|
|
Posted by David McCall on 08/17/06 17:33
"nobody special" <msu1049321@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155833837.556254.142920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> There is a difference between what we as unrelated bystanders want and
> what the wedding clients want. It may be boring as watching paint dry
> to us, but they love every second of those speches and whatnot, because
> they know the people int he shots, and more often than not, only want
> you to tighten-up the dead parts between the "content" parts.
>
> What I used to find was the best arrangement was to edit down a
> tightly-cut highlights reel of less than 30 minutes, then append the
> extended version of "everything", sans any bad cuts, mistakes, etc. The
> idea is, for a quick viewing for any and all audiences, the
> 20-30-minute montaged thing is what they'll enjoy, and then once a year
> or so they will play thru the longer version. The short version lets
> you indulge your MTV spastic-cut muse if you wish to get creative with
> transitions and the like. The ceremony gets cut way down to some set-up
> shots, the vows, and the getaway, then snippets of the highlights from
> the reception.
>
> The extended Directors Cut version (grin) is wall-to wall, for the
> times someone old who was there passes away and the couple wants to go
> back and see as much of that person as you were able to capture. That
> sort of thing. Because the couple is getting everything they paid for
> in the long version, you can relax and indulge yourself in the cutting
> of the short version because you/they are not "losing" anything.
>
I'm not in the wedding video biz, but I think you hit the nail on the head.
There is a difference between entertainment and documentation, so
a short and entertaining video (the shorter the better) along with the
documentation that includes everything. If you want to get fancy,
you can put in lots of chapters so people can get to that speech
from Grandma Smith without having to sit through the whole thing.
We can often get caught-up in the concept of trying to do it right,
but you should still try to be appropriate. I've always contended
that there is value in raw documentation. For instance, a company
buys a custom milling machine and the guy that designed the
machine drops by to teach the staff how to use the machine.
The company understands that there is constant turn-over both
at their company, but also at the company that made the machine.
10 years down the road, there might not be anybody around that
was there at the initial install and instruction.
Does the company need to make a full production? Perhaps not.
It might be adequate to just shoot it hand-held in real time. It may
be necessary to have the demonstrator repeat himself occasionally
if the person shooting missed something. There may never be the
need for anyone to watch the entire demonstration, but questions
might come up later. Again, if you want to get fancy, rather than
editing in the traditional sense, it would be more valuable to put in
copious chapter points so that people in the future can quickly find
what they are looking for.
David
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|