other help or additional info would be great Thanks!!

[DB83]

Yes. You can ask them what the codec used within the mov container.

A couple of observations (you may not like to read)

1. Any vidoographer using a DSLR for video footage is IMHO a charlatan.

2. To charge an additional $200 for the master files - which can easily be copied on to transferable media - is a rip-off. A few bucks for the media and a little time does not equate to $200. That says to me that they do not know how to do it. Did I say 'charlatan' before ?

The quality from the dvd will degrade if you try to edit from that.

[turk690]

Any vidoographer using a DSLR for video footage is IMHO a charlatan.

I have never used a DSLR to shoot video. But why would someone who does necessarily be a charlatan?

[budwzr]

I think delivering the project as "SD" instead of "HD", makes them as amateurs. Unless there's a reason.

DSLR's "can" shoot good video, but they don't play well with a steadycam. And the controls aren't as ergonomic as a camcorder. And they have time limits on clips.

But the advantage is a DSLR can instantly switch to still mode and blow away any camcorder as far as stills. Good high resolution stills are very important, and a camcorder has a low resolution sensor.

The "raw" files are certainly editable. No matter the file extension, they are going to be H.264/AAC. ".mov" is just an Apple friendly extension, means nothing in terms of editability. Apple users get discombobulated if they don't see ".mov" or ".MP4".

[DB83]

Any vidoographer using a DSLR for video footage is IMHO a charlatan.

I have never used a DSLR to shoot video. But why would someone who does necessarily be a charlatan?

Do you think any firm that considers itself, or passes itself of as, 'professional' would use a DSLR ?

OK. I have assumed the 'professional' bit but I am sure if they want to charge $200 for raw footage then they have already charged the OP a significant price for the dvd.

[jman98]

Videographers look at YOUR wedding as THEIR personal permanent event to make money from. I'm not saying it's fair, but the $200 charge does not surprise me at all. We have had posts in the past from hyped up videographers who are desperate to copy protect DVDs they sell of weddings so that they can't be copied. They don't like it when we tell them that if Hollywood can't protect their DVDs with all their billions, what makes you think you can? They go away pissed off.

Some videographers don't understand that they are doing work for hire and they have delusional thoughts that they are Stephen Spielberg and any copy you get from them represents potential stolen income of a catastrophic nature. Your wedding is their personal property and they can hold you hostage for money for the rest of your life about it. So I understand them wanting (although I'm not saying I agree with it) $200 because they assume that once you have it they will never ever sell another copy on DVD of your wedding so they might as well maximize the income they can get from selling it to you.

I have no personal experience with camcorders so I am completely unable to comment on the suitability or lack thereof in using DSLR. You should probably ask to speak to other customers and try to contact those customers to see samples of their final product. We've had posts here that suggest that some people enter the field barely knowing enough to turn the camera on and you can't go back for reshoots if that happens and they botch it (miss shots, fail to get the lighting right, etc.). If they refuse to let you contact previous customers then you need to find someone else for the job.

Finally, note that outside of blood relatives, nobody probably really wants a copy of your wedding video so if you have a plan to pay for copies for all the groomsmen, bridesmaid, random guests, etc. then you are almost certainly wasting your money. Now the video might well be a very personally valuable document for your future children, but you can't really expect the people who were there in person to be endlessly fascinated and want to watch it again and again. Your parents and siblings who were there are likely to watch exactly 2 minutes of it just so they can honestly tell you that they "watched it" and get you off their backs about it. Giving out a few copies to family members is a great idea in terms of providing "offsite backups" so that if you lose yours through a fire or some disaster, somebody in the family still has a copy you can access. But don't kid yourself that everybody is holding their breath to watch your wedding over and over again.

[pem]

Thank you all so far for your comments. All are very interesting and I will take your suggestions into consideration One thing I perhaps did not make clear. They offer an edited version with chapters, music etc along with the raw video as one package and as the second package, just the raw video. I was thinking about just getting the raw video and edit myself when the possible quality issues and the charge for the master files was mentioned. One other thing to note is that this is a very reputable photography firm with excellent reviews. Thanks again!!!

[DB83]

Hmmn. You did say 'additional' in your first post. That implied that you already had a dvd. But I still have to ask how they are gonna give you that raw footage ?

Bear in my that there is quite a learning curve to edit the footage unless you have a friend who can do this for you.

The firm may well have a reputation as photographers but that still does not make them 'professional' when it comes to videography.

[sanlyn]

We don't seem to be getting he whole story concerning the fees. But I doubt that the vendor is a pro. The customer is asking for (or will get, whether they choose or not) a .mov video re-encoded to DVD. That in itself tells the story -- it's all the foolishness I need to hear to convince me that these guys are phonies. A .mov re-encoded to DVD is crap. A pro would master in a better format or as MPEG2 itself. A pro would show up with a movie camera and a still-photo camera, and with backup gear. Fees should include the master.

Anyone who tells you that a re-encoded copy is good for "editing" doesn't know what the hell they're doing in the first place. Even experienced amateurs know better than that. Run away. Quickly.

