Elaborate production - input wanted

Not sure if someone suggested this specifically, but if could shoot with something with a little more res, even DVX, and zoom out a bit and have two small sections of set almost butted next together and have an actor at each "set". In post (after effects probably or a garbage matte in any NLE) you could cut them up (cut in half) and put them where ever. So then you would only need 5 cameras if you shot them at the same time.

Also, I think and mic with a large pattern would work for two or three actors. So then you would only need 4-5 mics... but I'm no audio guy so that is just a guess.

EDIT: Actually with the green screen idea, why not have all three in the shot. Then all you need is a small piece of desk big enough for a keyboard and mouse for each actor. THen cut them all up and place them where ever and key in your backgrounds (I know a little easier said then done but it's an idea)
 
Looking at it from a directoral stance, you might (and most likely will) have an issue with the actors getting their lines to sound real considering they will be there talking for 70minutes straight.

I record tutorials here and there and I start to loose my voice after 20 minutes. Water is going to be essential. If you can have them on headset you might have some better luck with live direction. Yet that means the director will have to be in a sound proof location as well. I think the biggest issue you are going to have is going to be in regards to sound.

Because if you were to split it to one actor at a time - then they will have to react off each other. Though you could record one dialog - and play it over the computer they will be looking at, so they can react to the performance that was given. Just an idea.
 
I'd shoot it real time, with each actor being recorded at once. So you need one good camera, a good mic, and various lighting on each actor (to keep it interesting, maybe the light color reflects the persons personality), a main source for your greenscreen, a web cam for all other actors, and a computer for the actor in the room to watch (this way the eye movement could be realistic, and it still is real time).

So you have the actor in the sound room, and the eight outside sharing a mic and webcam (I'd place them on a riser), then have the actor being filmed watch it on the screen and listen with the in- ear monitor. Keep it simple, but still real.
 
Mattykins said:
Looking at it from a directoral stance, you might (and most likely will) have an issue with the actors getting their lines to sound real considering they will be there talking for 70minutes straight.
Click to expand...

Speaking as someone who has acted (however poorly) in live theatre, 70 minutes is not all that bad. (Well, unless you lose your voice two days before the play opens, but that's another story.)

Not that, for that matter, the actors losing their voice would even be out of character. Heck, you could have them leave the screen (if you wanted to take that piece of advice) just to get a drink. :D "OK, I'm Googling [something from the injured characters MySpace page]... BRB, I need another beer."
 
Lots of interesting ideas. Thanks for the input!

The main problem I see with greenscreening is I'm given to understand that MiniDV (SD) doesn't composite very well -- that you really need to shoot on HD or some other format for a good, clean composite. At least, that's what I've gathered from reading various threads here and other places. I've got a DVX100a, but if I needed 9 HD cams that would be a real problem.

I'm also not really clear on how a greenscreen would help me. I'd still have to have 9 different rooms or sets photographed for the backgrounds to composite in with the footage. So why not just use those 9 rooms or sets for the shoot itself?

I don't even want to think about the costs and problems involved with using mirrors! Yikes!

Mattykins, I don't think people will lose their voices. Stage actors do plays all the time that run longer than 1 hour, and they have no problems. I suspect the reason you begin to lose your voice after 20 minutes of doing tutorials is because you are the only person talking. I doubt this will be a problem, but keeping bottled water, etc. on-hand is still a good idea.

I actually think we'd need actors with plenty of stage experience. They're accustomed to performing a script straight through from beginning to end without stopping. And they're used to covering for someone who has missed a cue or flubbed a line. They also tend to be a little be more demonstrative and animated, which might help keep the audience entertained and interested.
 
yeah, some live improv / theatre-sports actors would be ideal - experienced enough to recover from a flubbed/missed line without giggling or falling out of character, but still able to give non-rehearsed-sounding performances. You want people talking over each other, umming and aahing and mumbling etc, repeating themselves, being interrupted, but of course the important dialogue must be still delivered clearly. Sure, you'll polish that in post, but you still need great performances as raw materials.

The advantage of greenscreening (for a serial shoot) is setup - you set up your camera, lights, greenscreen background, mic, etc once, then can shoot all 9 actors without changing a thing (although I would make a few minor lighting adjustments each time, it would look weird if all 9 were lit from exactly the same angles). In a nice controlled environment like a studio where you can control the lighting properly, I've never had any problems with greenscreen in SD - it only falls to pieces when you have dodgy inconsistent lighting. But I'd agree that greenscreen is a 'black art' - if your production team have no experience in using it, this movie is not the place to learn.
 
