FilmFellas Cast 5: “The Epic Wedding”

FilmFellas Cast 5 – Webisode 20 – The New Art Form

Elaborating on the new art form of wedding filmmaking, they discuss the key role of the cinematographer and creating “ The Hollywood Version of the Love Story.”

FilmFellas Cast 5 Webisode 21FilmFellas Cast 5 Webisode 22
FilmFellas Cast 5 Webisode 23
Zacuto FilmFellas Cast 5 Webisode 24

Critics Season 2 - The Lost Episodes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

80 Responses to “FilmFellas Cast 5: “The Epic Wedding””

  1. Philip Bloom on August 12th, 2009 9:20 am

    Patrick makes really nice wedding videos, especially considering he is Canadian, a real hurdle, he is one talented video guy. Loves Kevin’s movies…Ron, well he produces gold. You should have kept supering them different things at the beginning for fun!

    I love the editing as always, not too fast for me, it works well with this length.

    The whole what you refer to yourself as is something I struggle with daily. Cameraman, DP, director, editor, muppet. Hell…what’s in a name? A lot it seems. We need to think of a new term that encapsulates what a lot of us are doing that crosses genres.

    Dirographer? Cinemarector? Prodeographer? Hard isn’t it?

    One thing when I watch these is I really feel you could do a long edit of at the end of the series with clips of their work, especially with the wedding casts as people who watch this, unless they click the links, aren’t going to realise just how good their work is. It would turn it into a superb documentary production all about the wedding industry, what is being done these days, how it is pushing boundaries and becoming less of a poor man’s way of making movies and instead show just how groundbreaking some of the stuff is. Putting both casts and clips into one long edit would be a riveting thing to watch. Mind you the cutting style may need to be slowed down for something long form…

    Anyway am waffling. Great job as always.

  2. John Moon on August 12th, 2009 9:44 am

    Great insight and great episode.

  3. the__director on August 12th, 2009 9:49 am

    Like alot of young media guys these days I write, direct, shoot, and edit. I find it easier not to get hung up on a title, so I refer to myself simply as a filmmaker.

    In think that if you call yourself an editor for example, then that means that you are most experienced in that aspect of production, so you are choosing to market yourself as such.

    The problem is that you have to start listing off each aspect of production that you’re comfortable with separately, ie, director, editor, DP, colorist, etc.. these seems kinda pompus or ridiculous. I sometimes change my title from client to client, just to represent that I can do what they need to get done.

    I never thought it would be such a convoluted and grey area, but since we’re all becoming so good at all the different aspects of production, maybe we should all re-think the way we title ourselves?

    Great vid, really made me think.

  4. Mandy Rogers on August 12th, 2009 9:50 am

    I like Cinemarector!

  5. Tim Sarquis on August 12th, 2009 9:54 am

    Another amazing look into the world of wedding filmmaking. Job well done guys! I also like Philip’s idea of making this into a longform documentary with clips of the cast’s work. Would be very interesting and insightful!

  6. the__director on August 12th, 2009 1:11 pm


  7. Philip Bloom on August 12th, 2009 1:20 pm

    …says the guy whose name is “the__director”…!! ;-)

    life was simpler when I was just a cameraman.

    I think we need to use “Auteur”


    “–noun, plural au⋅teurs  [oh-turz; Fr. oh-tœr] Show IPA .
    a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp.”

  8. andrew hsu on August 12th, 2009 1:46 pm

    I like how steve says we need to come up with a name for ourselves otherwise people will just say, “hey video guy.” Well, that’s actually what I call myself.

    I introduce myself to guests and vendors at events by saying, “I’m Andrew. I’m the video guy.”

    It’s disarming and unpretentious. I can’t even muster the phrase, “I’m Andrew. I’m the cinematographer” or “I’m the wedding filmmaker.” Give me a break.

    Outside of the wedding construct, when people ask what I do, I say, I own a video production studio. If they prod further, I say I shoot mostly weddings but I do all kinds of video work.

    My business card, in fact, literally says “we shoot stuff for money” because in the end – no matter how much of an “artiste” I think I am, I produce videos to make a living. Be it wedding videos, corporate videos, promotional videos, or whatever. I shoot stuff for money (kind of like an assassin!… yeah. I wish.)

    So what’s in a name?
    I suppose there are connotations that we need to be aware of, but let’s not get carried away here.

