Quickest way to get your film finished.

Noble one, the point is I already have these studio-portable capabilities and it's making me money. So I'm just inquiring if you film guys see a use for it.

Obviously there are some that see a use so I got my questions answered here and on other forums.
For those that see NO use or Problems with the workflow, this has been beneficial as well.
Most of the technical execution problems aren't a problem for me since I'm used to the workflow. Most of the aesthetic problems are valid, but many can be overcome.
In our neck of the woods we don't have Hollywood Talent. Most of our "actors" come from theater and could easily pull this off.
In short, I'm not convinced this is a waste of time and will continue to work with people on it. So keep up the input and we'll see if this becomes used more for various projects.
Thanks,
 
Most of the technical execution problems aren't a problem for me since I'm used to the workflow. Most of the aesthetic problems are valid, but many can be overcome.
In our neck of the woods we don't have Hollywood Talent. Most of our "actors" come from theater and could easily pull this off.
Click to expand...
You make a fair point, but only relating to your situation, while the title of your post was "Quickest way to get *your* film finished."

You, and only you (or those with a similar setup already in place or available to cheaply rent [good luck]), can benefit from this setup. Now, to be fair, you seem to have a full and complete grasp on what it means for you, technically and creatively...

But... I would like to reiterate that this is not either a fast nor cheap alternative to single-camera filmmakers who are impatient, broke, or both, as you initially suggested. It might work for you or those you can hook up with your setup, but even then, I don't have as much confidence as you do that you or any filmmaker could overcome the inherent aesthetic challenges to a degree which would make the endeavor worth the effort.

Oh, by the way, none of us has "Hollywood" talent, either. Check your local craigslist, film actors (good ones, too) can be found just about everywhere.

:-)
 
Ted, thanks for your comments.

My own are this: if you're making 3 camera staged shows, like situation comedy in front of a live audience, and you have the time to prep properly, then your method works well, has done for a long time. If not, then, well, not.

Most people own their own cameras for one of two reasons - one, to make money as a craftsperson - two, to make images as an artist. And by 'art' I mean someone making something that they want to make. Their own unique vision, not someone else's vision.

The people who come to cameras as a craft usually start as apprentices or assistants, and the others typically save up and buy their own (or get their parents to, etc).

The former spend a lot of time on technology and technique, especially in the Hollywood industry. The latter, not so much, although this is probably a gross generalization here.

The former tend to want to get the show shot asap, done, dusted, cash the paycheck, and on to the next. The latter, not so, because they're trying to do something else - something different, and not the same coverage, line-cut-and-iso's, onwards and upwards to the country club Hollywood shuffle.

Film making per se has never been cheaper. HDV cameras are well under a grand apiece now, maybe two or three if you're splurging. And that's to make a program that other people besides your own family to watch. Stock is around $7 the first hour. It's almost getting so making a 2 hour movie is cheaper than going to watch one in the cinema, especially if you count the concession stand, the parking and the gas...

Again, I oversimplify but state that only a few years ago, this simply wasn't the case.

So more people are trying to get the programs out, more people are trying to make their visions real. Used to be that people were into writing the Great American Novel. That was when the word processor took over from the typewriter and so anybody could generate 1,000 pages if they had the patience and could learn the technology.

I know, what you're recommending is that everybody get it their programs out there as quickly as possible.

You're coming at it from the point of view of the producer who already has considerable resources at your disposal.

There's another approach to this that uses time as its prime resource. Some films take a lot of time to complete, no two ways about it.

I'd say that the fastest way to get noticed as a film maker is to pick a short piece of classical music that really moves you, then go out into your neighborhood with a camera and start shooting things that move you in the same way as the music does. Then come home and cut your images to that music. And keep on adding, re-doing, polishing until you have it done or you're sick of looking at it any more.

Then you're done. Film as fine art, which I define as being the point of view of a single human being.
Could take weeks, months, years even. But that's just the working style of the individual. It doesn't have to take that long at all.

Look at the work of Philip Bloom for that. He churns those little gems of his out at the rate of two a day, it seems. I don't know about his pocket book or bank account, but I can say that it hasn't done too badly for his reel or his booking schedule, either. I tried to book him for a short film of mine and had to get in line.

Read Mamet's book on film direction. This is really about film making too.

In the US, people are really confusing the art of film making with the craft of film making.

Story telling per se is what's mistaken for film art. Mostly over here you tell a movie story from the point of view of the protagonist (except for the obligatory dramatic irony scene or two where, unbeknownst to the protagonist, dark forces are at work), and then you proceed to follow the protagonist around the entire movie, mostly in shaky hand held medium shots and finding-focus closeups these days.