One major problem with greenscreening will be making it look real -- making the lighting on the actors match the lighting of the background 'sets' and blend properly. Good greenscreening is an art, and I don't know any good greenscreen artists.

I'd still MUCH rather shoot them all 'parallel', as it's been called -- meaning shoot them all together, playing off each other like in a real stage play. Failing that, though, I think shooting them one at a time -- in REAL sets -- synching everything with an audio recording of the stage reading, is going to be the next best way.

And I still think using actual webcams (as opposed to camcorders) will be problematic. First, there's the problem of jerkiness of the image and the occasional momentary freeze. Second, every webcam would have to be attached to a working computer. Needing 9 webcams and 9 running PC's seems to me likely to be MORE expensive than needing 9 camcorders. And the fan noise from 9 running PC's would also be a problem.

Someone earlier suggested using the Aiptek HD camcorders, which record to SD memory cards. I had considered that, but they're really not much less expensive than the lowest priced MiniDV camcorders. And they have no iris or white balance controls. The money saved would be minimal, and the overall image quality would (I think) be less.

I really appreciate all of the 'outside the box' thinking! Thanks folks!
 
I wonder if a combination of serial and parallel would be possible, e.g. shoot the 5 most time critical and interactive windows first in parallel, then the next day shoot the other 4 in parallel to fill in the gaps and cover for any mistakes in the first 5?

And I think you can use limited camera availability to your advantage - if some of the more 'minor' windows are blurry smeary webcams, so what, in real life the 9 people aren't going to all have the same quality gear or internet connection speed, they can even diss each other "hey dummy, you still on dial-up?, get an upgrade" etc
 
Stage acting is a little different that sitting in front of the computer talking. I am an AD in theater actually.

I mean, I think you are going to want to shoot everything at a high resolution. DV would work even. I mean, DV still does allow compositing. Keying isn't all that bad on DV. Though full composites are hard. But we aren't talking about that. But you still want the best image and sound as a working master. You can damage the master later and add artifacting and such. But you still want a high resolution. I think everyones points are valid. If you want to shoot in "parallel'" you are going to need to worry about the sound. And making sure everything is recording right. Mind you - you are going to have 60min tape time. Something to consider as well.

I really think you are going to have to have people walk off frame. But that is me. I'm not directing.

Though greenscreening it is a possibility - and a feasible one at that.
 
For the life of me, I can't think of any logical reason why any ONE person in the group would walk away from his PC (and out of frame) when they are all frantically, DESPERATELY trying to locate this girl before she bleeds to death. Can you?

"Oh my God! HURRY! She's DYING!!! We have to FIND her!!!!"

"Okay....just let me go make myself a quick sandwich first."

See what I mean?

In the story, everyone is doing Internet searches trying to find information that will help them locate the injured girl. They are all glued to their PC's in a frantic effort to save her life. Nobody's going to go walk the dog, take a leak, or tuck Junior into bed. It just goes completely against the characters.

Back to the greenscreening question -- Exactly how does greenscreening help me, as opposed to using separate sets? If I use separate sets, I have to setup the camera and configure the lighting for each character individually. Granted, if I use a greenscreen then I don't have to setup the camera but once -- but setting up the camera takes almost no time at all in this configuration. I WILL have to change the lighting configuration for each different character. PLUS I'll have to go to whatever locations I'm going to shoot for the backgrounds and setup the lighting a SECOND time to shoot that. So really, how is this easier or faster than just shooting the actor IN the actual location, and only setting up the lighting once?

It's been suggested that with the greenscreening approach, I could shoot one actor's bit then trot in the next actor and shoot their bit, like an assembly line. But keep in mind that EVERY actor's 'bit' is the entire length of the whole movie. So I could only realistically do a couple of actors a day that way. The time savings would be miniscule.

As we've said, greenscreening is an art, as is the lighting of the subject and backgrounds so that they will match when composited together. Art takes time. And what happens if I shoot it all on greenscreen then get into post and find out the lighting doesn't match? Then what?

All things considered, I don't think I want to try the greenscreen approach. That's for braver, more experienced souls than I.
 
Last edited:
Well, maybe I am missing the idea of your shoot. Just trying to be another voice in this thing.

Sorry for mentioning it. Best of luck on the project though.
 
Sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh or testy. I DO appreciate the input. I'm just not seeing a practical way to deal with these things. Nothing personal.
 
Hi,

Having 9 small sets would certainly work.

With sufficient networking bandwidth you could hear/see each other for action/reaction - direction.

I should think 90 minutes or so of script in 3-6 weeks of rehearsal more or less, shot perhaps in a rented building used for ten or so days (depending on what you have)?

Renting, begging, borrowing up-to-date laptops and desk-tops, I don't know, it could be an economical shoot.

