shooting dialog with one camera
- Thread starter Garinion
- Start date
cyclone
Well-known member
You build your scene out of your best takes (picture and accompanying sound - which will be better sound than if you tried to mike 2 people at the same time - your performances will probably be better, as well, since you only have to pay attention to one of your actors at a time.). At that point, you then decide how you want to polish the edit with overlapping J cuts, L cuts, cutaways, reaction shots etc.
Gohanto
Veteran
That's up for debate. The general problem is that actor "save themselves" for when they're on-camera. This means that sometimes they don't listen and react completely with the on-camera actor (called actors being "generous"), making it harder for them. So from a watching point of view, one camera is easier, but from an acting point of view dual cameras are easier since everything they do is on camera.
The more general reason people stick to one-camera is lighting. It's hard enough to light for one shot without anything getting into frame, but two gets more difficult.
Sound-wise, that's why it's very important to have as little ambient sound as humanly possible. Fridge running? Unplug it. Air conditioning? Turn it off. The lower that volume, the easier the audio cuts will be. And then dialog editing so that it's completely seamless is an art in and of itself that normal productions have a person dedicated to doing just that. The simplest two things to know though...
1. Crossfade between all cuts. Very simple, but most people don't realize even a 3-4 cross-fade can improve sound 200%. If you can crossfade more frames without cutting off words, even better.
2. You don't have to wait for the cut to crossfade the audio track. If you hold a shot on someone's face before cutting to the other person, cut to the audio of the other track asap. When the audio cuts line up with picture cuts, bad ones are more obvious, if the audio track jumps a second before the picture cut, it's harder to notice.
filmman
Veteran
I prefer one camera.
But some of the points made in favor of two cameras are valid too.
I think you can develop better skills as a director working with one camera.
You must've heard about the three-camera technique used by TV?
It's faster. The middle camera shoots the master, the two cameras on the sides shoot the over the shoulders, and voila, instant TV show
If you're good, no editing is necessary -- just kidding.
But some of the points made in favor of two cameras are valid too.
I think you can develop better skills as a director working with one camera.
You must've heard about the three-camera technique used by TV?
It's faster. The middle camera shoots the master, the two cameras on the sides shoot the over the shoulders, and voila, instant TV show
If you're good, no editing is necessary -- just kidding.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I would say 90+% of all commercial films are shot with one camera (not counting second unit as a second camera). The BIG problem with the two camera shoot described above is that your actors are both talking at the same time and because of the cross coverage you sound tracks are going to have both actors on both tracks. That becomes a nightmare for editing unless you like the whole take as is. It's also twice as much work to set up and twice as many things can go wrong.
If your actors don't perform get new ones. I usually say bad sound is the red flag of low budget films but having seen a lot more I leaning toward bad acting as a bigger flag than bad sound. And that is saying a lot since the sound on low budget films as a rule is god awful to un-listenable.
If your actors don't perform get new ones. I usually say bad sound is the red flag of low budget films but having seen a lot more I leaning toward bad acting as a bigger flag than bad sound. And that is saying a lot since the sound on low budget films as a rule is god awful to un-listenable.
10s
Veteran
The audio tracks will not sound different if the actors are speaking to one another at a normal conversational distance. The actual microphone placement should remain in the same position but aimed at the "on-camera-actor" or if possible between both of them equally, this will ensure acoustic continuity. Give your sound man [wearing headphones] the authority to hold shooting until back ground noise, trucks, airplanes, dogs, lawn mowers... are out of the way. You'll have clean tracks to edit
Single camera is a great method. To stop actors from overlapping one another, if they happen to do this, you can try and have them space their lines apart so there's silence between their dialogue. So one would speak, space, and then the other will speak, space, etc... While it can be more difficult for the actors, because the timing delivery is weird, it allows the editor to time the interchange and keeps the dialogue clean. The down side is that it demands that cuts are made, and sometimes you don't want to cut just there.
The HVX with a good mic and boom Op sounds great!
Single camera is a great method. To stop actors from overlapping one another, if they happen to do this, you can try and have them space their lines apart so there's silence between their dialogue. So one would speak, space, and then the other will speak, space, etc... While it can be more difficult for the actors, because the timing delivery is weird, it allows the editor to time the interchange and keeps the dialogue clean. The down side is that it demands that cuts are made, and sometimes you don't want to cut just there.