There are other ways to make movies. Even good ones.

But Hollywood has always been mainly about making money. Look at it now, there's only the Weinsteins, and United Artists owned by people who actually started on set for a living, not in an office.

And that's all about production. Production values, production schedules, production budgets. Air dates, rollouts, premieres, screening deadlines, executive notes.

And the theatre. Theatrical production techniques aren't film techniques, they were brought into Hollywood from New York when the talkies were invented because the silent actors couldn't remember their lines or had untrained voices. Then the New York actors brought over their theatrical directors because the Hollywood guys didn't know stage techniques, just camera techniques.
Hence the Director, and the Director of Photography.

But Hollywood theatrical production isn't all there is, not by a long chalk. It just happens to be the one that makes the most money.

And, just like in music production, in the old days, if you wanted to make any kind of a movie at all, you had to use expensive film, cameras, lab, etc., and the whole process involved a lot of money and therefore big business.

But we don't have to do that any more, at least not most of us, not most of the time. Before we did, because the execs were the ones who handled that kind of money.

Yes, it does take that kind of money to make that kind of movie.

But that's not the only kind of movie there is, not the only kind of story there is. It's just the kind we were brought up on, weaned on if you will.

Check out "Once" for a decent, original film made on a small budget, professionally. Yes, multiple Z1s, but the number of cameras doesn't matter here. In particular, check out the non-Holllywood ending. Surprise, surprise, it actually won a few awards. Academy ones, natch.

I personally like shooting with two cameras for continuity (i.e. speed in post), but what I shoot doesn't look remotely like any 3 camera shoot I've seen before.

So - bottom line - if movies are to captivate people for any length of time, there should be some kind of a storyline.

But that storyline doesn't have to be all about people talking.

That's television, mainly.

Nothing wrong with television, mind you. I work in the TV industry every day, all day long. Makes me a good living.

But it's not the movies. Not the kind of stories I choose to make.

The cheap cameras, readily available equipment, lots of talented and experienced people both sides of the camera, working for next to nothing, internet distribution and video on demand - those things give me and people like me the means to get my stuff produced at all.

Heck, even forums like this give me the means of expressing my opinion, sad as that may be! LOL!!

Yes, we have it good these days. It's very easy to make a bad or so-so movie. Almost anyone who can write and who can get to set on time every day can do it.

But a good one?

That's as hard as it's ever been. And never quick, simple, easy. It never was quick, simple, easy, and anybody who tries to tell you otherwise is selling you something.

I know Corman made a ton of money and incidentally some good movies as well. Or he never lost a dime, as he puts it.

Don't know of any painters who say "hey, I painted a million canvases and never lost a dime..." do you? House painters, sure. "Did a dozen houses, made a ton of money, never lost a dime".

Enough said.

And finally - the pervasive argument for "good"??

Very simple. Television's now coming to the end of its cheap and cheerful market days. Starting March next year, the bottom end of cheap TV will start, very slowly, to die.

Why? You cannot these days make a piece of trash for the television just to fill the airwaves, knowing that it's fast food, here today, and gone tomorrow. Well, you can, still, but that guard is now fast becoming old school, and as almost every youngster knows, if you put something on the web, it doesn't just air for one time and then a few repeats.

It's on there, on air if you will, for most practical purposes, forever.

Day and night, 24/7.

For ever.

And it's got your name on it.

Did you notice the "play high quality" button on YouTube these days? Did you download your latest YouTube creation in high definition yet? Did you know that your YouTube content will shortly be available directly on TiVo?

So your 2 cent production now fights for cable airtime with Corman's and Spielberg's and everybody else's?

And how many people, when selecting something to watch, go "here, let me pick this program? It's a piece of cowdung but it was shot for $2.50 in 2 weeks!"???


The times, they are a-changing...

JM2c
YMMV
 
Last edited:
Sitcom lighting and the old Universal Studios type TV Shows generally flood the sets with light so you can shoot from any angle and see something. But it's not really artistic lighting. Can you imagine Lost or 24, or Indiana Jones lit and shot like Columbo or Saturday Night Live?

Didn't Francis Ford Coppola do the multi-camera thing with One From The Heart and bankrupted Zoetrope? I think Orson Welles and Hitchcock also abandoned multi-camera, due to cost and problems controlling the images. But that was film, not video. Otherwise, lot of features have been shot quickly with one camera.
 
