Prof, I love your enthusiasm and its definitely a huge gain for the industry. And as a value-add video is a great tool to add to our boxes. And anything that we can use for marketing is huge.
But about your statement that \"Still isn\'t dead. Stand alone videographers are...\" The thing is that that industry has also had their own renaissance. The gruff old guys working alone blocking the aisle with a big tripod-mounted video camera punching out boring altar videos is outdated and cliche. At least as outdated and cliche as gruff old still guys lugging brackets and punching out puffy matted books full of altar shots. Now videographers are using pov cams, steadicams, HD, same-day edits, MTV video editing techniques, pre-edited templates, multiple shooters, multimedia slideshows interviews, voiceovers. They\'ve taken the bar WAY up, too. In fact, I think its the still photography industry that has the least future improvement potential going for it.
And I don\'t think $500 for a wedding video is profitable. Certainly no more than a $500 still package is. Users of both tools are destined to failure. At least for anyone who\'s going to want the kind of quality that would actually replace a dedicated shooter. I watched the videos and it seems like that guy\'s still using another dedicated still shooter, and is now in *addition* to the real 2-person video team. It\'s kinda ridiculous how many cameras there are actually, and the ceremony looks like an absolute circus. So there is a couple of issues I see with this: 1.) that even more lowballer types are going to jump in using whatever rationale, 2.) that $500 mark is going to get even more watered down -- remember when it was a $1k? and 3.) the # of cameras is going to get even more embarrassing than it is already -- how much coverage is too much?
Just some things to ponder while we all get our feet wet with this...
-m
Jan 07, 2009 at 06:09 PM
Previous versions of mauriceramirez's message #6569965 « Get a 5D2 or go home? »