    (note: in Hollywood, camera people are still credited as “photographers”. Photo = light; grapher = one who records or documents, I suppose.)

  9. the__director on August 12th, 2009 1:58 pm

    From time to time I think about how that name is going to bite me in the ass. I’m gonna have to start re-branding myself on the web ;-)

    and we’re au teurs then

  10. Travis Cossel on August 12th, 2009 2:33 pm

    Good stuff, Steve. Props to the “cast” as well. I found the editing more subdued this time. Not sure if I’m imagining it or not. Anyways, liked it.

    Can’t wait for the next one!

  11. Tim Danyo on August 12th, 2009 2:56 pm

    Great work guys. Love this filmfellas concept! I’m hooked.

  12. patrick moreau on August 12th, 2009 3:01 pm

    andrew // you produce videos to make a living. i love to produce videos. that, to me, is all the difference. i don’t think it is getting carried away when we talk about what is in a name, i think my concern over what we call our art and how it is branded reflects the care we put into every single frame of what we do. you feeling that this is perhaps all too much is probably more a reflection of ‘shooting things for money’. your motivation is entirely different and that will flow through your perspective, priorities, and what you produce. i am so keen on being called a filmmaker or cinematographer because i would not want to be compared to somebody who just does this for money.


  13. andrew hsu on August 12th, 2009 5:34 pm

    hey Patrick,
    I think you missed my point – or perhaps I didn’t convey my point clearly.

    You don’t know me SUPER well, but I think you know me well enough to know I’m pretty tongue-in-cheek most of the day. :-)

    I call myself a “video guy” and have a humorous tagline on my business card because all of this is just good fun and not to be taken too seriously. We’re not saving lives here, we’re just having a blast making movies and getting paid to do it.

    obviously we don’t do this *just* to make money and you are right to not want to be compared with someone who does. and if calling yourself a cinematographer is a way to differentiate yourself from the rest of the field, then great. good for you and your marketing prowess!

    but, come on, none of us really get OFFENDED when someone calls us by a different title, do we? If not, then I suggest it’s not that big of a deal.

    (lastly, if we were truly interested in making money, we’d all be photographers instead.)



  14. Dan Brennan on August 12th, 2009 6:12 pm

    I love you your show. I MADE a MOVIE about Videoographers!!! called “The Video Guys” We won 3 film fest this year and just got distribution for our film!!! Check out our website

    Dan Brennan

  15. Steve Weiss on August 12th, 2009 8:28 pm

    I like preditor (producer-editor-director)

  16. Steve Weiss on August 12th, 2009 8:34 pm

    You are sooooo English — Mr. Bloom, my dear “Auteur” indeed. In the colonies, people would say, “you said what now”!

    At least I know I’m a director, I don’t know what the f$$k to call you. ;-)

  17. Steve Weiss on August 12th, 2009 8:57 pm

    Yeah, we may have backed it down a notch for you sensitive wedding folks. ;-)

  18. Steve Weiss on August 12th, 2009 9:05 pm

    I love it Dan. You have to send me a screener so I can review your picture. Send to:
    Steve Weiss
    401 West Onatario
    Chicago, IL 60654

  19. Philip Bloom on August 13th, 2009 1:37 am

    how about…”sir”?

  20. Matt Ebenezer on August 13th, 2009 3:12 am

    Great as always. It’s so awesome to have access to this level of content. Felt a little bit like a conversation between Steve and Kevin, looking forward to hearing more from Patrick and Ron in the next ones.

    Keep it up guys!

  21. Anthony Burokas on August 13th, 2009 9:12 am

    I was amazed how much the discussion centered on what we call ourselves. In the end, it’s the client who determines it and, very much today, with people searching for wedding video, it’s search engine optimization (SEO) that gets the hits that brings the eyeballs to the web site that impresses the client that picks up the phone and calls.

    Primarily this applies to industries that cater to the public, like wedding videographer, but also corporate video, etc.

    The videos themselves and the talent here can supersede the “label” of wedding videographer, if they somehow perceive it to be derogatory. Ron is right. It’s all global now. It’s not local so how the world perceives you first may well be how you pop up in a search engine, unless it is purely word of mouth, which is rare. Because even after word of mouth, people then go and Google you.
    Anyone who doesn’t is just stupid.

