JWilsonphoto wrote:
A short marketing piece with my drone footage:
&feature=youtu.be
Looks like a beautiful place to live. For me the titles popping in and out suddenly clash with the serene setting and music. Have you tried fading them in and out a bit, or have them mimic the camera movement just slightly?
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Hi Erich, I agree, but I had nothing to do with the post processing.
Ah, I'm not sure why I assumed that the clients would have you deliver the final videos instead of just the raw footage. Then again, most of them probably have an ad agency doing that kind of thing. It drives me nuts sometimes to see what happens to my pics after I deliver them. I imagine it's even worse for video.
That used to bother me a lot more, and maybe it still should, but with my shooting schedule I'm more concerned about getting them the highest quality product and if they want to farm something out like that, it's off of my plate. I know that is a bit contrary to the quality all the way through thought process, but I guess I'm mellowing a bit, if they're pleased, I'm on to the next rodeo. This was actually composed by one of their marketing people who openly admitted she was struggling with Premiere but the CEO wanted something in 30 minutes. The bright side is, that UAS project instantly put my entire drone investment in the black, and a bit more.
I hope I'm not beginning to compromise, but some battles are just not worth fighting. I've known for a very long time that I could dial my quality back 50% and the majority of my clients would still be very happy, but I consciously force myself, on each and every assignment, not to allow that thought process to influence me.
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Eventually I think there will be easier and more streamlined access to a variety of locations/airspace scenarios and that will help tremendously as far as what can be captured, but the economic aspect will most likely remain challenging for all but a few operators.
It's closer than you might think.... the FAA just announced the Low Altitude Authorization program which is rolling out over the next few months: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=89845
Do you have the app 'AirMap' on your phone? It draws all the class B/C/D airspace in segmented circles. I assume each segment is going to be an authorization zone.
Meanwhile, here is the Book of Faces page for "That's all Brother": https://www.facebook.com/thatsallbrother/ - they just posted a video of it arriving in Tulsa for interior fittings.
I do Jo, but as I understand it right now, the altitudes shown in those squares are not usable approvals yet, right? That's what it will be when the system is fully deployed later this year. I'm really impressed that the FAA has responded this quickly to that need, well I mean "quickly" in governmental terms.
JWilsonphoto wrote:
I do Jo, but as I understand it right now, the altitudes shown in those squares are not usable approvals yet, right? That's what it will be when the system is fully deployed later this year. I'm really impressed that the FAA has responded this quickly to that need, well I mean "quickly" in governmental terms.
That's right; the squares don't do anything as yet. I don't think they even show altitudes.
I am also impressed with the FAA's response.
Here's a story that we all should keep in the back of our minds. A month ago my brother in law was in San Francisco giving a lecture to a group of Oncologists. He's an avid photographer so he drove out to that spot across the bay where you can shoot back toward the city with the GGB in the foreground. While he was there he struck up a conversation with another photographer who was shooting the same gear, Canon 5D MkIV. They shot together for a bit and exchanged information. That night the guy called Tom at his hotel to tell him that shortly after he pulled away two men pulled up, pulled a gun out and told him to lay face down on the asphalt in the parking lot while they loaded up his gear and drove off. My guess is a couple of things happened there, Tom is almost 7' tall so they probably decided to wait until the guy was by himself and an easier target, and.......................a sitting duck in yet another infamous "gun free zone" where all the folks who should not have a firearm get to do whatever they feel like with impunity. While this can happen anywhere, I'm hard pressed to be persuaded that the frequency is not considerably less when the perpetrator has to consider what caliber weapon his target might have at his fingertips.
I most likely would have layed down on the asphalt and let them have whatever they wanted even if we were in the Lone Star, but at least I would have had the option if they wanted more than my gear, like my life, or my wife. The guy said he thought they were going to shoot him anyway just for "fun", darn sure I'd be drilling someone in that situation!
futurshox wrote:
As far as I know, the plan is to redo all the paint as soon as they have the money. A lot of the decals are peeling off anyway - they’re just vinyl stickers. I believe it is to go back into the original paint scheme.
Happy to hear it. Would have been nice if that money had gone toward the paint job.
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Here's a story that we all should keep in the back of our minds. A month ago my brother in law was in San Francisco giving a lecture to a group of Oncologists. He's an avid photographer so he drove out to that spot across the bay where you can shoot back toward the city with the GGB in the foreground. While he was there he struck up a conversation with another photographer who was shooting the same gear, Canon 5D MkIV. They shot together for a bit and exchanged information. That night the guy called Tom at his hotel to tell him that shortly after he pulled away two men pulled up, pulled a gun out and told him to lay face down on the asphalt in the parking lot while they loaded up his gear and drove off. (deleted) ...Show more →
He got extremely lucky. Just last year a photographer was killed for his photo gear at Twin Peaks in San Francisco. I believe they finally caught his killers, but don't know if the victim was killed because he resisted, or because they just felt like killing someone that day.
JDE1 wrote:
Happy to hear it. Would have been nice if that money had gone toward the paint job.
I would imagine that the "decals" are there to explain the historical significance of that specific aircraft. Knowing the significance of that specific C-47 might help get donations from people viewing the unfinished aircraft (who might not otherwise donate), to help pay for the restoration.
The "decals" point out that this isn't just a "run-of-the-mill" C-47, it's a historically significant C-47 that is being saved.
It's a cool looking hand held gimbal for video work. I'm curious what the optional "follow focus attachment" is that he mentions. I don't see it on the product sheet. Looks like these things may have progressed enough to be useful for hand held effects shots too.
Jim, let us know how the joystick works for pointing the camera.
Erich
Will do Erich! In the mean time I'm talking with the Helix people, way more expensive, but there are some concerns about the quality of previous units from the first company.
kwbarnes wrote:
I would imagine that the "decals" are there to explain the historical significance of that specific aircraft. Knowing the significance of that specific C-47 might help get donations from people viewing the unfinished aircraft (who might not otherwise donate), to help pay for the restoration.
The "decals" point out that this isn't just a "run-of-the-mill" C-47, it's a historically significant C-47 that is being saved.
To add to this, the money that was raised for the airplane was primarily to finish the restoration and get it flying. The CAF acquired an airframe that had not flown in sometime, and had a fair amount of corrosion that needed to be dealt with. Get it flying first, paint it later. They plan to be at Oshkosh with it, so I'd imagine it might get painted before that.
