PDA

View Full Version : Two camera shoot



Jon Oskar
01-10-2006, 07:24 PM
Shooting with two cameras sounds like a great thing to do, especially in video as the cams are relatively cheep and this could technically save allot of production money. Im thinking it would be nice to get the CU at the same time you are shooting the OTS, saving times and sawing the actors energies.
All though i am well aware that this has bin done for ages, it seems that many times i have heard directors talk about it it has tended to be downplayed as a handy extra but not as extremely important feature, except maybe for action sequences, which is not what im talking about. Can anyone with experience comment on the pros and cons of shooting with two cameras, what possible problems there are and how it relates to overlapping action.

Many thanx

Jon

rsbush
01-11-2006, 07:31 AM
The major obstacle is lighting. It's takes much more time to light for more than one camera and even if you give it the time it requires you don't have as much control.

Matthew B. Moore
01-11-2006, 09:40 AM
It really depends on what you are after. We will often set out with the use of one camera in mind, but take the 2nd and run it durring the take just to pick up that little extra tid-bit that you might need for editing. Put the more creative framer on the 2nd camera. Let them know the boundaries of the primary camera, then cut them loose. I love having extra footage. We do a lot of combat type stuff and we alway run 1 or 2 extra cameras when shooting that kind of thing.
Alot depends on style and the way you like to edit.
It helps when your ops know each other and know to look to each other for boundaries.
I've found it very helpful in getting reactions shots. When I'm directing, I'll have an extra camera standing by in case something catches my eye.

The biggest con can be time if you are trying to stucture the two cameras to get a specific thing. Keep it more fluid and I think the biggest hastle will be an occasional peep at the other op out of the corner of the frame or a shadow.
It's all in the placement and communication.

Jon Oskar
01-11-2006, 10:43 AM
Interesting points, can anyone elaborate on why it is more hard to light.

Matthew B. Moore
01-11-2006, 10:48 AM
I don't think lighting a 2 cam shoot is any different than if you were lighting for one. Watch th lens flairs and shadows. Keep an eye on the lighing comp if you cross to the other side of the orginally designed shot. You may not get the best look if you stray too far from the cam 1 comp.

spidey
01-11-2006, 11:19 AM
yea best thing i can say in agreeance with matt is make sure you got a camera operator who can give the same look as the other. it can be harder in faster production i guessing its not so much in productions you have lots of time on.

Jon Oskar
01-11-2006, 11:59 AM
is there a problem cutting together footage from a two camera shoot, what is there to be aware of?

spidey
01-11-2006, 12:02 PM
not really its jst how each compositiion. fit to one another.

Matthew B. Moore
01-11-2006, 12:06 PM
is there a problem cutting together footage from a two camera shoot, what is there to be aware of?

It's not hard. The audio and video lend to each other, so your cuts will look right on (because they are). I think you will enjoy editing with extra footy. It's also great for getting you out of tight editing corner. Just imagine standard footage plus a whole lot of extra stuff to push around.

j
01-11-2006, 02:19 PM
Lighting a 2 camera shoot *is* different than lighting a one camera shoot. Multicamera lighting is always a compromise.

Do you think there is a different look between a multicamera shoot on a stage, and a single camera shoot?

That's like setting up your lighting for your master shot, but not adjusting it with flags nets and scrims when you move in for a closeup.

Afterall, there is only *one* best angle.

Yeah, you get a lot more footage out of 2 cameras, but it takes longer to set up and block, and the footage might not be the absolute best, which is what I try to achieve.

For myself, I only shoot one camera except if I am shooting animals, children, crowds or stunts.

-j

Matthew B. Moore
01-11-2006, 04:22 PM
Lighting a 2 camera shoot *is* different than lighting a one camera shoot. Multicamera lighting is always a compromise.

Do you think there is a different look between a multicamera shoot on a stage, and a single camera shoot?

That's like setting up your lighting for your master shot, but not adjusting it with flags nets and scrims when you move in for a closeup.

Afterall, there is only *one* best angle.

Yeah, you get a lot more footage out of 2 cameras, but it takes longer to set up and block, and the footage might not be the absolute best, which is what I try to achieve.

For myself, I only shoot one camera except if I am shooting animals, children, crowds or stunts.
-j


Matt here,
I have to disagree with you. If you light a master well, you should be able to play with that area of lighting quite a bit. Pushing in for coverage is a whole new deal.
Your thinking is too narrow on this one. Think from the mind of an editor for a moment. The more you have of a performance, the more you will be able to cut to. That "one" perfect angle may have a problem at one point in time and you might need something to bail to. There are a million things that can go wrong or be missed.
I have to disagree with you on the "one" best angle statement as well. Your photography does not need to be compromised in this process, if you understand your lighting and you set. Standard coverage is not always the answer. The more films I make, the clearer that becomes. All you need is a good DP and a Camera Op who knows his DP and Director.

spidey
01-11-2006, 04:23 PM
yea i mean as long as your lit all that you want lit is what matters. then boh your shots are set.