  22. Ron Dawson on August 13th, 2009 9:47 am

    Anthony, your SEO comment is a great one. Regardless of what people in this industry call themselves, it would be wise to incorporate wedding video and/or videography into your website text. John Goolsby went so far as to actually get the domain Smart man. That’s why he’s the God Father. :)

  23. Kevin Shahinian on August 13th, 2009 10:17 am

    I agree completely, Anthony. That was my initial point, that at the end of the day its what the market will bear in a name and right now, like it or not, “videographer” is the ubiquitous term most people will be searching for. I think the interesting phenomenon that will occur for the filmmaker/cinematographer class will be the branding of their work as part of their unique personality, and the fact that folks will be searching for them by name, not by title.

  24. Philip Bloom on August 13th, 2009 12:17 pm

    it’s funny how that term irks…i mean it’s not really that different from photographer and they seem pretty cool with that. But don’t you dare call me a videographer ;-)

  25. the__director on August 13th, 2009 1:25 pm

    I think it’s because the word “video” always plays 2nd fiddle to the word “film”. Titles matter, and maybe it has something to do with ego, confidence, or just plain experience.

  26. Neill Watson on August 13th, 2009 1:34 pm

    Good point about clips at the end showing work. It would be good to see in one place a quick edit of each persons work for all the episodes!

  27. John Goolsby on August 13th, 2009 3:27 pm

    Wow, that was a quick 12 minutes. I really enjoyed the conversation. These guys are great on camera and represent our industry very well.

    I have taught video communication at two different universities and the definitions in my text book were:

    Director of Photography: Determines the placement of the camera

    Camera Operator: Operates the camera

    Videographer: Determines camera placement and operates the camera.(Performs both jobs).

    It also reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my best employees when I told him I couldn’t give him a raise but I could give him a title.

    The employee was an EventDV Top 25 Videographer….my son Chip.

  28. Lee bakogiannakis on August 16th, 2009 7:17 pm

    its very interesting for me to hear you guys talk about the whole “video guy” thing.
    In greece although i try to promote the term cinematographer in weddings for quite some time now ,video guy is quite popular here too..hehe

    Personally i dont have any problems with any of the terms mentioned ,what really drives me nuts is when people who have no idea what they are doing refer to themselves and in their websites as cinematographers or wedding cinematography just cause they read it in another website.
    Seems like a LOT of greek video guys suddenly became cinematographers in a night thanks to the internet.
    Probably they thought that it sounds more important and now they are asking their clients for more money…

    For me its not how you call yourself what cam/NLE you use etc,
    I love shooting weddings mostly cause you got only ONE change to shoot , there are so many interesting things going on during a wedding day that usually no one ever sees ,thats were we get in…
    i get to travel a lot, meet very interesting people and cultures …

    and most importantly i love what i do for a living!

    Cant wait for the next episode,
    keep them coming guys,


  29. Paul Reed on August 23rd, 2009 10:36 am

    The problems with titles (and this scopes to any profession) is that they are easily gotten, but not easily deserved. Whilst a professional of 20 years, such as Philip, could rightfully call himself a film maker, cinematographer, story teller, and rightly so, the problem arises when Johnny-got-some-money-from-mum-and-dad comes along with his 5dMkII and calls himself a film maker, cinematographer, story teller and so on when clearly he is non of these things. What tends to happen is that collective terms appear organically and the seasoned pro’s pick them up, and then after time, everyone else jumps on the band wagon, so a new title is created and so on and so forth. I genuinely think it makes very little odds though. Back in cast 1 the point was made ‘it’s all about the reel’ and ultimately, this is what counts above any name or title.

  30. Susan Rapp on August 23rd, 2009 2:14 pm

    Hey Guys, you can also follow an extended debate on defining yourself as a Cinematographer, Videographer, Filmmaker, over at See the discussion at

  31. Travis Cossel on August 27th, 2009 3:16 pm

    Awesome webisode.  Really enjoy this one guys!

  32. on August 27th, 2009 3:17 pm

    Guest Another great episode! Out here in Montana, it’s going to take some time for folks to consider videography as art. Even my spell checker hasn’t even figured out how to spell “Videography” yet! Most couples in my area only want a “documentation of the day, but some see the vision of what a really well produced wedding film can be like. I offer two different styles of production. One that is straight up documentary and another that is interpretive and more of a real wedding film. That’s how i have to make ends meet in Montana. Photogs almost always get more attention and are considered way before the Videographer. A couple times a year I get brides who REALLY want a wedding film and only hire the photogs for the portraits and documentation of the day. That’s rare though. 

