The brief was to make a short, eye catching web video for the Love Football Gambling website. The budget was small so the video had to come in at £700, we decided to go the motion graphics route, using a mix of 2D and 3D graphics, with the emphasis on 2D to keep costs down.
We're finding that more and more, entirely web based businesses prefer promotions such as this, as they're short, snappy and to the point.
Watch the Love Football Gambling video in standard or high definition below.
Double R Productions website
Showing posts with label corporate video company. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate video company. Show all posts
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Friday, 22 July 2011
The Emperor's new 3D clothes 'Is 3D worth all the fuss?'
3D mania is upon us, I've heard of some production companies offering corporate videos in 3D and I recently saw a question on a forum asking if anyone knew any hire houses doing 3D pro-sumer cameras. The person in question had a documentary to shoot and wanted to do it in 3D, my immediate question was; why? Even if your viewers on the film festival circuit could view your documentary about lesbian tramps in Poland in 3D, why would they want to?
For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would want to shoot a documentary or short film or anything else for that matter, in 3D. If your documentary makes it on TV, then about 0.001% of your viewing audience will be able to watch it in 3D, that's if of course you sell it to one of the stations with a 3D channel and the program controller is deranged enough to put it on there, which of course he won't be.
If it does make it onto main stream cinema screens, then you can bet every last penny you have that no cinema chain in their right mind would screen a documentary in 3D, when there's an endless stream of crapulent action-packed guff out there to satiate the masses.
So the only way to find out about the plight of homeless, Polish lesbians will be online where nobody will be able to view it in 3D. So again, I ask the question; why? Needless to say the forum poster wasn't too enamoured with me and my trusty old cynicism and promptly stopped talking to me.
It's nothing new for available camera technology to be ahead of available screen tech, HD cameras were around long before HD TV and computer screens became standard. But what chance 3D screens becoming standard?
The way I see it 3D has got a long way to go before it becomes the accepted standard, even if the current wave of 3D TVs hitting the market crest's in a couple of years and a fair percentage of the viewing public have them, by that time the technology would have moved on. You only have to look at the first LCD HD TVs and gas plasmas, to see that the current 3D TVs will most likely be obsolete in less than a few years.
As for 3D capable computer screens, it'll be years, before there are 3D laptop or desktop screens, in fact in its current format, I don't think it'll ever happen; and here's why.
In that oft quoted experiment, if you put glasses on that skew the world and turn everything upside down, after around 10 minutes or so, your brain will flip everything the right way up and adjust so totally, that when you take the glasses off, you'll see everything upside down.
The same can be said for 3D glasses, anyone who has gone to the cinema to see a 3D film, would have noticed that after a while, you stop noticing the 3D. Unless something flies towards the camera, or there is a slow pan on a big group scene, with people standing at different distances from the camera; you simply stop noticing you're watching in 3D.
The reason for this is, you're watching a 3D film on a 2D screen and your brain is used to the image looking a certain way, it's used to filling in the gaps when you watch 2D TV and giving you a feeling of depth even though it's not really there. It is rather like driving very fast on a motorway or race track, you're going too fast to actually see everything flying past in your peripheral vision, but your brain just fills in the gaps. Those people whose brain lack the ability to do this, get tunnel vision, a greying out of the vision at the sides.
Rather like the Emperor's new clothes, nobody actually wants to admit this fact, 3D TVs are no doubt selling just as well as the first HD TVs and 3D films such as the steaming pile of dung that is Transformers 3D are packed to the rafters for every performance.
But like the little boy in the story who shout's 'the Emperor's naked!' I to will shout, 3D's crap! It's not worth it yet! Don't waste your time or money!
Until I can get 3D TV that wraps around my vision, akin to some kind of iMax on steroids, or actual holographic type 3D or at the very least a version where I don't have to suffer those bloody glasses, a real pain in the glasses if you're already part of the spectacle wearing generation; there'll be no point, as my brain will just normalise what I'm viewing and I might as well have saved my money and watched the normal version of Tron.
Why do you think 3D didn't stick the first time around? For all the same reasons it won't stick this time around, until I can get R2D2 quality and I can walk around the picture, then the Real 3D plastic specs are going the same way as the red and blue paper ones of old.
