# as a newb should i focus on both hd video and stills & audio?



## newbnewb (Sep 8, 2010)

what's your take on the advice on this blog? will this increase my revenues by $10,000+ annually?
*The Ultimate One-Man Rig: Increasing Annual Revenue/Money/Cashflow/$$$$ With Audio, Video, and Stills Capability *



> Well, it's tough times for business out there, so we artists and entrepreneurs need every advantage we can get. The 9shooter philosophy is all about improving and expanding one's skills while surfing the technological revolutions to the max. How much money/revenue/cashflow could you add to each shoot by incorporating audio and video? $200? $500? $700+? If you do 30+ shoots a year, this could easily boost your income by $10,000 - $20,000 or more, while also expanding your client base! And $10,000 would be more than enough to cover all the pro equipment below, with cash to spare, even if you were starting from scratch!
> 
> How much value would the ability to capture HD video & HD audio be during a photoshoot for you? For that matter, how much value would it add to be able to capture high-quality stills while recording audio and video? Suppose you mounted an HD video camera under your DSLR and offered your clients--be it a wedding party or newspaper editor--a running, unedited video of everything you shot that day? A few hundred dollars here and there extra on each shoot, and it would all begin to add up!


 
45surf 9SHOOTER HD video audio stills & dslr photography technology for arts entrepreneurs: The Ultimate One-Man Rig: Increasing Annual Revenue/Money/Cashflow/$$$$ With Audio, Video, and Stills Capability


----------



## BLD_007 (Sep 8, 2010)

I'm sorry, I was distracted by the hot model.

I would just use the Canon 1d mkIV. It can do it all, video, audio, and stills...

But if you are just starting out, I would say stick to one. Once you are comfortable, then go on to other things.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 8, 2010)

Personally, I don't see how the two can work together.  I"m not a videographer, nor do I play one on television, but I have enough of a rudimentary understanding to realize that 20 - 40 seconds I spend composing my still is going to make for pretty dull video, especially if I'm shooting ten similar shots in a row.  I can see that sort of rig being useful for photojournalists perhaps, or law-enforcement types, but for wedding, fashion, portraiture...  don't see it.


----------



## newbnewb (Sep 8, 2010)

tirediron said:


> Personally, I don't see how the two can work together. I"m not a videographer, nor do I play one on television, but I have enough of a rudimentary understanding to realize that 20 - 40 seconds I spend composing my still is going to make for pretty dull video, especially if I'm shooting ten similar shots in a row. I can see that sort of rig being useful for photojournalists perhaps, or law-enforcement types, but for wedding, fashion, portraiture... don't see it.


 

yes but it seems that the pressure is on us to *make* hd video and photography work together:

45surf 9SHOOTER HD video audio stills & dslr photography technology for arts entrepreneurs: "National Geographic now looks to only hire still photographers who are also video-trained!" 

"National Geographic now looks to only hire still photographers who are also video-trained!" 

"*pros will be eventually expected to deliver web-worthy package of movies and stills*." --http://9shooter.blogspot.com/2010/09/great-issue-of-digital-slr-photography.html


----------



## AdrianC (Sep 8, 2010)

How many times are you going to post this? http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lls-shooting-stills-video-simultaneously.html

Anyway, taking pics while recording video of the same time is pretty dumb. The video would be of poor quality and uninteresting, since you're going to concentrate on taking pics the whole time.


----------



## newbnewb (Sep 8, 2010)

AdrianC said:


> How many times are you going to post this? http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lls-shooting-stills-video-simultaneously.html
> 
> Anyway, taking pics while recording video of the same time is pretty dumb. The video would be of poor quality and uninteresting, since you're going to concentrate on taking pics the whole time.


 
well, i'm about to lay down a few grand in equipment, so i am looking to get as much input/feedback as possible.

so are you saying that out of a 2 hour shoot, there will be absolutely no useful video from a video camera mounted under a dslr?

like i wa thinking, suppose i said to the wedding couple, "for $200 extra i can give you the raw video files of the entire day from the persepctive of my camera." are you saying there would be no value in this whatsoever? i mean think of all the moments that would be immortalized on video--and there is no value to this? out of an eight hour wedding shoot, i bet you would have more than enough for a quality ten minute video, and quality wedding videos go for how much? like $1,000+!

so i can't quite write this off...


----------



## AdrianC (Sep 8, 2010)

The article says you would be giving customers the unedited video. Weddings shots average what, 6-10 hours so you would have a 6 hour video to give to your customer. Now if you chose to edit that, imagine how long it will take. You would have to watch the whole thing once or twice and chose what you want to include.

Really tho, the link you posted in the other thread speaks for itself.

A DIY 9Shooter: Shooting Stills & Video Simultaneously & Audio Too! | DIYPhotography.net

He posted a 2min 46sec video followed by a picture. The video is entirely useless. Its just the girl moving around, posing for that one shot. So you could just look at the picture, or you could watch a 2min46sec video and you will basically see the same thing.


----------



## newbnewb (Sep 8, 2010)

AdrianC said:


> The article says you would be giving customers the unedited video. Weddings shots average what, 6-10 hours so you would have a 6 hour video to give to your customer. Now if you chose to edit that, imagine how long it will take. You would have to watch the whole thing once or twice and chose what you want to include.
> 
> Really tho, the link you posted in the other thread speaks for itself.
> 
> ...


 
lol! well that is 2 minutes and 46 seconds which could be cut/edited/mixed/matched with other video from the shoot and overlaid with music.  are you saying this would have absolutely no value?

and yes--of course if you want to make a ten minute wedding video you have to cut through a lot of footage.... but this isn't news, is it?

there is great value in getting one's brand out on youtube/vimeo/revver/etc.  so extra video is valuable.  it's gotta be worth something to a clothing line to say "hey i can give you a video of the shoot for $$$$$$$."   i mean why not?


