Quickest way to get your film finished.

TedRR

TedRR

Well-known member
I met with a group of film makers recently and found many reasons why these talented story tellers don’t ever get their movie done or seen. But there were some talented people and GREAT ideas.

I might have found a way to help many of these dreams get delivered.

What if we could show up on your set/location and live switch between cameras like a soap opera is produced? This would allow many of these people to get through location shoots in a fraction of the time. Once you return to the edit bay you will have almost 100% of the film edited. Add titles and press to DVD. Or take the iso footage and fine tune to your hearts content.

Awesome! You could watch the entire FINISHED scene immediately with the actors and crew and re-shoot if needed.

I know this will not work for every film or film maker. And I know some will say it’s not “Pure”. But I see it as a blending of technologies that has great value to many who are striving to get their message, story and art to many people in a simplified way. I was amazed at the number of stories that are sitting on shelves. That’s really a “sad story”.

Let me know your thoughts on the benefits, feel free to list the drawbacks and discuss away. Worst case scenario, this would be a great way to get a pilot of your story produced so you can solicit funding.
I think it’s a great idea! What about you guys? I’d love to hear your feedback.
 
that gives you the quality of soap operas. You are very limited with placing the cameras because you don't want to have the cameras in your shot. You are very limited with lightning because you have to light for all cameras and for example can't have a reflector a foot from an actors face away if needed. And so on and so fort... If you produce a pilot to sell the idea, you want to do it as good as possible because you need to get people hooked on the story. Therefore, I think shooting it "soap opera stile" isn't a good idea unless it is a soap opera....
 
Yes there are many reasons that this is a better "idea" than a reality. Cordvision named many of them. Even when shooting a sitcom with the Director calling cameras and delivering a "line cut" the show still spends over a week in edit, recutting that line cut.

Shows like 24 often shoot 2 cameras to expedite the schedule, but there is a lot to take into consideration to be able to pull this off well. Filmmaking is a process. I don't think there's a fast and economical "solution".
 
Cordvision, thanks for the feedback. Valid points. I do camera placement to avoid conflicts quite frequenty and since I rarely break the 180 plane it's not a problem.
We "almost" always do our lighting for the close-ups, then finish for the wide. Once it's set, we rarely change it for continuity reasons. And there isn't any reason you can't do pickup shots for post later.

As I said, this isn't for all films and film makers. It's simply another way to help some of these talented people with some of their projects.

Here's a reply I got from another forum:

"That's why I like you, Ted.
I think what you suggest would get 200% more Indy movies made a year.
But it will only happen when they can see the worth of it; so far... Indys focus on their poverty to get it done, not always to their resources."

I think by this guys reply, he has enough vision to see the possibilities. It's partly about getting work for all these starving artists while they hone their skills. That alone could make it worth it.

Thanks for the feedback.
 
this isn't really an issue of effeciency IMHO. it's simply rushing an artform. and with all art, the stuff that's rushed usually turns out looking like it was rushed. sorry, to not be very opened minded to the idea, but it just sounds like a dud. Then again, someone may prove me wrong--and if so, then I would gladly say they are a better director than i could ever be....just my two cents. :)

on the other hand, i could see the benefit for dialogue situations to be live cut when doing a two/three camera setup for them anyway. the cast and director could then review on set but probably discard the edit afterwards.

on the other hand, one could argue that a 'good' director wouldn't really need this anyway and thus would often waste time reviewing everything all day. of course for complicated sequences even the 'good' directors have to review regardless, but these shots are often one camera anyway and thus no editing required.

great thought though! :thumbsup:
 
Its a decent idea, I'll give it that. It would lead to very basic scenes and editing, but that can be worked around. The only big problem I would see there are equipment expenses. A company who did this would have to charge a bit to make any money. One camera is cheaper than three, one monitor is cheaper than three, so on and so forth.
 
Unfortunately this would also require everything to be done on the fly in one take. Most shows, read: all shows you see on TV are done the same way we (supposably) shoot films. Mind you, these are the network affiliated shows. Multi-take, multi-setup, large crews, everything from an assistant director to dolly grips.

The entirety of the crew makes these shows worth watching. Like everyone above me said - you will get the same quality product as the effort you put into it. You are not going to get a quality product.

Good idea in theory but in practically I think it doesn't work. Akin to communism. :)
 
I'll have to see how it goes.
Last year I turned away a $100,000 film project about a family going through the destructive effects of alcoholism.
I bid that I would need about $125,000 to really be profitable and do it right. Using this method I could have done it for about $75,000 and made a decent profit.

I am sure the producer would have closed the deal with this very workflow. We actually discussed the details of this very process and he was happy.
The biggest problem was establishing all the gear at the many various locations.
With the gear we have just one year later, I can unload and be set up in less than 1 hour.

I'll let you know how this goes over the next year. Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly hope to get even more from you. Even if it's not optimistic feedback. :) I think it will work out for many projects. We'll see.
 
I'm with the others on this one Ted, in my experience running multiple cameras on a synced timecode can save a great deal of time in money (in terms of continuity errors and editing time). I'm sure a TV-style live switching could work, but I'm not sure the gains would be that substantial (assuming you're already shooting for the edit - pretty much a given on lower-budget productions).
 
you don't need to break the 180 degree rule to end up on the other side of the line, I do it all the time there are many ways to do it.... The problem with this shooting style is that it will look like a stage play because you end up shooting everything from the same side...
 