  33. Rob Imbs on August 27th, 2009 4:12 pm

    I agree with what Patrick said – “there are more photographers that are aware of what’s going on and are doing something artistic”. But now that video cameras can get that DoF film look, video guys are being taken more seriously and are caopable of creatiing better work. And I also agree with Kevin when he said that video is finally being regarded as art, in the same manner that photography has alwasy been.

    FIlmFellas inspires an intelligent conversation that forces us to re-evaluate the tenure of our craft. Keep it up! :)

  34. Guest on August 27th, 2009 5:28 pm

    Great webisode!

  35. Mike on August 27th, 2009 10:35 pm

    Really cool discussion here, fascinating.   Definitely loving the new cinematic and shallow dof approach that some film artists are now taking.

  36. Henrik Erichsern on September 3rd, 2009 8:38 am

    Interesting discussion, but the editing could have been better… sry

  37. Zacuto on September 3rd, 2009 12:22 pm

    I had to delete 3 comments on this page because they were personal attacks on a cast member, 2 of which coming from the same IP but responding to themselves in classic troll fashion. 

    Our comment policy is very open, you can disagree, you can critique, but no personal attacks will be tolerated.

  38. cleon on September 3rd, 2009 2:44 pm

    Enjoyed the dialog but I disagree with Steve Weiss on his comments, that we as Videographers  should interview  the couples to see if they are right for us to shoot there wedding.   Maybe it was the way he said it, but in the end who is signing the check. 
    The Videographer is the employee not the employer. 

    Now it’s nothing wrong with getting a feel for a couple in which you are going to work for/with but to say “Let me see if this couple is right for my artistic vision“ well I think that’s a little egotistical.

    In the Videography  field we all secretly want to be a big time Hollywood directors, casting actors, calling the shots, (I’m ready for my close up Mr. Videographer) but we must remember until that day comes we are working for/with the client to produce a wonderful and hopefully rememberable day of events. 

    Collaboration is a beautiful thing:-)

  39. Sonu on September 3rd, 2009 6:27 pm

    Don’t make fun of bollywood films Have u seen the newest ones? the effects and cinematogarphy,editing,stories matches the hollywood now.They have improved drastically and are catching up fast

  40. Jenn Katz, Los Angeles on September 4th, 2009 6:30 pm

    I agree with you Steve, however, he does seem to talk a lot and that is just an observation.  One person I really liked in this webisode (outside of you) is  Patrick.  His work at StillMotion is redifining the whole game.  He’s a very down to earth guy who could care less about what his “title” is and saves his energy for his work rather his mouth.

  41. Guest on September 5th, 2009 1:34 pm

    is the food good… no one is eating

  42. Guestsean on September 9th, 2009 5:11 pm

    It’s a tough comparison to still photography.  A great still shot opens the imagination to tell a whole story (or the memory of a person who was there recalls the story.) Moving pictures are much more literal.  If you can turn that into a strength, you really are talented.

    Cleon: Going to a job interview doesn’t obligate you to take the job. If it’s not a good fit, I’d be doing a disservice to both myself and the clients if I took the job. That said, I’d be an ass if I made a potential client feel like they had to show me they’re good enough for me. It ain’t like that.

  43. Matthew Ebenezer on September 9th, 2009 9:52 pm

    Totally agree with Patrick when he says that historically the quality coming out of the photography industry far exceeds that of the wedding videography/film-making industry.  There are thousands and thousands of photographers producing A-grade work.  I think you’d struggle to find a hundred wedding videographers producing the same level of work.

    It’s also worth noting that photography has been a part of our collective psyche as humans for way longer than video.  I think this contributes to the adoption and acceptance of wedding videography.

    Congrats on another great episode!

  44. Phil Jackson on September 10th, 2009 11:45 am

    While I love cast 4, cast 5 does a great job at bringing up a side of wedding filmmaking (or whatever way one wants to call it) that I never was exposed to. It gives me great ideas for things to try in the future as I grow as a filmmaker.

