LuckyStudio 13
The Tapeless One
How many of you guys feel that 2 camera shoots is optimum and most efficient ??
2 camera shooting
- Thread starter LuckyStudio 13
- Start date
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
For what?
LuckyStudio 13
The Tapeless One
narrative and music videos
Gopher_Greene
Well-known member
Efficient and optimum rarely go together in the film world. If your talking MTV type music video's rarely does the shot have meaning, therefore the medium becomes the art form. In that case shoot as many as you can, especially for live event and cut together in post. For a film set, never use two camers excpet for one time stunts. A lot of producers would love to shoot two cameras over the shoulders, and move on, I even had directors ask for that (unbelievable to me) but you can not properly light two facing people at the same time.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Gohper Greene, why can't you light 2 people facing each other? I'm trying to learn more about lighting, but I'm quite sure I've seen this setup quite often.
In reply to Dxmetal, I guess when you have unlimited opportunity for takes, using 2 cameras is cool. I could see a music video with a group or a band, having a close-up on the lead, a group shot of a few other members, maybe a wide shot, and perhaps an audience camera.
For Narrative, I could see a camera on the primary speaker, one on the other particupants, and maye a wide shot. Seems a lot of basic stuff I see these days is three camera. I'm not sure if that's because it's cheaper/easier to edit in post. now than to pay talent to hang around for close-ups/off-camera dialog, etc.
In reply to Dxmetal, I guess when you have unlimited opportunity for takes, using 2 cameras is cool. I could see a music video with a group or a band, having a close-up on the lead, a group shot of a few other members, maybe a wide shot, and perhaps an audience camera.
For Narrative, I could see a camera on the primary speaker, one on the other particupants, and maye a wide shot. Seems a lot of basic stuff I see these days is three camera. I'm not sure if that's because it's cheaper/easier to edit in post. now than to pay talent to hang around for close-ups/off-camera dialog, etc.
Generally speaking, unless you're going for the 'sitcom look' where everything is lit brightly from every angle, using more than one camera for a movie is just making problems for yourself unless it's a one-off shot where you need multiple cameras to get multiple angles (big stunt, etc). Sure, in theory it's faster, but in my experience the extra time you spend setting things up means that you don't get much more shot than you otherwise would, unless you compromise in that way.
For a documentary it's far more viable since you don't have much control over the lighting most of the time anyway, and people may not mind if your second camera operator wanders into the shot.
For a documentary it's far more viable since you don't have much control over the lighting most of the time anyway, and people may not mind if your second camera operator wanders into the shot.
Gopher_Greene
Well-known member
What mark G is saying is right on the mark (sorry for the cheap pun). this 3-pointlighting stuff that is so often discussed just doesn't cut it for film making. Read "Painting with Light" by John Alton, Martin Scorsee endorses it, thats what I use to teach lighting class. It will outline the eight points of lighting. Once you understand those you'll see how it would be impossible to dramatically light two facing individuals.
ozduc
Well-known member
While Mark & Gopher G have some valid points about lighting opposing talent, the idea of using 2 cameras on a dramatic, narrative style film shoot is used all the time. It is not so much for shooting over the shoulder type shots, with cameras set up opposite each other, but by setting the cameras up side by side, one camera can be getting a wide shot while the other is getting close up. For instance if you have 2 actors in a scene, "A" camera would be getting a 2 shot while "B" camera would be getting a close up of actor "1" hence saving the time of having to reset for their close up. This occurs on many sets especially in long form television where shooting schedules for a 1 hour drama are usually around 7 or 8 days.
LuckyStudio 13
The Tapeless One
ozduc, that is precisely what i meant. Assuming that we dont cross "the line", in order to not messed up the lighting, with two cameras, one can get a say a medium shot and another a closeup or whatever.
And on music video, one camera can get the long shot/big shots of the entire band, and another can wonder around focusing on the band members, guitars....etc.
Like yesterday we had a shot where a girl gets hit in the face with a pie. How the director wished we had another camera to take a different angle of the "incident".
NOw 3 cameras for narrative???? wide, medium and closeup in one take ???
And on music video, one camera can get the long shot/big shots of the entire band, and another can wonder around focusing on the band members, guitars....etc.
Like yesterday we had a shot where a girl gets hit in the face with a pie. How the director wished we had another camera to take a different angle of the "incident".