Whilst 3D TV might help gain a little more perspective for certain scenes or certain scenarios (I've heard golf looks pretty good in 3D) for the most part it doesn't enhance viewing enough to warrant the extra expense, especially when it comes to buying camera equipment. In other words it makes about as much sense as Mel Gibson would after a stag weekend in Ibiza organised by Charlie Sheen, personally I'm waiting till the Emperor gets dressed in some clothes I can actually see.
Double R Productions
For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would want to shoot a documentary or short film or anything else for that matter, in 3D. If your documentary makes it on TV, then about 0.001% of your viewing audience will be able to watch it in 3D, that's if of course you sell it to one of the stations with a 3D channel and the program controller is deranged enough to put it on there, which of course he won't be.
If it does make it onto main stream cinema screens, then you can bet every last penny you have that no cinema chain in their right mind would screen a documentary in 3D, when there's an endless stream of crapulent action-packed guff out there to satiate the masses.
So the only way to find out about the plight of homeless, Polish lesbians will be online where nobody will be able to view it in 3D. So again, I ask the question; why? Needless to say the forum poster wasn't too enamoured with me and my trusty old cynicism and promptly stopped talking to me.
It's nothing new for available camera technology to be ahead of available screen tech, HD cameras were around long before HD TV and computer screens became standard. But what chance 3D screens becoming standard?
The way I see it 3D has got a long way to go before it becomes the accepted standard, even if the current wave of 3D TVs hitting the market crest's in a couple of years and a fair percentage of the viewing public have them, by that time the technology would have moved on. You only have to look at the first LCD HD TVs and gas plasmas, to see that the current 3D TVs will most likely be obsolete in less than a few years.
As for 3D capable computer screens, it'll be years, before there are 3D laptop or desktop screens, in fact in its current format, I don't think it'll ever happen; and here's why.
In that oft quoted experiment, if you put glasses on that skew the world and turn everything upside down, after around 10 minutes or so, your brain will flip everything the right way up and adjust so totally, that when you take the glasses off, you'll see everything upside down.
The same can be said for 3D glasses, anyone who has gone to the cinema to see a 3D film, would have noticed that after a while, you stop noticing the 3D. Unless something flies towards the camera, or there is a slow pan on a big group scene, with people standing at different distances from the camera; you simply stop noticing you're watching in 3D.
The reason for this is, you're watching a 3D film on a 2D screen and your brain is used to the image looking a certain way, it's used to filling in the gaps when you watch 2D TV and giving you a feeling of depth even though it's not really there. It is rather like driving very fast on a motorway or race track, you're going too fast to actually see everything flying past in your peripheral vision, but your brain just fills in the gaps. Those people whose brain lack the ability to do this, get tunnel vision, a greying out of the vision at the sides.
Rather like the Emperor's new clothes, nobody actually wants to admit this fact, 3D TVs are no doubt selling just as well as the first HD TVs and 3D films such as the steaming pile of dung that is Transformers 3D are packed to the rafters for every performance.
But like the little boy in the story who shout's 'the Emperor's naked!' I to will shout, 3D's crap! It's not worth it yet! Don't waste your time or money!
Until I can get 3D TV that wraps around my vision, akin to some kind of iMax on steroids, or actual holographic type 3D or at the very least a version where I don't have to suffer those bloody glasses, a real pain in the glasses if you're already part of the spectacle wearing generation; there'll be no point, as my brain will just normalise what I'm viewing and I might as well have saved my money and watched the normal version of Tron.
Why do you think 3D didn't stick the first time around? For all the same reasons it won't stick this time around, until I can get R2D2 quality and I can walk around the picture, then the Real 3D plastic specs are going the same way as the red and blue paper ones of old.
Whilst 3D TV might help gain a little more perspective for certain scenes or certain scenarios (I've heard golf looks pretty good in 3D) for the most part it doesn't enhance viewing enough to warrant the extra expense, especially when it comes to buying camera equipment. In other words it makes about as much sense as Mel Gibson would after a stag weekend in Ibiza organised by Charlie Sheen, personally I'm waiting till the Emperor gets dressed in some clothes I can actually see.