The HVX with a good mic and boom Op sounds great!
Last edited:
It is advisable to shoot your master coverage first. Many have found the book The Five C's of Cinematography to be an indispensable source for learning how to block a scene.
e
e
IMO the actual BIG problem with a multicamera shoot is that you have to light for two or more opposing shots simultaneously. There's a reason that multi-camera television shows are lit the way they are.
jls4
Veteran
The audio tracks will not sound different if the actors are speaking to one another at a normal conversational distance. The actual microphone placement should remain in the same position but aimed at the "on-camera-actor" or if possible between both of them equally, this will ensure acoustic continuity. Give your sound man [wearing headphones] the authority to hold shooting until back ground noise, trucks, airplanes, dogs, lawn mowers... are out of the way. You'll have clean tracks to edit
Single camera is a great method. To stop actors from overlapping one another, if they happen to do this, you can try and have them space their lines apart so there's silence between their dialogue. So one would speak, space, and then the other will speak, space, etc... While it can be more difficult for the actors, because the timing delivery is weird, it allows the editor to time the interchange and keeps the dialogue clean. The down side is that it demands that cuts are made, and sometimes you don't want to cut just there.
I agree. I shot my first movie with 2 cams, but after that went down to 1. I'd love to shoot with 2 for the next film, but if I did, I'd put both cams on the same actor and get my close up and medium shot in the same take.
It's much easier to shoot with 1 camera than most people realize. My background is 100% movie. I notice those with backgrounds of 80% video tend to lend to more than 1 camera because it's quicker. but it looks better with 1, you just have to take your time, rehearse the scene, control your actors and shoot it.
:kali:
cyclone
Well-known member
I would shoot an entire master along with entire close ups. You never know what gems you will find in the performances that you never planned for. The editing process is a whole new layer of creativity that can be added. I have also had instances where the whole master is better than anything in the close ups, and I've stayed on the master for the entire scene.
Kevin Harrington
New member
Bookending is a good idea, but for this topic, where the OP didn't know you can even shoot one camera and edit shots together, it would be best for them to start learning to shoot everything from multiple, single camera angles. No need to get fancy yet.
10s
Veteran
Shooting Masters are nice to do for starting each new scene because it helps everyone see how the whole scene plays out. The nature of film making can cause all sorts of frustrations when all anyone ever sees are just little snippets, instead the crew, actors and director needs to see the whole enchilada. Let it play out and see how the scene unfolds. You're not shooting mags of expensive film, video is cheap and you should have the time scheduled to include Master Scenes.
Not to dismiss any of the other opinions, and very insightful opinions at that, but there are different approaches to filmmaking. And over time we all find what is most comfortable. Someone just starting out, especially on student or no budget personal films, should experiment.
I've found that most of the direction happens at the table reads and rehearsals. On set it's putting tab A in slot A and so on. Of course there is room for improvising. Seems a little late on set to see how a scene plays out. And it's very time consuming.
In no to lo budget independent shoots storyboarding saves valuable time.
Editing is still editing even if it's done on paper even before the shoot ever happens. The point is not to give an editor in post a chance to be creative. It's to make a movie. And make more and more of them.
I understand that some may not automatically see a frame by frame image of a scene in their minds as they read the screenplay. But if you do, storyboard and take full advantage of the technique.
I've found that most of the direction happens at the table reads and rehearsals. On set it's putting tab A in slot A and so on. Of course there is room for improvising. Seems a little late on set to see how a scene plays out. And it's very time consuming.
In no to lo budget independent shoots storyboarding saves valuable time.
Editing is still editing even if it's done on paper even before the shoot ever happens. The point is not to give an editor in post a chance to be creative. It's to make a movie. And make more and more of them.
I understand that some may not automatically see a frame by frame image of a scene in their minds as they read the screenplay. But if you do, storyboard and take full advantage of the technique.
If your entire picture is storyboarded, you might get by with no master coverage. I would strongly advise someone just getting into the business to learn proper blocking and filming technique - which puts masters up top.
Once the guy has been through a resulting edit, let him make decisions on whether he needs his masters. The worst case scenario is ending up with an untenable edit due to lack of coverage.
The $.02 of Hollywood features.
e
Once the guy has been through a resulting edit, let him make decisions on whether he needs his masters. The worst case scenario is ending up with an untenable edit due to lack of coverage.
The $.02 of Hollywood features.
e