Jon Oskar
01-11-2006, 04:30 PM
?Pushing in for coverage is a whole new deal.?

Why? What do you mean?

thanx!

ericyoung
01-12-2006, 04:45 AM
Matt here,
I have to disagree with you. If you light a master well, you should be able to play with that area of lighting quite a bit.

I think that's too much of a generalisation Matt. It depends on how precise the cinematography is required to be for the desired "look" and "style" of the film. A gritty ultra contemporary thriller perhaps suits a loose shooting style, with less emphasis on every shot being perfectly lit. Whereas, if the desired style is extremely painterly, with lots of closeups, like you might find in a glossy commercial, then I would bet every shot would be lit individually for a single camera. Other styles will fall between the extremes.

Probably the best compromise would be to shoot with two cameras from the same angle but with different shot sizes. That way, you get matching complementary coverage with the least compromise in lighting.

What if you don't want to shoot masters, but tracking midshots that reveal geography with movement? Shooting two camera is going to be much harder because laying two sets of track and dolly ain't going to be easy, unless perhaps the second camera is Steadicam or handheld. But they have a particular look which may not be appropriate.

*** And don't forget it makes getting a boom mic in potentially much more difficult, so sound could be more adversely affected than lighting. ***

In the end though, there is no rule that says you can't shoot with two (or more) cameras in any way you choose. If you've got the budget, enough good camera and sound operators that work together as a team, enough of the right lighting, and they don't get in each other's way, then go for it!

spidey
01-12-2006, 05:26 AM
i dont think you would shoot two camera master shots.

ericyoung
01-12-2006, 07:00 AM
i dont think you would shoot two camera master shots.

Hi Spidey

If that comment was referring to my post, that's not two "master" shots. One is a wider shot which might be used as a master and one is a different sized tighter shot from the same angle.

j
01-12-2006, 07:34 AM
What's more important, coverage or quality? For the editor, coverage. For the DP, quality. A really good DP not only knows how to get the best quality, but when to compromise and get all the coverage necessary to tell the story.

I was responding to the statement: "I don't think lighting a 2 cam shoot is any different than if you were lighting for one."

Lighting a 2 camera shoot is of course, different than lighting a single camera shoot. A good DP will know what needs to be done in order to tell the story. If coverage is more important, then, yes multiple cameras may be needed.

But I stand by belief that there is only one best angle. Every shoot I do reinforces that. Motion, framing, focus are all considerations, not just lighting. I'm not saying there is only one best shot for each scene, there may be 10 or 20, but for each shot, there is only one best angle, and one best lighting for that angle.

-j

spidey
01-12-2006, 07:54 AM
i disagree, I come from a visual look and lighting and eiditng stand point i get coverage to the point to where people are like jeez but i know what is needed in editing. quality is not comprimised in doing that either.

rsbush
01-12-2006, 08:24 AM
Jon, As I see it.

Pro: more coverage; easier to match the action and the emotion of a scene

Con: can take more time; blocking must be considered from as many angles as you have cameras; lighting and audio must be more generalized in most situations

What's important to you should be wieghed for each project/scene. And what's important to you may or may not be important to me.

Matthew B. Moore
01-13-2006, 06:37 AM
?Pushing in for coverage is a whole new deal.?

Why? What do you mean?

thanx!

I just mean that when you push in for coverage, you tend to tweek the master shot lighting to fit the chanlenges of the new, tighter angle. You may have to move a flag or move the light in slightly or bounce some light...whatever. Once that is done, 2nd camera gets the opportunity to find a new angle all together.

I see 2nd camera as fluid. It goes where it can go and brings back all the goodies it can.
Just make sure that the op for 2nd camera knows the game well enough to play it.

Matthew B. Moore
01-13-2006, 11:37 AM
Jon, As I see it.

Pro: more coverage; easier to match the action and the emotion of a scene

Con: can take more time; blocking must be considered from as many angles as you have cameras; lighting and audio must be more generalized in most situations

What's important to you should be wieghed for each project/scene. And what's important to you may or may not be important to me.

I like that.

Is it right for everything? No. Can it still be done with quality? Yes.

The editor does look for quantity, but quality is still way more important. The most critical eyes to hit the project will be the editors once the images have left the hands of the DP. I shoot and edit, and let me tell you that quality is on my mind the entire time.
As long as we are not racing to finish something due to budget or the sun or something like that.

P!body
01-13-2006, 04:12 PM
Cool. My Experience is that it usually isn't worth the effort on short films and stuff, but it by all means an option, but I tend to think of bad BBC play adaptions with the multi-cam setup. So much less control it seems. But sometimes a nessesary step. In any case, good luck.

spidey
01-14-2006, 07:46 AM
Cool. My Experience is that it usually isn't worth the effort on short films and stuff, but it by all means an option, but I tend to think of bad BBC play adaptions with the multi-cam setup. So much less control it seems. But sometimes a nessesary step. In any case, good luck.

Long live "The Young Ones"