  45. Ron Dawson on September 10th, 2009 12:33 pm

    Great work guys. I think it’s hilarious they editor had to cut off Kevin at the end. :) I’m still waiting for Steve to post the Same Day Edit from his wedding. The first SDE in history perhaps.

  46. Rob Imbs on September 10th, 2009 2:47 pm

    U guys are way obssesed with wedding filmmaking, respect, I’d never wanna do it, too hard. I’ll be at my place with no deadlines, in front of FCP in my boxers until 3am.

  47. Travis Cossel on September 10th, 2009 3:16 pm

    Great stuff.  Lots of interesting discussion in this one.  Loved it!

  48. Sage Hall on September 10th, 2009 4:01 pm

    Always too short! Love the fact that you guys got into two conversations at the same table.

  49. Brian Carpenter on September 10th, 2009 4:13 pm

    Very cool….I think this was the best one so far. very interesting.

  50. Cliff Etzel on September 10th, 2009 5:29 pm

    Once again – outstanding conversation on the whole cinematic wedding genre’.  The two conversations happening at the same time was awesome!

    All I can say is I WANT MORE!!!

  51. david robin on September 11th, 2009 2:02 am

    Great job guys. Shaking up our world for the better!!!

    Ron, We did our first Same Day Edit in 1993, and our first non-linear (timeshift) wedding edit in 2002. Anyone earlier than that?

  52. Shiv Kumar on September 11th, 2009 4:22 am

    This one was by far the best so far. Very energetic and the conversation was a 4 way conversation.

    I do feel there are way too many camera moves,  way too many cuts at the “wrong time” and cuts to out of focus shots. I find it very distracting. I think in this one because the conversations were actually interesting the production was in the way :)

    But keep them coming Steve, what you’re doing is tremendous.

  53. Bill Vincent on September 11th, 2009 4:32 pm

    Thanks to Zacuto for producing these clips! I am loving the dialogue between everyone. You guys rock.

  54. Guest on September 12th, 2009 1:54 pm

    i like the camera moves but it’s way to much frickin moving around and you cut way to much. I cut like this when I was first learning how to use a switcher as a TD. Just relax and let these dudes talk.

  55. Caleb on September 12th, 2009 1:57 pm

    I love the content, a lot of good ideas and thoughts. But the way it was cut gave me a headache. Especially at 4:34-4:47. Way to many cuts. I think it could be cut differently so that the viewer can focus on the ideas and not be jared by the quick cuts, pans etc.

    Keep em coming! Thank!

  56. Susan Rapp on September 18th, 2009 11:48 am

    Simon: thanks for checking out the series and for of course, loving it. See you in Twitterville, ~ @zacuto_sue

  57. Bill Strehl on September 24th, 2009 10:58 am

    Steve and Jens:

    I think you have really hit your stride with casts 4 and 5.  Thanks for always having at least 1 person I never new existed and adding  the behind the scenes component (which could be longer)!

  58. Cliff Etzel on September 25th, 2009 1:59 pm

    Great stuff yet again!!!  I can’t get enough of listening to all of you bouncing al these topics around this medium.

    Don’t stop!!! :)

  59. Travis Cossel on September 25th, 2009 3:42 pm

    Great discussion with some hot topics.  Can’t believe music came up!

  60. Nino Leitner on October 3rd, 2009 5:32 pm

    Great discussion. Though I think the title might be a bit misleading this time around, because only the beginning is about social media culture.

    I think the most interesting thing is what Kevin mentions: He talks about putting so much additional effort into a 15.000 $ project so it looks like a 25.000 $ project, in order to be able to get these kinds of clients next time around. I think this is something which many, many filmmakers nowadays can identify with.
    I just directed my first RED commercial although the budget was only good enough for an EX3 shoot. Shooting on such a camera of course also means additional camera assistants, jib operators, and stuff like that. Not to mention the post production workflow. Everybody just wanted to create a reference for future clients who might be able to spend a few thousands more to get this look and that standard of filmmaking. And I know this works … and as the filmmaking world gets more competitive every day, this is the ONLY way ambitious freelance filmmakers have to ramp up their productions to a higher level each and every time. 

  61. Dave Grant on October 6th, 2009 9:17 am

    Great stuff again, learning loads all the time,

  62. Sandrino Cueva on October 7th, 2009 5:34 pm

    Excellent discussion and by all means continue the series….can’t wait for the next one.

