Spares

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Gary Eickmeier, Apr 22, 2013.

  1. OMG, the amount of trouble caused by an adapter that failed. The job is to
    shoot a wedding in a church where they don't allow manned cameras. Our new
    cameras do not have a LANC jack that would allow full remote control, so we
    have to get an adapter to convert the AV/R jack to a LANC. That leaves us
    with only HDMI to get the image to the control room. Most camcorders have a
    mini HDMI jack for video output, so you need an adapter to get from mini to
    normal HDMI.

    On the day of the shoot, no picture from the HDMI output. Nothing would get
    it back. So we have to take the LANC adapter out and ust the AV/R jack for
    video output, and lose remote start/stop, focus, zoom - the works. I set the
    zoom range to what I expect for the ceremony, and we still have the pan/tilt
    head. A lot of time wasted troubleshooting and looking for substitute parts.

    So yesterday I tried to take a look at my video from a dance shoot on the
    big monitor, and I'll be damned, no picture once again. The only common
    thread is the adapter. Got a nw one today from Best Buy for $20, but they
    are available for around $5 if you go online.

    Lesson learned, have more than one of advanced cable adapters or anything
    that is hard to replace at Radio Shack.

    Thanks,
    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 22, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gary Eickmeier

    ushere Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
    OMG, the amount of trouble caused by an adapter that failed. The job is to
    shoot a wedding in a church where they don't allow manned cameras. Our new
    cameras do not have a LANC jack that would allow full remote control, so we
    have to get an adapter to convert the AV/R jack to a LANC. That leaves us
    with only HDMI to get the image to the control room. Most camcorders have a
    mini HDMI jack for video output, so you need an adapter to get from mini to
    normal HDMI.

    On the day of the shoot, no picture from the HDMI output. Nothing would get
    it back. So we have to take the LANC adapter out and ust the AV/R jack for
    video output, and lose remote start/stop, focus, zoom - the works. I set the
    zoom range to what I expect for the ceremony, and we still have the pan/tilt
    head. A lot of time wasted troubleshooting and looking for substitute parts.

    So yesterday I tried to take a look at my video from a dance shoot on the
    big monitor, and I'll be damned, no picture once again. The only common
    thread is the adapter. Got a nw one today from Best Buy for $20, but they
    are available for around $5 if you go online.

    Lesson learned, have more than one of advanced cable adapters or anything
    that is hard to replace at Radio Shack.

    Thanks,
    Gary Eickmeier

    "a church where they don't allow manned cameras"

    does that happen often? i'm just curious. seems rather un-christian to the
    participants...
     
    ushere, Apr 22, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I used to shoot weddings (among other things...;-), and people
    with cameras (and flashes) could sometimes get rather obnoxious,
    with some even going up front and "getting into the action"...;-(
    I generally shot the ceremonies with several "unmanned" small
    video cameras mostly placed close-in, and I stayed off to the side,
    at the back, or on a balcony with one or two "manned" cameras...
    An old six-camera "solo" wedding shoot is described and shown here:
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/multi-camera.htm
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 22, 2013
    #3
  4. ushere wrote:

    We have two churches in Lakeland that do that - First Methodist and First
    Presbyterian. I guess it is a First disease.

    I got a new adapter at Best Buy for $19 plus tax, and it works fine. My only
    concern now is that it is the same brand as the one that failed - Monster
    Cable. So I also ordered a couple of other alternatives that might help next
    time.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 23, 2013
    #4
  5. Gary Eickmeier

    Brian Guest

    I can understand people getting obnoxious as it breaks the mood of the
    wedding when you see photographers running around with their cameras. A
    place in my city place that has memorial services has their own cameras
    mounted around the room and a person upstairs controls the cameras when
    making a recording during the event. The recording of the event is done by
    a company that sells you the recording. eIn time the same thing could
    happen in churches and other places.
    At a wedding I attended a very bold photographer went up and stood next to
    the couple getting married during the service and took a closeup of the
    ring as it was placed on her finger. It seemed out of place and was
    distracting to have a photographer standing close to the couple while they
    were getting married.
     