Interesting idea. Roger Corman shot the original, B & W "Little Shoppe of Horrors" interiors in just this way - 3 film cameras - to speed things up. Doesn't lead to a very...cinematic film, but it can work. BTW, Corman wrote a GREAT, and very entertaining autobiography that is full of worthwhile tips for low budget shooting. It's called "How I Made a Hundred Movies in Hollywood, and Never Lost a Dime". He used to do some amazing things. He would have a crew and actors down in Hawaii shooting some cheesy horror movie, and would realize, heck I got all my actors and equipment here, I should finish this movie, and bang out another one. He'd call up his writers and say "I need a Crab Monster script in a week." He used to routinely shoot movies in a week. Two weeks was a luxury. Little shoppe of horrors was shot in two days and one night!
 
I might have insulted a few by using the term "film" for this process.
But I'm still convinced a lot of story telling can be done with this method just like the "project" I had to pass on last year.

We'll see if I can help get a few more stories put on DVD and if I can make any money doing it.

I appreciate all your thoughts. Keep them coming.
 
There are other directors who have used multiple camera setups such as David Fincher, Robert Altman, and George Lucas. Altman loved to use two cameras all the time. I think your idea is a good one but may involve more time setting up.
 
All depends on the project. I would anticipate 3 cameras, all isolated for later cutting when desired. We're not eliminating that capability by any means. We have the capability to use up to 6 cameras taking SDI out.

I just contacted that job from last year and low and behold, the producer said he was still interested. He re-affirmed that this process would help him complete the project and he didn't have a problem with it.

Affirmation from a good paying client reaffirmed that there is a need for these services. I'm not dropping what has been successful for years, but I see this as an emerging need and I'll be there to serve that need.
We'll know for sure over the next year or two. :)
 
TedRR if many here say it won't work, well that means -- Do it! It's simple, we don't know for sure, and either do you, so try it and see how it works. For me the most difficult roadblocks are not cameras, etc., it's budget, finding locations with cooperative people, good actors and a good script.

Bottom line: Don't listen to anyone but yourself, and that means me too. :2vrolijk_08:
 
Thanks 10s. I was a little down about the response initially, but that's why I asked this group. I wanted honest input.
I've gotten much more positive response on a different forum. But the input here could be far more beneficial. :)

You can bet your bippy I'm going to pursue this since people with money seem to like the idea.
 
Some directors like Ridley Scott use a multi camera setup even though it takes longer to set up because continuity issues are resolved. Editing is easier and if the actors are "on" then there's no need to try and get the magic from another angle. I think your challenge is developing a system of quick set ups.

Most standard shooting is: Master, OTS, OTS, single, single, CUs, XCU, cutaways. For static shooting this works.

Now if your cameras move, then you have difficulties. It becomes even further complicated with actor movement and then even further complicated with both actor & camera moving. If you can figure all this out in some sort of a standard methodical approach you'll really have something.

I'd try static first and see how that works out. Dynamic is tough business.
 
I think the Master, OTS, OTS, single etc can be acomodated with lighting and proper camera placement. Since we can use up to 6 cameras we can get some creative shots done live as well.

There is always the ability to shoot PU shots and utilize the iso feeds for fine tuning. But I think a savy TD could get the timing right 90% or more. Planing is huge, but I've got 30 years of live production under my belt that will help.

Another benefit with this method it's a snap to find a scene, play it on monitors and confirm continuity of lighting, actors and set if you want to do PU shots.

Again, so I don't insult the artists who have passion for the true art of film and have dedicated thier life to mastering it, I do understand this is NOT a REPLACEMENT for the craft of film making.
But I am confident that there are projects this can be applied to and I'll play with it. Hopefully with some true "film guys" input to make it as beneficial as possible.
Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I don't get it: How is using 3 or more cameras with synced timecode (as well as having a live switching and acquisition system on set) *any* cheaper than doing it with a single camera??

The reason soap operas and sitcoms use this method is because they produce an incredible amount of content using the same setup and sets, so the equally incredible upfront costs are mitigated over time.

Spending all this money on a system like this for one film (especially if you are using multiple locations or sets) is completely inefficient, and while you might same time in shooting, you'd end up with so much footage that any kind of creative editing for pacing or timing would be a nightmare, even with synced timecode. This is not to mention the costs associated with storing at least 3 streams of video data on tape and/or on hard drive (4 if you include the live edit, if not using an EDL).

This is not to consider the creative drawbacks to doing this (which you too easily shrug off as not a big deal), which includes any kind of creative cinematography or lighting, and the fact that you'd be directing actors in a completely different and non-standard way, and losing the ability to create a scene from multiple takes, etc, etc, etc.

You say that you could do insert shots and you wouldn't necessarily have to abandon the things a singe-camera shoot gives you, but if you did this, you'd lose all the time-saving benefits that a live multi-camera shoot would give.

You can't have it both ways.

I got on a bit of a tangent there, but the real point is that you'd in no way be saving money doing this method, and in fact, directors who do multiple-camera shots and takes are not actually doing what you describe, and they're not doing it to save time (Altman did it so he could capture actors' improvisation), and it actually costs quite a bit more money to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top