[_Al_]

There is two extremes, beautiful wedding shot by someone but all fake and footage shot by your sister on iPhone with super comments, real action, raw , civil footage. You give some camcorder to someone (preferably someone who can shoot nice still pictures) tell him shoot whatever you want, not more than 2 hours!, to not pan, to not zoom, frame it like here http://www.mediacollege.com/video/camera/tutorial/01-framing.html wide shot, midshot, medium close up in some sequence (couple in wide shot, then medium close up). Give it to family member, that is the best you can do, you save money and you have real, not fake wedding, worthy watching by descendants, they will want to see real world people not some fake art, broom and bride posing in the park.

[budwzr]

The photographer/videographer retains mechanical copyright just like Picasso or a Hollywood Studio. It's art! You can't buy "one", then duplicate it yourself to distribute to friends, just like movies on disc.

[DB83]

The photographer/videographer retains mechanical copyright just like Picasso or a Hollywood Studio. It's art! You can't buy "one", then duplicate it yourself to distribute to friends, just like movies on disc.

There is an interesting point here. Copyright usually rests with the 'producer'. The videographer could be merely engaged by the producer ie the wedding couple - therefore a hired hand.

And if the videographer is prepared to part with the raw footage it could be argued that they have assigned any rights that they had (or thought they had)

[poisondeathray]

DSLR's are very popular for high end wedding and music video productions.

Many productions with decent budgets ($500K - $1M) choose them on purpose for cinematic , shallow depth of field shots , even though they can afford different pro/prosumer models . The accessories alone on entry level DLSR make can make them easily >$10K . Note there are many models and tiers of "DSLR" - several models can be modded to shoot RAW (true RAW), and some can shoot 4K

The fact that some company uses a DLSR doesn't necessarily indicate anything . You're not asking the right questions - have a look at their previous work and samples, how experienced are they (for videography, not photograph), and ask for specific details like what models they use, what specifications on the recordings for your shoot

Yes, DLSR's have many issues with video shooting - but "pros" typically know workarounds and how to deal with them

A .mov re-encoded to DVD is crap. A pro would master in a better format

Mov is just a container. It can hold many types of video/audio compression . Your statement is analgous to saying "AVI re-encoded to DVD is crap" (which unqualified, of course makes no sense)

For example , Prores comes in MOV. The Arri Alexa (big Hollywood productions like Avengers, Quantum of Solace) can shoot directly to Prores/Mov as well as ArriRaw options. "Mov" is not necessarily crap .

The master files are an additional $200. As I am not familiar with video etc. Is above accurate in that quicktime.mov files compressed to DVD will not have good quality for editing? Are there any additional questions I should ask to ascertain whether the raw video quality would be good for editing for making our own video.

But chances are, these are AVC/ Mov that come on SD cards on entry/prosumer level DSLR's . Find out the models and the specifications . What kind of MOV? Details are important

If the intended format is DVD, and they are the typical HD variety - they are more than enough for quality if the shots were done properly in the first place(esp. lighting)

[pem]

Thanks again for your replies. Let me clarify my specific question, however I think I have gotten the answer perhaps.

They plan on providing me a dvd with raw footage, apparently originally on quicktime.mov compressed to a dvd. I am planning to do simple editing mostly picking out the best parts not necessarily worrying about the artistic elements in editing. The video is simply for someone who cannot make the wedding. However, the vendor, says the the compressed video on the dvd is not good for editing, which sounds consistent with the various posts. They in turn have offered the master files at $200. Please keep your opinions coming as they have been very helpful. BTW, I am pretty confident in their expertise as they are a rather high end company in NYC recommended by the venue.

[poisondeathray]

Thanks again for your replies. Let me clarify my specific question, however I think I have gotten the answer perhaps.

They plan on providing me a dvd with raw footage, apparently originally on quicktime.mov compressed to a dvd. I am planning to do simple editing mostly picking out the best parts not necessarily worrying about the artistic elements in editing. The video is simply for someone who cannot make the wedding. However, the vendor, says the the compressed video on the dvd is not good for editing, which sounds consistent with the various posts. They in turn have offered the master files at $200. Please keep your opinions coming as they have been very helpful. BTW, I am pretty confident in their expertise as they are a rather high end company in NYC recommended by the venue.

Unless they are spending a lot of money, the original footage "master files" will be likely be quicktime AVC/MOV 1920x1080 ~40Mb/s. They won't be compressed to a DVD like you say, but they might be delivered on a DVD (for media) - this won't be playable on a DVD player (the DVD is only being used for media storage)

In contrast, compressed DVD-video (playable on a DVD player) is indeed low quality, and editing and re-compressing it again will only make it worse . It's standard definition 720x480 MPEG2 probably around 7-9Mb/s if you' re in NYC (USA) .

The "master files" will likely be ~40Mb/s 1920x1080 AVC/MOV. Again, check what specifications the "master files" are. It's possible they did a proxy edit or are giving you lower quality files and claim them to be "master files". But usually when someone says "raw footage" it implies what the camera recorded directly, not some 2nd or 3rd generation lower quality footage.