    Brian, Apr 23, 2013
    #5
  6. On another site someone posted a video clip of his latest wedding shoot. I
    saw video from all around the altar, with close-ups like you say. I wrote my
    critique and told them that this is not done. A wedding is not your set for
    your latest demo video. I was surprised that he wasn't kicked out of the
    church for good. The other posters praised the dynamic moving camera shots
    etc and were shocked that I would criticize his artistry.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 23, 2013
    #6
  7. While I'm not religious (at all...!;-), when shooting weddings,
    I was always respectful of the ceremony and of the place. To offer
    "complete" coverage, I often placed cameras near the ceremony, but
    I tried to make them inconspicuous by placing the small cameras on
    "mini-pods", on poles wrapped in fake leafy vines, on unoccupied
    balconies, on high poles in the back, etc., and I stayed "put"
    during the ceremony (sometimes at the back, sometimes on a balcony,
    sometimes in the second or third row off to the side [and sometimes
    I "manned" two cameras on tripods where I was, occasionally changing
    zoom and framing on both to offer variety later]). I shot musicians
    close-in during the rehearsal and "audience" shots before the
    ceremony began, to add in to the edit when desired (or needed). I
    found no need to be obtrusively "in the action" during the ceremony.
    Since I "shot-it-as-it-happens" (Only! Unlike some, I did not
    "stage" things for the camera before or afterward.), I did not use an
    acceptable alternative: staging short repeats of bits of the ceremony
    afterward for the benefit of the photographer/videographer... BTW, I
    shot wedding ceremonies of a great variety (Christian, Jewish, Indian,
    Quaker, etc.), in a remarkable variety of locations (on boats, in
    churches, in cow pastures, in houses, in the pouring rain, during
    violent storms, etc.), and in places with a wide range of "rules"
    ("don't move", to "go anywhere"), and managed to get what I needed for
    the clients. Mostly, it was fun (people often said that I seemed to
    be having more fun than anyone else at the weddings - but I was doing
    what I liked to do, and I was even getting paid to do it!;-).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 23, 2013
    #7
  8. And be sure to check out, and to practice, with the other ones before
    you need them!

    I know it wasn't necessary to tell you that, but ya never know :)
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 23, 2013
    #8
  9. Gene, you know that everything works perfectly at the office the day before.
    In this case, we set up the full system in the office a couple of times,
    because of the difficulty of just finding all of the parts to make it work.
    We unreeled all of the cable, put the camera on a tripod in another room,
    attached everything, if only to prove that the HDMI would work over the 35
    ft. distance. It worked so well we couldn't wait for the sheer pleasure of
    seeing a Hi Def picture on our monitor in the control room beside the altar,
    and being able to turn the camera on and off, start it running, focus it,
    pan, tilt and zoom - how CLEVER we were going to be!

    And the Lord said - "not in MY church you're not."

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 24, 2013
    #9
  10. Gary Eickmeier

    Brian Guest

    I bet there would be less praise if it was their wedding.
    Another thing is that in some weddings the couple getting married are very
    nervous and having a photographer moving about near by during the service
    makes them even more nervous.
    ..
     
    Brian, Apr 24, 2013
    #10
  11. Gary Eickmeier

    Brian Guest

    One common comment that I get from some weddings is that the photographer
    is too busy photographing the bridge and groom and does not take enough
    photos of the guests at the wedding. But I suspect that when using more
    than one camera then you would have a camera pointing at the guests
    watching the wedding.
     
    Brian, Apr 24, 2013
    #11
  12. Yeah, basically I forgot about Murphy :-(

    But I was really thinking about the new equipment of a different brand,
    and the need to familiarize yourself with the new interface. The idea
    being if you had to switch under fire, a new way of doing things would
    get in the way.

    But really, I didn't think you wouldn't do that, I just wanted to put
    the idea out for general consumption - and anyway, even a careful person
    occasionally forgets to be prudent. Ask me how I know :)
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 24, 2013
    #12
  13. AHA! Hence, the subject of this thread. We usually have spares for the
    obvious hardware items such as camera bodies and lenses, flash units, video
    lights, plenty of batteries. But who would have thought you also need a
    spare HDMI adapter, or flash connector, or....