Emote, thanks for your detailed chat. You covered much of the good and bad without bias. Then gave an opinion as just that instead of a mandate.
You had me hooked on your story, but left it with a weak ending! :) Re-write the ending and re-submit or you'll get a bad grade. :)
Seriously, thanks for all the feedback. That's why I asked on this forum.

Jleo,
I don't see much from Coppola, Orson Welles or Hitchcock being done around here. But they did shoot some of the Indiana Jones scenes here in Fresno! :)

Seriously, do all of your projects have that level of look and feel? Cool, I'd like to see some of your stuff. How many have you done? Any I would have seen?
Just kidding with you, but there is a broad spectrum of projects that pay the bills. Believe me, I prefer not to do down and dirty, but I have done quite a few in my 30 years. I know I can give a much better look than some of the "artistic" stuff I've seen in my day. I still think there is a place for this, maybe not with what you do daily, but we'll see if I can help some people with their projects.
 
Last edited:
Friday Night Lights is shot like this, and done well. They get through an astounding number of pages per day, because the camera operators are allowed to go anywhere and improvise, getting whatever shots they find. This works with the gritty nature of the show. They aren't afraid to cross the line. They light very little, relying on natural light much of the time – but I don't think anyone would say it looks like "sitcom lighting". Last but not least, this allows the actors to work very naturally and fluidly. It's a method I've experimented with and would like to do on a larger scale.

But, they're not editing live, either. It would be a disaster because of how often you can see other cameras in your shots. And it requires you to have top-notch talent both in front of and behind the camera. Finally, it means giving up a bit of control as a director, and trusting your operators to be there in the moment, capture the right moments. So that then when you go into the editing bay (and spend a LOT of time there) you know you'll have those moments in the bin.

Generally, you're not going to save any money this way, but when you have a limited amount of time to get something done, it's terrific, and if you can make the style match the material, like Friday Night Lights has, then that's outstanding.
 
emotpix, you hit the nail on the head and describe the current situation but I agree, you really don't have any ending: opinion/direction. I'm sure you have something good to suggest. I can't wait to hear it!

The You tube stuff is just another way for people to seeing things, I don't think it takes anything away from a story teller getting their message across. If anything it helps it because after viewing so much garbage on You tube, it's refreshing to engage something meaningful and well constructed.

Mamets emphasis on montage can be constructed from a multi camera set up. Mamet complains about the absent mindedness of a steadicam follwing the protagonist around because that approach dosen't utilize the power of cinema to activate the participation of the audience by constructing shots that evoke inferential meaning beyond what one visually observes. Montage does, and it can happen with any number of cameras employed if the designer approaches cinema in this fashion. Montage is a shot design & edit craft.

Doug Spoice: Good point. Friday Nights methods brings up an interesting approach, direct by finding the shots in the edit. But this happens anyway, so it's really not that big of a deal. Once a camera op. is trained in composition and understands where the drama is ocurring on the stage, then it seems OK to let em go at it. It''s certainly worth experimenting with. As Hitch would say, "that's what the cutting room is for."

TedRR, as far as who your market is, I don't know, and possibly you don't either, but if don't explore it further you certainly won't know for sure if you're missing anything. That's how things get discovered.

No guts, no glory. Go for it!
 
I think the right way to use multiple cameras is to have both cams relatively close to each other and set up the lighting with this in mind. One cam can grab a master while the other does a medium. When the take is right you can change lenses on both cams and get tight shots on two different actors.

If the talent moves towards or away from the cams then you will need multiple focus-pullers as well as camera ops. You A cam might even move, but I doubt the B cam would move at the same time.

If it takes the scene setup 20% longer and gets 70% more useable footage then it would probably be worth it. No way I'd do live switching though, I'd collect every thing the cameras see and take it to the NLE.

Bob
 
10s said:
if don't explore it further you certainly won't know for sure if you're missing anything. That's how things get discovered.
No guts, no glory. Go for it!
Click to expand...

Thanks 10's. That's what I'm talking about! :)
 
I would have to agree that this would remove a lot of the art afforded to you as a cinematographer. Even for a medium and close i wouldnt use 2 cameras - on the close I am likely to bring a bounce in very close or walk a kino in to sculpt the lighting. If you are lighting for 2 cameras, by definition you need to make compromises.
 
with today's NLE's you can just shoot a scene with 2 or 3 cameras and set up a multi-cam edit in post and with a few clicks cut the scene and if you don't like it you can cut, and re-cut, and so on to your heart's content. IMO cutting anything other than a live or 'as live' tv program on the fly is painting yourself into a corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top