I am planning to do simple editing mostly picking out the best parts not necessarily worrying about the artistic elements in editing.

If you only intend to make a little compilation with simple cuts, nothing fancy, then you can edit without losing quality using tools like videoredo, mpg2cut2 and reauthoring it (it will be the same quality as the original DVD-video , which is standard definition, not the higher quality HD master files) . But if you wanted to represent the original files in higher HD quality, you would need the original master files, and blu-ray , not DVD

[pem]

Thanks "poisondeathray" and all the others for their help. I now know what questions to ask and have much needed knowledge for making my decision. Thanks again!

[poisondeathray]

Make sure you read the post #15 because I made some edits.

If you are happy with the standard definition DVD quality, and are just making a simple cuts-only compliation editing project - it is possible to make simple edits and re-author it . If you add anything like transitions, overlays - at minimum those sections will be re-encoded and you will incur some quality loss

If you're doing a big project, or perhaps wanted to make a HD blu-ray - it would be better to start with the original HD files

[pem]

Thanks

[Brainiac]

When I was married in 1995, the videographer and photographer were one and the same company.
When all was said and done, he offered to sell my then-wife and I all of the photos, negatives and master videos for $99. He also transferred all of the copyrights, so we could do whatever we wanted with the video and photos

Is you delivery format for the person who could not attend going to be a DVD? Perhaps consider uploading to finished edit to YouTube, Vimeo or some other site (assuming you have the permission to do so.)

Brainiac

[sanlyn]

A .mov re-encoded to DVD is crap. A pro would master in a better format

Mov is just a container. It can hold many types of video/audio compression . Your statement is analgous to saying "AVI re-encoded to DVD is crap" (which unqualified, of course makes no sense)

For example , Prores comes in MOV. The Arri Alexa (big Hollywood productions like Avengers, Quantum of Solace) can shoot directly to Prores/Mov as well as ArriRaw options. "Mov" is not necessarily crap .

Perhaps you missed this, from post #1:

In order to save some money I thought I'd just get the raw video and edit myself. I asked the question

"What is the format of the raw footage and is the format editable using video editing software."

The reply was

"The format is Quicktime.mov files. Our Videographers use DSLR Camera equipment. We compress the files to a DVD. In order for you to Edit on your own, you would have to purchase the Master Files, otherwise you can try and edit from the DVDS but the quality will not be that great at all"

QuickTime is, I think, something of a step down from ProRes.

[poisondeathray]

Perhaps you missed this, from post #1:

QuickTime is, I think, something of a step down from ProRes.

"Quicktime" is synonymous with MOV. There are many kinds of quicktime formats

Prores is MOV wrapped and a quicktime format (in fact ProRes is a Quicktime MOV only format, no other containers like AVI, MKV, TS etc.. support it)

[smrpix]

If they will supply you with the camera original files (or more likely clones of the camera original files) that really is what you want. Double check your contract to see who actually owns the original files (probably them, because they've done this before and most folks don't know to stipulate otherwise.) It may feel like a ripoff. It may be a ripoff. But at the end of the day is $200 too high a price for having the best quality material of your wedding in your posession forever?

(Some companies don't want you to have the originals simply because it shows off their mistakes and makes them look amateurish.)

If your editing system has trouble with the files, post a mediainfo report and folks here can help you get to the next step.

[sanlyn]

Perhaps you missed this, from post #1:

QuickTime is, I think, something of a step down from ProRes.

"Quicktime" is synonymous with MOV. There are many kinds of quicktime formats

Prores is MOV wrapped and a quicktime format (in fact ProRes is a Quicktime MOV only format, no other containers like AVI, MKV, TS etc.. support it)

I see. So the phrase "QuickTime in .mov format" is meaningless. Or, another way of saying it is that it could mean anything. So for purposes of determining how useful the O.P.'s information is, and for purposes of determining what the sales guy means by using QuickTime and .mov in the reply, the information is indeterminate to the point of being useless.

[poisondeathray]

I see. So the phrase "QuickTime in .mov format" is meaningless. Or, another way of saying it is that it could mean anything. So for purposes of determining how useful the O.P.'s information is, and for purposes of determining what the sales guy means by using QuickTime and .mov in the reply, the information is indeterminate to the point of being useless.

It' s not "meaningless", but the term "quicktime in mov" is redundant, because quicktime and mov are basically interchangable.

But in the context of "raw footage" (hopefully meaning "original footage", not really "raw") , DSLR's and Wedding videography there's a >99% chance it's going to be the format I mentioned above (1920x1080p ~40Mb/s AVC MOV)

[smrpix]

So the phrase "QuickTime in .mov format" is meaningless. Or, another way of saying it is that it could mean anything. So for purposes of determining how useful the O.P.'s information is, and for purposes of determining what the sales guy means by using QuickTime and .mov in the reply, the information is indeterminate to the point of being useless.

Most pros who use DSLRs use Canons (yes, this is a VERY general statement) which record H.264 in a .mov wrapper. "Quicktime in .mov" is already gobbeldy-gook to most consumers.

OP certainly can and should ask for more specific codec information. But at the end of the day whatever the original is, is what it is.