  63. David Hutchinson on October 20th, 2009 1:29 pm

    Here in the UK you actually need two licences to use any commercial music on a wedding DVD. together they cost less than $10 per disk. It’s a great system – but we still have a grey area with putting them on the web.

  64. Steve Weiss on October 20th, 2009 5:58 pm


    I think the music business is the most stupid of all.  It would be so easy to create all kinds of license fees for various uses and it’s free money for the music industry.  Who wouldn’t pay $10 to get a license for a wedding.  If they charge a web license of $15 for video use on the web, we would all get them?  For an industry that is failing, it’s no shock why ;-)

  65. Rob Imbs on October 21st, 2009 12:55 pm

    I didn’t know what WEVA was before watching this, but it was cool to hear you all passionatly discuss your opinions of event shows in general. I went to Macworld several years ago and for me the biggest value was networking/meeting people that I looked up to. Plus it was cool to be around all of the geeky Mac stuff that I love.
    That said, I agree with Steve about how the internet is exposing and changing the way that professionals communicate and get to know one another. Respectfully, I had never heard of you guys before this show, but now I have an opinion on what kind of people you are and I have checked out some of your work. If I wanted to I could send you a @ reply on twitter of talk to you over facebook. So alot of the value that trade shows offer me, can now be realized from my home computer.
    I think that’s another reason why they don’t have Macworld anymore, too expensive, and most of the networking is being done online.

  66. Susan Rapp on October 21st, 2009 1:15 pm

    Thanks Rob ~ I’m glad you got to meet this amazing group of talented filmmakers in Cast 4 & 5. They have completely changed what I have always envisioned to be “Wedding Videos.” It’s a whole new world of avant garde wedding films: Kristen* with her nostalgia + couture film look, Kevin’s mind blowing “Concept Films”, Patrick’s amazing signature look and branding, Joe Simon with his perfect touch of magic, and not to mention John’s passion for capturing moments and Ron’s amazing sense of the entire industry. Keep watching for Cast 6 & 7. Twitter hugs, ~ @zacuto_sue

  67. Rob Imbs on October 21st, 2009 3:58 pm

    I had no idea that there was a market of filmmakers out there who took shooting weddings as seriously as some filmmakers take shooting features. 
    And I’m looking forward to seeing Phil back at the Film Fellas table. I have a great fondness for the look and technogies surrounding modern cinematogrophy, so I assume I’ll love what the next cast has to say.

  68. Bill Vincent on October 21st, 2009 4:03 pm

    Great Episode guys!!  Loved watching. I come from an interesting perspective since I am very new to the wedding videography business – however I’ve been in corporate and broadcast for years prior to this. We “opened our doors” for business at the end of August. Since then I had to decide (as a new wedding videographer) which conference would benefit me most – WEVA in Orlando, or RE:Frame in SF. Both seemed really appealing, but I chose WEVA, for several reasons. One is that they had all kinds of seminars for the beginning wedding videographer, and lots of sessions on general topics related to the industry. RE:Frame seems a bit more workshop-intensive – and I think that’s good for sharpening the saw but not for learning the nuts and bolts. Plus, WEVA had thousands in attendance – and a chance to meet most all the luminaries in the industry in one place. I was fortunate enough to meet Ron there, and several other folks with big names in the videographer space. 

    Next year I will probably go to RE:Frame simply because I’m dying to go hands-on with some of these great folks and get creative. But this year, WEVA was worth every penny to me and the 12 hour drive I made to get there. It answered a huge amount of questions on the basics, something I would guess probably isn’t the main focus of RE:Frame. 

  69. New user on October 21st, 2009 7:27 pm

    Hey Sue. It was such a pleasure being on the show and meeting you. Thanks for all the FF updates on Twitter.

    Oh, and by the way, you should take a look at our wedding work too. I don’t think you ever have. :)

  70. Scott W. Smith on October 26th, 2009 10:44 am

    I was just looking for some equipment and stumbled upon this screencast. Look forward to watching others. But as far as stealing/being influenced by others…that is the history of the world. Even Spielberg and Scorsese openingly talk about who they steal from. (Speaking of Scorsese, I see your poster for FilmFellas was stolen/influenced by Scorsese’s “Goodfellas”) The orginal part of creating anything comes when you merge all your different influences into your creative blender.

