As in, when setting up camera('s) do you often have more than one cam per shot, or do you make the best you can with one?


What I find works best for me, and I don't know if I plan on changing it any time soon; is have say... 4 different planned camera angles for any given scene. Then I make the actors act out that particular scene 4 different times, once for each angle and of course rotating the camera to points 1, 2, 3 and 4 at some point.

This is easily the best way for me o make sure a camera doesn't capture a shot of another camera somewhere in the shot at a perhaps critical time.

That method is well-recognized. Law and Order uses it a lot, most of the dialogue you see on the streets, in hallways, etc. are actually two takes of the same scene using one camera. Be careful not to cross the 180 degree line.

I think a lot of us student filmmakers operate by this method unintentionally, if simply for the fact that we don't have the money for more than one camera.

Most every single drama-show on TV, along with a FEW select comedies are one camera shows. Most sitcoms are three camera shows and are done like a play, except with multiple takes. Shows such as Scrubs and hour dramas are made more like movies (One camera). The 1 camera mode gives you a LOT more freedom with where you shoot, and how you shoot.... So yeah. Just do it. (to steal nike's tag line)

I've never used more than one camera at a time before, although I'm going to be shooting with 2 HDV cameras on a short scheduled for May.

I vary between shooting total coverage, as described above, or using a shot list, and shooting only what I need. Somewhere in the middle is usually best for me. A good variety to edit with, but a good idea what I'll use too.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: titaniumdoughnut,

I'm kinda' suprised that show like Law and Order would use such a method. I just guess that when a show has a schedule of one ep. per week, I thought they'd shoot things more efficiently. That just seems too slow to me.

I'm suprised that more people shoot like this. I knew I wouldn't be alone, but I did expect to see someone like Ti shooting with 5,500 camera's.

Think about it.



EDIT: Actually, in hind site; I have seen Fletcher the Alien Catcher (most of it... dude, run on dial up here!_!), and it felt like it had a single cam set up; now that I think aboot it.

Hahaha... I really prefer not to use more than one camera when I don't need to. It just makes more sense to me to put all of your effort into the one image, and get the other angles one at a time. On this project that's coming up, we're in a really tight schedule, and the actors are going to be so good that they can nail the scene in single uninterrupted takes (I hope) so it does make more sense to shoot 2 cams. It might be 3, actually. I need to check on that.

Oh, also, when I guest DP an episode of 24 (yeah, right ), I'll have to use multiple cams.

quote:

and the actors are going to be so good that they can nail the scene in single uninterrupted takes

Providing we cast based on talent and not... talent.

OOOOH! SNAP!

Ehheh... hmmm... anyway... back on topic: One camera's nice because, if you're cheap and don't bother with dailies (serious question - does anyone at the student level?), you've still seen all the footage, so when it comes to editing you know what you've got.

Check out the dvd special features for Lars Von Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" where they used up to 100 cameras for some of the musical sequences (mainly the train one though i think). Von trier also said later that 100 really wasn't that much and he would have preferred more like 1000, seeing as he was going one huge long sequence.

That horrifies me. In fact, Lars Von Trier horrifies me, come to think of it.

quote:

In fact, Lars Von Trier horrifies me, come to think of it.

and so u should be

i think it depends on the director, and what exactly theyre searching to do with the film. sure one camera seems to be enough, but if you got like 5 characters in the room and there's openeness, you're gonna want every little moment. so id say for every two actors, have one camera.

quote:

That horrifies me. In fact, Lars Von Trier horrifies me, come to think of it.

You and me both dude.

On to the topic? I'll sometimes use two or three cameras and shoot a whole dialogue. Sometimes I'll use one and do multiple takes. It depends on lots of things, the actors, the location, the lighting, etc.

I always use one camera, and usually when I'm filming I'm thinking about how I'm going to edit it. To me, that means picking a shot, shooting it, figuring out what the next shot of the film will be, and shooting that. I do have to watch the dailies and possibly reshoot certain scenes, but I like that much better than trying to coordinate multiple cameras. In terms of longer scenes, I usually shoot them in almost entireity from 2-3 angles, but I dont concern myself so much with the continuity. If the actors have changed slightly from one shot to the next, I'll use the one I like and cut to others when a cut is needed. Essentially, I use the "shot list" method for 85% of my shots and the "total coverage" method for about 15%.

Shoot for the cut. The story you're telling should dictate how you go about it. You need to understand what the beats are and then feel how they need to come across. Sometimes scenes are best played out in one shot, sometimes budget demands you don't cover a scene as much as you'd like, but if you understand your story you can always make the best decisions as to how to shoot it. Standard coverage is usually boring and ineffective IMO.

Nota "Sometimes gets nervous during blocking" Mono

I agree that standard coverage is pretty foul. I don't intend to shoot anything that way in the near future. A mixture of pre-conceived technical moves with improvised, motivated angles is good.

Personally I like coordinating long, complex moving camera takes on a Glidecam making it impossible for any other camera to cover the scene since it would nearly without question get in the way at some point in a shot.

Depends really.

I always shoot with one camera as I cant affrord to have a second on set. However, I would prefer to have one "A"Camera on a complex shoot and a small "B" Team to take inserts and B-roll footage (woods, cut-aways and what not) that might come in handy in editing. Wasting time to set up a ECU of feet running by could be done by someone else and the director could go on and focus on the actor scenes and the more complicated setups.

This, however, makes only sense in complex films where you can afford to have a second team gunning around.

I used to think that I'd shoot only in masters and no coverage (just like spielberg)...however, in a student/indie production, it is very often the case that we will not have time to get qall the shots planed because of time issues...and that is where that concept gets into real trouble. Missing 5-10 shots could be a disaster. I feel like a good mix is the way to go as long as I dont have a top team, enough time and enough budget. I usually cover my ass with close ups...or at least that is what I will do in the future (believe me, I painfully miss em in my last film). You can always cut to a CU jjust for safety.


Anyway, it always depends on the style and film. I don't think there is a rule. A comedy is definitely more suited for basic coverage than an action film.

"Personally I like coordinating long, complex moving camera takes on a Glidecam making it impossible for any other camera to cover the scene since it would nearly without question get in the way at some point in a shot."

That's good too.

The less you shoot the better.

The old axiom "grab your feet shots" i.e. close-ups is a sign of poor planning. I would say 3 takes max and try to limit yourself when it comes to number of cameras. Planning shows. Yes filming everything is safer, but also rather dull and limiting.

Also rehearsing, for me, is required.

Eh, just mess around.

When it comes to the style, sometimes it`s essential to have multiple cameras(to have certain look). I personally use only one camera. If I would use multiple cameras I would have too many variables on my set at this stage of development to become a feature filmmaker.