Double R Productions
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
How much should my web video production cost?
The question; how much should my web video production cost? Has been asked by countless businesspeople in companies ranging from, small start-ups to large multi-national blue chips. Although of course, a blue chip making a mistake in this area is a lot better placed to rectify, than a start-up.
Ultimately the first question will lead to another; which corporate video company should I use for my production?
The problem that I think a lot of smaller to medium sized businesses have, is that when they want to produce a web video, either for promotional purposes or instructional they haven't got a clear idea of how expectations can effect costs.
For example, I, on countless occassions (and I'm sure I'm not the only corporate video company out there who has experienced this) have had a potential client show me an example of the video that they've seen, liked and want to emulate, only to be told that the budget is £X.
Guaranteed £X is usually in the region of 7 to 10 times smaller than the budget of the video they are looking at.
This phenomena is not just restricted to the business world, I've had dozens of music artists over the years send me links to Jay-Z videos and other high production value, high cost productions and then tell me they want the same done for £700. When the videos they're looking at have cost sometimes in the tens of thousands of pounds.
This is probably in part, because a well made, slick music or corporate video will have all the elements blended together in harmony, from the dialogue, to the music, to the shots on screen, the edit, everything will be made to look as if there has been hardly any effort at all put into the production.
Mostly however, the lack of knowledge when it comes to a video production budget, is down to the fact that most of us have never been involved in a video production, so have no idea as to what it should cost.
So, how best to budget for your video? Well the only way to do that is to have some understanding of what it takes to get your 3 minute web video onto your site and also understanding what sort of quality you can expect for a particular cost.
Let's imagine that I have a business which sells an online financial service and I've decided to make a web video showing how the site works and the benefits of my services over my competitors, I have about a £1500 budget, but no idea as to what this can get me.
I have a strong sales pitch and want to use that in my script, OK great, now I watch a video on youtube and see a company similar to mine with a great promotional web video, it has site demos with snazzy motion graphics, and live action mixed in, I decide that I want something like that.
The first thing I need to think about is, how many different elements went into making this video? Well the video is 3 minutes long and it shows their website on screen and the site is being navigated while there's a voiceover. However the website isn't just static, when it gets smaller and moves to the left of the screen, there's another screen next to it with 2 actors.
Behind the two screens there are more graphics, relating to the product, the actors can be seen acting out the script in 5 different locations and in one of the locations another actor pops up. The video ends with a stream of graphics flying back into a web page, showing my competitor's website.
Right so how much should I have to pay to re-create something like that?
Let's break it down:
Let's explore the first option, doing a less costly version, so; what should I cut out and how much will that save me?
I can only know that, if I have at least a rough idea of how much the video cost, and my guess is my competitor won't be so forthcoming with that information.
OK here's a rough guidline to how much these things cost, obviously different web video companies will value their work at different rates, but I'll try and give you ballparks.
We can view the motion graphics as one element, the more snazzy and eye catching the motion graphics and animation, the more likely that someone other than the editor will be tasked to do the job. Anyway I know that whoever does it, it will probably take at least two, possibly three days to create. Also, if I go to a big web video company with lots of producers and editors and such, their rates are likely to be higher as the company will take a cut out of their freelance sub-contractors' fees.
So 3 days of motion graphics will cost between £750 and £1800 at the rates of £250-600 p/d, depending on who I go to.
Then there's the cameraman and or director and assistant, my fictional video looked very pretty photographically so I'm going to say there was one of each, there were 5 locations though 2 of them looked like they could have been in the same place.
So four locations, I'm assuming they're close to each other, but that's still a day £500 for the director £350 for the cameraman £200 for the assistant, brings it to £1050.
The camera and sound equipment will cost another £300 and the lights another £500
The script was well delivered so I'm going to assume my 2 principal actors where on at least £400 each for the day and my bit part guy was on £200, that's £1000.
Not forgetting the voiceover artist at £150 per finished minute of voice.
Then the editor is going to have to log all the footage and edit it, there's going to be about an hour of footage per location, so even a quick editor, who is going to have to do at least some of the motion graphics is going to take at least a day, that's between £250 and £400.