----------



## AdrianC (Sep 8, 2010)

The quality of the video is also inferior to the pictures (at least in his case), so I mean if you want to have poor quality work out there, go ahead. 

Anyway, regarding editing, what would you shorten that video to? 10 seconds? What does she do in 10 sec that doesn't show in the picture?

You could have a montage of pictures if you want a similar effect, I guess. I'm just not seeing any extra value gained from videos taken like this. You would have to put so much extra work into filming and editing, which will result in a mediocre product, that it just won't be worth it.


ALSO

I just noticed that both blogs use some of the same pictures. Either they both got em off a stock website, or someone is infringing on a copyright...


----------



## newbnewb (Sep 8, 2010)

AdrianC said:


> The quality of the video is also inferior to the pictures (at least in his case), so I mean if you want to have poor quality work out there, go ahead.
> 
> Anyway, regarding editing, what would you shorten that video to? 10 seconds? What does she do in 10 sec that doesn't show in the picture?
> 
> ...


 
lol! i am sure that they would shoot video throughout an entire two hour shoot or four hour shoot, and then whittle it down. there is no law statingthat you can only shoot two minutes of video to work with lzozllz. did you watch the video in hd? definitely useful. and multiply it by 100 for a four hour shoot, and you will have cool footage for a video.

all i am saying is that i can see how a client woul think this is a cool and pay a few hundred bucks to have a 10 minute video from a four hour shoot of their clothing line. maybe not you, but still, we probably shouldn't make it against the law. 

i def. plan on keeping an open mind about this all...and maybe building one myself.


----------



## AdrianC (Sep 8, 2010)

The problem is the whole vid would be like this one. People posing for pictures. Nothing really happening. It would be a vid about a photographer taking pics.


----------



## newbnewb (Sep 8, 2010)

AdrianC said:


> The problem is the whole vid would be like this one. People posing for pictures. Nothing really happening. It would be a vid about a photographer taking pics.


 
would that be a bad thing? i just looked up and saw that wedding videographers charge $1,000 +  i bet you anything that if you offered them for $300 to $500 a video to accompany every still shot they would go "ok."

and it will cot me like nothing extra.

also, for a clothing line they would like to get theirbrand out on youtube/vimeo and have a video for facebook/myspace.

so yes more and more i se that $300 extra here, $500 extra there, $200 extra here, and over a year i will have $10,000+ easy.

do this for ten years, and you'll get good at it while raking in $100,000 extra over ten years.  maybe more even!  And even $50,000 extra over ten eyars would be cool.

so why not?  i will build one & play.


----------



## AdrianC (Sep 8, 2010)

The videographer will have a superior product because he has to think the whole time about  filming, while a photographer would think about taking pictures. A video shot while taking pictures will have nowhere near the quality of a dedicated videographer. 

Lol, your statement is pretty insulting to videographers, you're basically saying they put no thought in their work. 

And doing this will cost you extra. Not money per say, but your time spent editing.


----------



## LokiZ (Sep 8, 2010)

Hmm, first what I don't get is why you would give unedited raw digital footage away for them to use as they wish.  Would you do that with your raw unedited stills?  It will not be glamorous and you have no control over what is said about your work.  Maybe they will pass on the truth about the video or maybe they will drop your name and say that it was a wedding video you made for them.  Do you really want that?  Do you really want a piece of raw unedited footage that is going to at best look like a home video taken with good gear with you name and reputation tacked to it.  To me that answer is an easy one.

Secondly a video camera attached to a DSLR shooting blindly and continuously while you shoot stills seems a$$ backwards to me.  It would be more productive from the stand point of videoing with the ability to shoot a still now and then but that does not seem to be what this is about.  To me the bracket would be easy access to one or the other not for use of both at the same time.  (But isn't that what an assistant is for? "Hey get my _______ for me, thanks.  Here's my ________ hold it for me for a minute.")

The way I see it is a video shot from the vantage point matching your DSLR is not unlike that of the on camera flash.  (Flat, dull, and and pretty much boring)  Get your video off camera from multiple angles and have someone manning the cameras to make sure it's quality and usable.

Don't get me wrong the blog hit the nail on the head, there is definitely a market for the merging of high quality stills, audio, and video.  It's just that high quality doesn't stop with the data and it's formatting, it still has much to do with the content as it ever has as well.

Do open up to all three areas. (audio, video, and stills)
Don't sell unfinished raw data of any kind. (Video or stills)
It will only cost you in the end in my opinion.


----------



## newbnewb (Oct 11, 2010)

funny/cool thread on all this! haha  also fodder for the nikon-canon  religious wars:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=638411


> nikon finally gets canon quality 1080p hd (24p, 30i, 60i)  hd video.   you can diy (do it yourself) @:  A DIY 9Shooter: Shooting Stills & Video Simultaneously & Audio Too! | DIYPhotography.net
> 
> have fun!  let me know if anyone else has tried this.  it lets one  capture video throughout the entire shoot, and the new dynamic image  stabilization on the canon hfs200 is awesome, so it smooths it all out.


--from http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=638411


----------



## swoop_ds (Oct 12, 2010)

For those interested, there is a good book on the subject called "wedding fusion" or something like that


----------



## newbnewb (Oct 13, 2010)

swoop_ds said:


> For those interested, there is a good book on the subject called "wedding fusion" or something like that




thanks!  For those interested in what?  please do share more!  thanks!


----------