NOw 3 cameras for narrative???? wide, medium and closeup in one take ???
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Dxmetal said:
I hope you'll forgive me. I am still VERY new to the idea of shooting "drama" with takes. Nearly all my experience in film and video (still or motion) is with live events where you can't get "another take".
I'm still coming to grips with the idea that you can actually get someone to do a "do-over"!
Gopher_Greene
Well-known member
Even the shooting of the close-up, medium and wide shot at the same is not a good idea. Lighting needs to change as you push in or out, thats what makes dolly shots so tough. Just one example, eye light. If you don't have it right on the close up, the eyes are going to look dull and lifeless. I don't make a dime by recommending this book or any other, though maybe I should setup one of those referal things with Amazon. For 12 lousy bucks you can get the basics of lighting down from one of the greats.
http://www.amazon.com/Painting-Ligh..._bbs_sr_1/102-1167234-0771351?ie=UTF8&s=books
It will be the best 12 dollars you ever spend. Also keep in mind the old adage, Good, Fast, Cheap pick any two. You can be fast and cheap, but the results won't be consistently good.
Dramatic lighting is lighting that is arranged along with pictorial elements to further the story by creating mood, time and space. So lighting a scene dramatically means that you have created or furtherd those elements of the story by the use of light.
http://www.amazon.com/Painting-Ligh..._bbs_sr_1/102-1167234-0771351?ie=UTF8&s=books
It will be the best 12 dollars you ever spend. Also keep in mind the old adage, Good, Fast, Cheap pick any two. You can be fast and cheap, but the results won't be consistently good.
Dramatic lighting is lighting that is arranged along with pictorial elements to further the story by creating mood, time and space. So lighting a scene dramatically means that you have created or furtherd those elements of the story by the use of light.
I was on a shoot last weekend w/ 2 cameras for recording, but it presents a lot of problems. For example, to get the proper lighting for a closeup, your light is usually gonna be too close to do a wide. So that's an issue. Plus when you're trying to get a closeup and you've got a boom for the sound and you're trying to get a wide, you have to pull the boom way back, which makes the audio sound bad.
We had some luck doing 2 cameras on one-on-one conversations with actors outside (no lights, just some bounce) and each doing a closeup on a different actor. That could work, but lighting setups for a wide and a closeup will differ dramatically, as will your boom setup, so it typically won't work for one reason or another.
We had some luck doing 2 cameras on one-on-one conversations with actors outside (no lights, just some bounce) and each doing a closeup on a different actor. That could work, but lighting setups for a wide and a closeup will differ dramatically, as will your boom setup, so it typically won't work for one reason or another.
khmuse
Tech Guru
PerroneFord said:I hope you'll forgive me. I am still VERY new to the idea of shooting "drama" with takes. Nearly all my experience in film and video (still or motion) is with live events where you can't get "another take".
I'm still coming to grips with the idea that you can actually get someone to do a "do-over"!
That is why for narrative work, you hire real actors. They are very used to ding things the same time after time.
Consider a simple 2 shot.
You will likely have a master, a pair of OTS and ofter a pair of CUs. Consider that you would never want just a single pass on any angle (always one for safety) that is a minimum of 10 takes for a single scene. Now add to that retakes for errors in performance, sound issues, camera moves, etc.
You can easily see why shooting ratios are not 1:1!
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
I am quite familiar with "Painting with light", probably read it at the same time Scorsese did (I am that old 
). And I do endorse many of its principles, even did recommend it on another thread on this forum recently.
But film production has gone forward on several aspects, as it should if it's worth it.
Nowadays most films shoot with A and B cameras, every shot, not just action. You can find a way to make that very useful and not compromise the lighting.
Comedies were easier for that in the past, because lighting is lower contrast and shadow design will be less evident in different angles of same shot. Right now I can't remember the exact English names for the shots, as we name them differently in Brazil or Argentina were I live. BTW: Alton spent many years living and lighting in Argentina.
But you can shoot a wider and a closer shot of the same scene with A & B cameras and cover that scene much quicker, not compromising lighting too much.
Whatever it is, it's a fact that A and B cameras are now the usual shooting routine.
When you shoot documentaries I think it's a must to have at least two cameras if you can afford it. One of them shooting the close ups and the other being the main camera.
