How many cameras do DP's and Directors usually need/use to film a dialogue scene???

[Shooter]

I concur with below. Multicams can be incredibly compromising for angles and lighting ...as well as creating time consuming complicated set ups. There are times when multicams are advantageous when planned for.

1 is enough. Shooting with two or three cameras requires more skilled people, more gear, and you have to be able to light for multiple angles at once. You also start to venture into territory where you're no longer shooting shots that work for the story, but instead you just start getting anything you can get.

[morgan_moore]

I know who im listening to. here

[CharlesPapert]

Thanks Sam, although really most of us have said the same thing in different ways here. Ryan T.'s point is well-taken and it is the subtext of my post which is: you have to know what you are doing to use multiple cameras, or you are going to waste time, overly compromise the look or just end up shooting "bonus" shots. Probably a combination of the three.

There are many instances where I would have dearly loved to have just shot with one camera, reasons ranging from lighting compromises to a preference to moving the camera closer rather than just rifling in on the lens with the second camera. Every schedule I work on is just so tight that we have no choice most of the time, we would literally have to drop setups if we weren't cleaning them up with B camera. If one's schedule allows, and especially without a lot of experience working with multiple cameras, it's certainly more logical to shoot dialogue with a single camera.

[morgan_moore]

Indeed, but our OP is embarking on an actual project which will doubtless, be under the same pressures of reality, budget et al. as you.

Camera and footage is cheap and surely thats why it may have happened less in the past?

Of course we all want to shoot only at magic hour with only one camera don't we?

[Gabel]

I am a one-camera kind of guy. It's the standard and not only is lighting for two cameras (especially if they're cross-shooting) hard, but sound HATES it. There's never a good way to get great sound then, as where they MIGHT hide, you now have lights. Plus as mentioned, there are often the issues of matching.

However, I shot a scene on a short feature which was all dual cam and I really liked it. It was a simple reason: Stunt and special effects shot. There is a fight that breaks out between two guys, which causes them to fight through a house, one of them carrying a gun. When they get out of the house, the gun goes off on the good guy's girlfriend. So we both had the fight, plus the effects for the shot. We could only do the shot twice for example. That meant two angles provided instant coverage. In this case, the other camera was also doing high speed, for added variety. Same thing in the fight. We had two cameras, one doing normal speed, the other being high speed both of us placed next to each other so we could move together. Worked great for shooting the scene, but for a dialogue we wouldn't have done it. Here we could light most of it on rigs, to be able to see enough. Plus since it's a fight scene, it was MOS anyway (or at least, the set sound isn't going to be used in the end). But the scene starts with a dialogue that segues into the fight, which was shot normal 1-camera way.

[CharlesPapert]

I am a one-camera kind of guy. It's the standard and not only is lighting for two cameras (especially if they're cross-shooting) hard, but sound HATES it. There's never a good way to get great sound then, as where they MIGHT hide, you now have lights. Plus as mentioned, there are often the issues of matching.

I can't speak about film production in Sweden, but in what is generically referred to as Hollywood, single camera is definitely NOT the standard any more. But you don't have to take my word for it; watch BTS footage and count the matteboxes.

Yes, it complicates lighting, but so does high page and setup counts and smaller crews, all factors in today's production environment. As far as sound hating it, they have to make concessions as we all do. The one thing that is notably bad for them is a big wide shot against a tight closeup, and we try to avoid shooting those unless absolutely necessary (and in those instances, they will have a wire on the actors as well as the boom). Otherwise, there's nothing that a couple of skilled boom ops can't work their way around.

Matching: cross-shooting is actually much easier for the editor. In any event, getting clean singles is good protection against possible matching issues.

The best advice I can give to those who have little experience shooting coverage with two cameras is that you should try to get some. At some point you will take a job where you won't be able to make a successful single camera argument and you need to know how to pull off multiple cameras efficiently. There are definitely times when a single camera is the only way to go but it's part of the skillset to know how to determine this.

[morgan_moore]

You can even count the matte boxes by watching the shows. Even ones made in Sweden, like Wallander for example.

failMB.jpg

[CharlesPapert]

Sam, you amaze me...

[Gabel]

I can't speak about film production in Sweden, but in what is generically referred to as Hollywood, single camera is definitely NOT the standard any more. But you don't have to take my word for it; watch BTS footage and count the matteboxes.

Yes, it complicates lighting, but so does high page and setup counts and smaller crews, all factors in today's production environment. As far as sound hating it, they have to make concessions as we all do. The one thing that is notably bad for them is a big wide shot against a tight closeup, and we try to avoid shooting those unless absolutely necessary (and in those instances, they will have a wire on the actors as well as the boom). Otherwise, there's nothing that a couple of skilled boom ops can't work their way around.

Matching: cross-shooting is actually much easier for the editor. In any event, getting clean singles is good protection against possible matching issues.

The best advice I can give to those who have little experience shooting coverage with two cameras is that you should try to get some. At some point you will take a job where you won't be able to make a successful single camera argument and you need to know how to pull off multiple cameras efficiently. There are definitely times when a single camera is the only way to go but it's part of the skillset to know how to determine this.

Film production in Sweden is an often one camera shoot, but it depends on the budget of the project... And space. We do a lot of location shooting here and in many cases then, two cameras might not fit.
But a project like Wallander, which is a pretty decently budgeted one (being German supported) doesn't surprise me that they do a lot of two camera work.

The main issue I find with two cameras is when people properly lack the budget for it. Not only do you need another matching camera and lenses, you need two more people (operator and AC) that needs to be paid. On bigger projects, this is less of an issue. But I've heard (and been on one, nightmare work) of indie projects where you have kits that are so wildly different, only two camera operators and so on, all done in tiny locations where is close to not even enough room for one camera...

[gonzo_entertainment]

There has to be a REALLY good reason to use more than one camera. We never do it, though we have several of the same camera available.