Keep in mind, I have no dog in this fight - I'm not trying to convince you to do anything or go in any direction - it's your project, but to clear a thing or two up.

Web cameras are dumb optical devices. What's written comes from the CODECs based upon the systems they are tethered to. Modern cheap cameras run at full VGA resolution, 640x480 at 30fps with no burps at using a decent CODEC that could be transcoded to an editable CODEC for your purpose. You might even consider 320x240 as your target, but that would be something you'd want to chat with your DP and editor about. For that matter, you could tether DV cameras, VHS cameras using some sort of VGA converter box, or any other camera, for that matter. The camera just needs to attach to the computer via IEEE1394, USB, VGA converter, etc.

Since this project is revolving around a 'Chat' environment, it seems that I recall that there are Chat software simulations that have containers for up to 9 windows - there used to be anyway. If that were still available to you, it seems to me you'd have a terrific opportunity to exploit for your actors to 'interact'.

I absolutely agree that you'd get better quality, and cheaper setup with a single camera, but then I'm unsure how easy it would be to get monitors for all the cameras out to the folks that need them.

My checkered past also includes some acting, no matter how poorly, and your actors will need something to react to. They will each need some visual cues to play off each other in order to make the production work. If they are isolated during the project, reacting to vague 'nothingness' will show.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
chapelgrovefilms said:
For the life of me, I can't think of any logical reason why any ONE person in the group would walk away from his PC (and out of frame) when they are all frantically, DESPERATELY trying to locate this girl before she bleeds to death. Can you?

"Oh my God! HURRY! She's DYING!!! We have to FIND her!!!!"

"Okay....just let me go make myself a quick sandwich first."

See what I mean?

In the story, everyone is doing Internet searches trying to find information that will help them locate the injured girl. They are all glued to their PC's in a frantic effort to save her life. Nobody's going to go walk the dog, take a leak, or tuck Junior into bed. It just goes completely against the characters.
Click to expand...


Maybe one of them goes to get the phone to call the ISP and track down that persons internet connection? I think your limiting yourself a little, and does the stabbing happen in the first moments of the script? Surely there is a moment of calm somewhere in there when SOMEONE has to take a sh*t? You know those times when you just can't old it anymore...:evil:

There are other tricks too- a hand passing infront of the cam, someone knocks their cam off the mount. Any fast motion can be cut w/ a crossfade easy. Put your thinking cap on and un-stick your creativity a bit.
 
Last edited:
They figure out pretty quickly that no ISP is going to give them info on one of their customers. They DO, however, make other phone calls -- but have their phones sitting there on their desks.

The stabbing occurs about 1/4 of the way into the script. It's true that people could go out of view before that. However, the purpose of having people going out of camera view is to in effect put in a cut in order to synch up the timing of each person's footage so that it will all fit together well. Those kinds of adjustments would need to be made throughout the film, not just in the first 20 minutes. And again, while I could see one, maybe two, people going out of frame (at different times), it's bound to look artificial if EVERYBODY does it at some time or another.

The other problem with having people go out of frame as a way to insert cuts is this -- when I'm shooting, I'll have no way of knowing WHERE I will need those cuts inserted -- I won't know where the timing is off until I get into editing. So how will I know WHEN I need a person to go out of cam view?

Somebody earlier suggested we might be able to make adjustments by doing stealthy speeding up or slowing down of footage when the person isn't talking or doing much movement. I think that's definitely worth considering.

Someone could conceivably knock their cam over, I suppose -- although again, if more than one person does it during the course of the movie, that's going to be a dead giveaway. And we're right back to the problem of not knowing when I would need them to do that.

Here's what my current plan of action is....

First preference is to find a way to shoot the whole thing at once, getting everyone's footage at the same time. Much better for the actors, and much easier to edit in post.

My second option would be to make an audio-only recording of the whole cast performing the script just as they would if we were actually shooting. This gives us a standard for timing. Then playback that recording while shooting each individual actor, one at a time. This will take considerably longer and won't give the actors quite as much to work with, but it's certainly do-able. And it would save money on equipment and set construction.

If I go that route, then in editing I could use the speedup/slowdown adjustments suggested to fine-tune the timing somewhat.

So what it really comes down to to me is a choice -- can I find the resources necessary to shoot the whole thing at once? Or will I take the less expensive route and shoot in series?

You guys have given me a lot of good stuff to think about here, and I REALLY appreciate all your input! If anybody wants to hop on down to NC and help us shoot this thing, we'd love to have you volunteer! :)

David
 
Last edited:
evil idea: when casting, insist that all actors will need to provide their own working mini-DV camera
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top