    I have already related the story of a wedding rehearsal I was at, practicing
    my flash technique, when all of a sudden my main lens started buzzing like a
    cell phone and would not focus. The focus motor was apparently shot inside
    the lens, so no more autofocus Charlie. I called the Sony store in Tampa and
    they had a reasonable substitute lens for my camera for only $500. I was
    shooting the wedding for free for a friend.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 25, 2013
    #13
  14. Yes. I used to shoot the rehearsal dinner, the rehearsal, the
    pre-ceremony activities (including their conversation-groups
    and their seating), the musicians and singers, the ceremony
    (with some audience shots), the after-ceremony events and
    conversation-groups (including the exit of the bride and groom
    from the building, and later them in the car to go to the
    reception), the building, the reception and dinner, the dancing,
    the speeches, the table conversation-groups, the kids playing,
    the location shots, ETC. In other words, *complete* coverage!
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 25, 2013
    #14
  15. Ouch!
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 25, 2013
    #15
  16. I wish I had a dollar for every dollar I spent on this crap. But hey, I'm
    happy.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 26, 2013
    #16
  17. On the radio they just played "Vesti la giubba", and so I looked up the
    lyrics.

    Basically - and wildly paraphrased - "OK, my wife is unfaithful, but I'm
    a clown, and the audience paid me to make them laugh. So put on the
    costume and laugh, clown, laugh".

    So is that what your last sentence means? :)

    Substituting broken lens for unfaithful wife, of course...
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 26, 2013
    #17
  18. No, WAY too intellectual. I just mean that I could have saved up every
    dollar I ever made and died a rich man.

    Think about that for a minute....

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 27, 2013
    #18
  19. Gary Eickmeier

    Brian Guest

    Then again you have to spend money to get some pleasure in life.
     
    Brian, Apr 27, 2013
    #19
  20. Ummm, not "nes-ka-sar-i-lee", as "Popeye" might say...8^)
    But, lately I've been spending a "ton' of money (for me...)
    on a new camera system, with the original intention of
    winding up with the Panasonic GH3 for shooting both stills
    and video. I started with the lenses during the winter
    (the GH3 was not available here until recently), and after
    trying 14 lenses and samples, I wound-up with the following
    set: 7.5mm Rokinon fisheye (6 tries to get a good one), 12mm
    Voightlander (I already had it;-), 14mm Panasonic "pancake"
    lens (3 tries), 14-*45*mm Panasonic mid-zoom (2 tries, but
    it's the best of the many that Panasonic makes in this range),
    45-175mm (1 try - VERY surprising since this is a lens with
    potentially "fatal" problems, but the 45-200mm Panasonic didn't
    "make it", having too much CA), plus various achromats I had
    for close-up work (which work VERY well on the 45-175mm), and
    I also tried all of my many Nikkors, with the VERY surprising
    result that only a few were worth keeping for the new system
    (the 85mm f2, 75-300mm f4.5-5.6, and the middle-version of the
    500mm f8 mirror - plus a few more that would be redundant).
    BTW, double the focal lengths with micro four-thirds format
    lenses to get the 35mm full-frame equivalents. Bodies
    acquired so far: the Panasonic GF3 (it was VERY cheap and
    tiny, and it was also useful for checking lenses with), the
    G5 (neat camera!), and the pocketable LX7. Unexpectedly,
    though, I've had GREAT FUN shooting stills with this gear,
    often shooting about 200 frames a day(!), mostly around the
    yard and in a nearby park. As for video, I haven't yet done
    much with the new gear, but preliminary checks indicate
    that the GF3 isn't great, the G5 is quite good, and the LX7
    is more than passable for video (see my review of the LX7 at:
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Panasonic_LX7.htm ).
    All three are excellent stills cameras, and great fun to use.
    For preliminary evaluations of lenses and bodies, I downloaded
    a huge number of original full-resolution samples from almost
    all of the available micro four-thirds and four-thirds format
    lenses (plus looking at reviews and tests from MANY sites),
    and I also downloaded MANY original video clips (and also
    frame-grabs) to compare most of the likely candidates for a
    good still camera that could also shoot high-quality video
    (which is how I settled on the $1300 Panasonic GH3, which
    appeared to be superior for video compared with the others,
    even with prices going as high as $7000[!]). So, I've been
    busy...! 8^) Maybe someday I will finish the video I've been
    working on for nearly two years, and get it (and the last one
    I finished) up on YouTube soon (maybe...;-).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 27, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.