OK I haven't even got to sundries yet but I know that the main elements in this web video are going to have to cost at the very least £4300. So now I can see what the most costly elements are, I can now look to get rid of them or modify them to make my own video within my budget.
The first big expense I can really cut into is the voice over, I can do this myself, I know the script so it can be done quickly, that's just saved me £4300 - £450 = £3850.
Right; what's next? Actors do I need them? Well I can write a good sales pitch playing one part myself, then I'll pay an actress to be the customer. So that's just saved me £3850 - £600 = £3250.
OK now we're getting somewhere, the next big expense is motion graphics, I can still take elements I like from my test video, but I need to talk with the production company show them the graphics and tell them that my budget is limited and that I can afford no more than a day's wortth of motion graphics.
This should get their creative juices flowing knowing they've got to find a clever way to simulate what I like about the video whilst keeping costs down and it'll also give me an idea of how close I can get to the feel of the video with my budget. That's saved me a potential minimum of £3250 - £500 = £2750.
My next big expense is the lighting, the director and the assistant, if it's shot in my nice bright office or one that I can borrow or rent cheaply for a few hours, then minimum extra lighting can be used, like portable interview lights. So that's saved me £2750 - £500 (director) - £200 (assistant) and - £250 (lights, I'd expect to pay a bit for interview lights) = £1850. If I cut the actress I can get down to £1450, so now I'm totally on budget.
Now because I've only taken a few hours to film and my motion graphics are simpler, then I might even be able to save a bit on the editing, however now I'm at a budget that is affordable and I've got realistic expectations on the content of the video, I still expect it to be excellent quality and I'll still expect to use it for some time to come, but now I'll know I'll have excellent value for money and I'll be able to make my choice of video production company based on realistic expectations and budget.
Obviously the scenario above is completely fictional, but hopefully that's given some insight into what goes into making a web video and how much it should cost and that in turn will go some way in helping you choose the right corporate video company.
Double R Productions website
Ultimately the first question will lead to another; which corporate video company should I use for my production?
The problem that I think a lot of smaller to medium sized businesses have, is that when they want to produce a web video, either for promotional purposes or instructional they haven't got a clear idea of how expectations can effect costs.
For example, I, on countless occassions (and I'm sure I'm not the only corporate video company out there who has experienced this) have had a potential client show me an example of the video that they've seen, liked and want to emulate, only to be told that the budget is £X.
Guaranteed £X is usually in the region of 7 to 10 times smaller than the budget of the video they are looking at.
This phenomena is not just restricted to the business world, I've had dozens of music artists over the years send me links to Jay-Z videos and other high production value, high cost productions and then tell me they want the same done for £700. When the videos they're looking at have cost sometimes in the tens of thousands of pounds.
This is probably in part, because a well made, slick music or corporate video will have all the elements blended together in harmony, from the dialogue, to the music, to the shots on screen, the edit, everything will be made to look as if there has been hardly any effort at all put into the production.
Mostly however, the lack of knowledge when it comes to a video production budget, is down to the fact that most of us have never been involved in a video production, so have no idea as to what it should cost.
So, how best to budget for your video? Well the only way to do that is to have some understanding of what it takes to get your 3 minute web video onto your site and also understanding what sort of quality you can expect for a particular cost.
Let's imagine that I have a business which sells an online financial service and I've decided to make a web video showing how the site works and the benefits of my services over my competitors, I have about a £1500 budget, but no idea as to what this can get me.
I have a strong sales pitch and want to use that in my script, OK great, now I watch a video on youtube and see a company similar to mine with a great promotional web video, it has site demos with snazzy motion graphics, and live action mixed in, I decide that I want something like that.
The first thing I need to think about is, how many different elements went into making this video? Well the video is 3 minutes long and it shows their website on screen and the site is being navigated while there's a voiceover. However the website isn't just static, when it gets smaller and moves to the left of the screen, there's another screen next to it with 2 actors.
Behind the two screens there are more graphics, relating to the product, the actors can be seen acting out the script in 5 different locations and in one of the locations another actor pops up. The video ends with a stream of graphics flying back into a web page, showing my competitor's website.
