Ok, I'm putting this here, because I have an interest in knowing what you guys think of this video, the area of doubt is whether it should be considered as using special effects. Until I see a definition of that it's a pretty silly term when you think about it, I mean what's an 'effect', and what's a 'special' one? You get my drift? I could go on, but put a UV filter on to your camera and it's an effect, so where's the threshold of when something becomes 'special' and so on. I know the term usualy conjurs up tricky digital stuff but what about POV and other forms of camera mounts?
So here we are, this is not a video which has any 'special' effects in it at all, but at least half of it was shot in above 'normal' setup conditions. There's telephoto shots where the subject might be a few hundred yards away, use of a camera crane, use of hand held camera steadies whilst running flat out, and other forms of stabilisation. It's the first vid that uses my latest generation crane, steadycam, and balance beam. Whilst it might not set the world alight, it's leaps and bounds ahead of what I've done before.
Now, I have a view of plenty of things wrong with it, but like a lot of art, the artisan can dwell on stuff that the viewers might not care about, so give me your thoughts on what I should be doing to improve this please, not just what I think it needs for the next step.
The video is elsewhere on the forum, but as a techy sampler, i.e. for other stuff, it's here for useful observations (that's pussy speak for constructive criticism)
As a primer it's not drama or pre-conceived in any way, it mostly can't be by definition of the subject, it's all netted footage cobbled into a video. This is where my main interest lies, and whilst those who participate in the activity shown might have a view, it'll be interesting to hear what those who have no interest in the subject think, so look at it as how you would have dealt with it if your were a 'general' videographer asked to film something you knew little about.