This question of one or two cameras for film shooting I have been following for a very long time, but production speed demands seem to have forced cinematographers to get solutions where their work wouldn't be compromised. In my view, good for them!...
Carlos
). And I do endorse many of its principles, even did recommend it on another thread on this forum recently. But film production has gone forward on several aspects, as it should if it's worth it.
Nowadays most films shoot with A and B cameras, every shot, not just action. You can find a way to make that very useful and not compromise the lighting.
Comedies were easier for that in the past, because lighting is lower contrast and shadow design will be less evident in different angles of same shot. Right now I can't remember the exact English names for the shots, as we name them differently in Brazil or Argentina were I live. BTW: Alton spent many years living and lighting in Argentina.
But you can shoot a wider and a closer shot of the same scene with A & B cameras and cover that scene much quicker, not compromising lighting too much.
Whatever it is, it's a fact that A and B cameras are now the usual shooting routine.
When you shoot documentaries I think it's a must to have at least two cameras if you can afford it. One of them shooting the close ups and the other being the main camera.
This question of one or two cameras for film shooting I have been following for a very long time, but production speed demands seem to have forced cinematographers to get solutions where their work wouldn't be compromised. In my view, good for them!...
Carlos
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
For music videos I could see two cameras as being very beneficial, especially if the music video included intercutting with the band performing the song.
For narrative I like using one camera, mainly for space and lighting purposes. It's easier to light for one camera, and you can move stuff around and cheat from shot to shot easier with one camera and not worry about the other camera being in frame.
For narrative I like using one camera, mainly for space and lighting purposes. It's easier to light for one camera, and you can move stuff around and cheat from shot to shot easier with one camera and not worry about the other camera being in frame.
I dunno...dual-camera setups seem to be getting more common, at least in 1-hr tv drama. We went from dual Panaflexes (Milleniums, I think) to dual Genesis (Genesises...?), in what seemed to be a more-or-less misguided effort to save money, for the last four episodes of 'E-Ring.' We had quite a number of dual-camera setups (Panaflexes again) on a recent feature, 'Unaccompanied Minors,' too.
Closer to home, we've been shooting our documentary with a lot of two- and sometimes three-camera setups...although that's all been either studio/interview stuff, or live event/concert coverage.
YMMV.
Closer to home, we've been shooting our documentary with a lot of two- and sometimes three-camera setups...although that's all been either studio/interview stuff, or live event/concert coverage.
YMMV.
I know sooooo many editors who would cheerfully donate their left testicles, if they could only somehow make that statement true... :smile:khmuse said:
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Hi:
Ozduc has it right as well as everyone else who posted about two cameras being fairly common in narrative and almost standard in what used to be single camera drama for television like "24".
I agree that cross lighting for narrative is not effective but shooting a medium and CU or a wide and medium at the same time can be done with just a small amount of lighting compromise.
I produce and light documentaries and I almost always use at least two cameras, sometimes three or four when we do large multiple person round tables, etc. I agree, lighting is compromised but if you light what I call "NYPD Blue" style that Brian Reynolds and Mark Tinker taught me, you can shoot with as many cameras as you want. If you were ever a fan of NYPD Blue, the precinct was almost exclusively lit with big fixtures from outside the set windows, emulating sunlight. I personally thought that it was one of the best looking and most cinematic looking TV shows ever and if I were shooting a narrative project, I would try to light like this as much as possible, no grid, just design your sets and use real locations that could be lit in this manner wherever possible.
All the best,
Dan
Ozduc has it right as well as everyone else who posted about two cameras being fairly common in narrative and almost standard in what used to be single camera drama for television like "24".
I agree that cross lighting for narrative is not effective but shooting a medium and CU or a wide and medium at the same time can be done with just a small amount of lighting compromise.
I produce and light documentaries and I almost always use at least two cameras, sometimes three or four when we do large multiple person round tables, etc. I agree, lighting is compromised but if you light what I call "NYPD Blue" style that Brian Reynolds and Mark Tinker taught me, you can shoot with as many cameras as you want. If you were ever a fan of NYPD Blue, the precinct was almost exclusively lit with big fixtures from outside the set windows, emulating sunlight. I personally thought that it was one of the best looking and most cinematic looking TV shows ever and if I were shooting a narrative project, I would try to light like this as much as possible, no grid, just design your sets and use real locations that could be lit in this manner wherever possible.
All the best,
Dan