Right so how much should I have to pay to re-create something like that?
Let's break it down:
- The screen capture and motion graphics to show the website in action
- The motion graphics for the website and live video
- A cameraman/director to film the actors
- An assistant
- A camera
- 3 wireless mics
- Lights at least 3 medium sized heads
- A production vehicle
- Food for crew and actors if shoot takes more than a few hours
- 3 actors
- A voiceover artist
- 5 different locations
- Branding logos and motion graphics for the end
- An editor to put all this together
- Time - It's going to take time to shoot in all those different locations, possibly days, depending on how far apart they are, how complex the script is and how good the actors are.
Let's explore the first option, doing a less costly version, so; what should I cut out and how much will that save me?
I can only know that, if I have at least a rough idea of how much the video cost, and my guess is my competitor won't be so forthcoming with that information.
OK here's a rough guidline to how much these things cost, obviously different web video companies will value their work at different rates, but I'll try and give you ballparks.
We can view the motion graphics as one element, the more snazzy and eye catching the motion graphics and animation, the more likely that someone other than the editor will be tasked to do the job. Anyway I know that whoever does it, it will probably take at least two, possibly three days to create. Also, if I go to a big web video company with lots of producers and editors and such, their rates are likely to be higher as the company will take a cut out of their freelance sub-contractors' fees.
So 3 days of motion graphics will cost between £750 and £1800 at the rates of £250-600 p/d, depending on who I go to.
Then there's the cameraman and or director and assistant, my fictional video looked very pretty photographically so I'm going to say there was one of each, there were 5 locations though 2 of them looked like they could have been in the same place.
So four locations, I'm assuming they're close to each other, but that's still a day £500 for the director £350 for the cameraman £200 for the assistant, brings it to £1050.
The camera and sound equipment will cost another £300 and the lights another £500
The script was well delivered so I'm going to assume my 2 principal actors where on at least £400 each for the day and my bit part guy was on £200, that's £1000.
Not forgetting the voiceover artist at £150 per finished minute of voice.
Then the editor is going to have to log all the footage and edit it, there's going to be about an hour of footage per location, so even a quick editor, who is going to have to do at least some of the motion graphics is going to take at least a day, that's between £250 and £400.
OK I haven't even got to sundries yet but I know that the main elements in this web video are going to have to cost at the very least £4300. So now I can see what the most costly elements are, I can now look to get rid of them or modify them to make my own video within my budget.
The first big expense I can really cut into is the voice over, I can do this myself, I know the script so it can be done quickly, that's just saved me £4300 - £450 = £3850.
Right; what's next? Actors do I need them? Well I can write a good sales pitch playing one part myself, then I'll pay an actress to be the customer. So that's just saved me £3850 - £600 = £3250.
OK now we're getting somewhere, the next big expense is motion graphics, I can still take elements I like from my test video, but I need to talk with the production company show them the graphics and tell them that my budget is limited and that I can afford no more than a day's wortth of motion graphics.
This should get their creative juices flowing knowing they've got to find a clever way to simulate what I like about the video whilst keeping costs down and it'll also give me an idea of how close I can get to the feel of the video with my budget. That's saved me a potential minimum of £3250 - £500 = £2750.
My next big expense is the lighting, the director and the assistant, if it's shot in my nice bright office or one that I can borrow or rent cheaply for a few hours, then minimum extra lighting can be used, like portable interview lights. So that's saved me £2750 - £500 (director) - £200 (assistant) and - £250 (lights, I'd expect to pay a bit for interview lights) = £1850. If I cut the actress I can get down to £1450, so now I'm totally on budget.
Now because I've only taken a few hours to film and my motion graphics are simpler, then I might even be able to save a bit on the editing, however now I'm at a budget that is affordable and I've got realistic expectations on the content of the video, I still expect it to be excellent quality and I'll still expect to use it for some time to come, but now I'll know I'll have excellent value for money and I'll be able to make my choice of video production company based on realistic expectations and budget.
Obviously the scenario above is completely fictional, but hopefully that's given some insight into what goes into making a web video and how much it should cost and that in turn will go some way in helping you choose the right corporate video company.
Double R Productions website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)