I'm still learning my around all this stuff. But I have to say, with the exciting massive expensive camera hire, I guess I was kinda expecting an automatic upping of quality with the footage. I guess I expected, in my ignorance, that using such a ridiculously expensive camera (which the professional camera guys Phil and Andy said was only "okay") that the footage would instantly look more professional, more impressive, more cinematic. Well, it doesn't! It's got more clarity than my little camcorder, but that's about it!
I know it's early days, there is still post production after all. Another new one for me. It's funny... no matter how bright and striking a scene looks in real life, it looks so much duller on video. You really have to up the extremes. Darker dark shades, brighter light shades. More natural contrast. The scenes of the darkened party lit by spotlight look pretty cool, but the footage of the band playing looked good at the time, but a little washed out and uninspired now.
It just goes to show that a better camera won't necessarily equal better footage. You still need to know what you're doing. Other videos shot on expensive cameras look better because of the experience of the crew and director, not because a camera magically makes things look more professional.
Seems obvious, doesn't it?
On the plus side, my shoulder doesn't hurt as much anymore, which is good because I'll be manning that camera again on Friday!