  71. digger on December 11th, 2009 12:58 pm

    The market you are debating is tiny. Any couple who spends $20K  on wedding video is probably spending $30K on photography. I suspect there is a strong correlation between these clients and the parents who obsess over beauty pagents for their kids.

  72. Nino Leitner on January 12th, 2010 6:22 pm

    Just wanted you to congratulate on FilmFellas, it’s incredible that you are offering these great high-quality discussions about filmmaking for free. Keep up the great work!  ;)

  73. k03n on May 2nd, 2011 12:00 pm

    Love how every time Zacuto brings the most passionate videographers to the table. That’s quality.

    This show has a very interesting discussion, but the way it’s been edited … it could’ve better been a radio show.

    its so hard to focus on what’s actually being said. When, say, Ron speaks a single sentence, there’ve been at least five cuts from his face to the others and back. Then I have to rewind to understand what Ron is saying. And this happens every sentence …

  74. Steve Weiss on May 2nd, 2011 10:31 pm

    That’s a very interesting observation.  When we first got into web series production we thought that we needed to make the webisodes short and very quickly cut or we would lose peoples interest. We were blazing new territory here.  What we found is that people were upset that our shows were not longer (they were asking for 30 minutes) and cut more like a traditional show.  Many emails I got were saying, “I just got into the show and then you cut if off, give me more”.  Surprised, (usually if never hurts to make shows shorter) of course we listened.  Starting with cast 6 we went to a longer shot format as well as longer webisodes.  

    I went with what I thought would work but I learned.

  75. Ryan Koral on June 1st, 2011 4:42 pm

    finally got around to watching this… great work steve and team… hope to see more stuff like this soon!

  76. Matt Moses on July 20th, 2011 12:14 pm

    Kevin is far and away at the top of the market for wedding filmmaking. 

    I was very interested in the last part , then you got me with “to be continued” … The stuff about price ceilings in the marketplace, the business of bringing films/filmmaking/cinematography to a new market – that is something I am VERY interested in, as I am getting traction in my backyard doing this. 

    Wedding videos aside, I think there are many new markets to explore.  But it comes down to how much time/how many people to accomplish the project in a given month and how much $ your business needs to be profitable VS. how much you could expect this new market to bear in costs… IMO, The stuff HAS to be TIED to sales,products/services because even though the equipment and overhead are very small now, the product LOOKS like it should be $75k+ and more than that in ROI for the client. 

     I would love to hear some discussion about strategies to “justify” or show ROI for the client – client pricing stories?

  77. Rob Kaczmark on July 20th, 2011 12:44 pm

    Wow, another awesome episode. Kevin’s works is simply stunning.

  78. Mandy Rogers on July 20th, 2011 12:48 pm

    Hi Kevin,
    I am glad you were interested. The next episode is right underneath it so you can see the “to be continued”! ~ Enjoy- Mandy

  79. Bill Mcdad on July 20th, 2011 12:49 pm

    Wow!!! so many cuts and camera movement I had to stop watching and just listen. Got dizzy watching this guys. 

  80. Alfred Broadbent on July 20th, 2011 1:41 pm

    I would love to see a film fellas discussing the relationship between photographers and film makers on set.  Since the advent of DSLR’s I have watched photographers at the top of the game take business from video professionals, and the majority of the time these photographers have no idea what it takes to shoot a video.  What ends up happening is the video budget is dissolved into the photographers inflated budget allowing the photographer to capitalize on others work while taking credit under their name.  The only conclusion I can come to is that video professionals need to aggressively pursue photography as a means to bigger budgets.  They are taking our work, time to turn the tables.


These videos have been watched 7391 times


FilmFellas Cast 5

In FilmFellas Cast Five: “The Epic Wedding,” the filmmakers discuss the role of the wedding cinematographer and the craft of creating a new genre of wedding films which showcase courtship re-enactments, epic style filmmaking and the dramatic effect of same-day/on location edits.

Steve Weiss (Director; Critics, FilmFellas)
Patrick Moreau
(Wedding Cinematographer)
Kevin Shahinian (Wedding Filmmaker)
Ron Dawson (Wedding Film Producer)

Check Out Behind the Scenes Images

Zacuto Original Programming

FilmFellas Critics Zacuto Product Training