Filming in a classroom

[scorsesefan]

Ah, the educational b-roll! I've done a lot of this as well.

I second Doug's recommendation about bringing a 70-200. Classrooms can be very cluttered and busy and being able to isolate the viewers attention through a longer focal length with a shallow stop can be very helpful.

I also love Peter's note about being in tight with a wider focal length, but I've found that can be very dependent on how your coverage was explained to the teachers and administrators who may be granting you access.

Classrooms are not movie sets, so the ability to get your camera 3 feet away from a child's face when they're in the middle of actual instruction from a teacher can be very distracting and usually not what people had in mind when you say you want to get b-roll in a classroom. Of course, if you can have that talk well in advance and really explain what you're trying to do, then by all means get close. But most of the classroom b-roll situations I've been in over the years don't really allow for it.

Good luck!

BTW as part of the documentary I'm interviewing some former students and teachers at a school I attended. It will be at a reunion on the (former) school grounds and there will probably be 10-15 people that I need to interview over 2-3 days. I was thinking maybe a group interview, or 2-3 people at a time? Also, I was thinking of using my Komodo or my Komodo+fx6. Thoughts?

 

[DustinSchmidt]

BTW as part of the documentary I'm interviewing some former students and teachers at a school I attended. It will be at a reunion on the (former) school grounds and there will probably be 10-15 people that I need to interview over 2-3 days. I was thinking maybe a group interview, or 2-3 people at a time? Also, I was thinking of using my Komodo or my Komodo+fx6. Thoughts?

Ah interesting. I've shot up to 2 people at a time for interviews, but never a larger number than that, although I have filmed some panel/round table types of discussions a few times but that was usually at corporate events with a stage type of setting.

I'm not a fan of interviewing more than one person at a time. I would avoid going that route, personally.

It would certainly help with speed in the situation you're describing, but when it comes to the edit you'll probably get people stepping over each other's answers, lighting and framing that's not ideal because you have to accommodate a larger group in each setting, larger and more complicated setups and numerous other issues.

I feel like when you interview one person at a time they're more engaged, less self-conscious and you'll get better dialogue. Plus you can get independent answers that support what others may have said, or maybe contradict what they said, and you'll be able to cut a better, more interesting edit in the end.

 

[DustinSchmidt]

Ah interesting. I've shot up to 2 people at a time for interviews, but never a larger number than that, although I have filmed some panel/round table types of discussions a few times but that was usually at corporate events with a stage type of setting.

I'm not a fan of interviewing more than one person at a time. I would avoid going that route, personally.

It would certainly help with speed in the situation you're describing, but when it comes to the edit you'll probably get people stepping over each other's answers, lighting and framing that's not ideal because you have to accommodate a larger group in each setting, larger and more complicated setups and numerous other issues.

I feel like when you interview one person at a time they're more engaged, less self-conscious and you'll get better dialogue. Plus you can get independent answers that support what others may have said, or maybe contradict what they said, and you'll be able to cut a better, more interesting edit in the end.

And I would definitely shoot 2 cameras for every interview. I haven't shot an interview with less than 2 cameras in probably over a decade. If a client even suggests we do just one camera for an interview I immediately try to steer them clear of that idea.

But I also do a lot of editing, so I know how crucial it is to be able to cut to an alternate angle when needed. And it is DEFINITELY NEEDED on pretty much every edit.

 

[scorsesefan]

Yeah, I agree. I prefer solo interviews, but I'm shooting solo and I'm afraid of being overwhelmed.

 

[Doug Jensen]

And I would definitely shoot 2 cameras for every interview. I haven't shot an interview with less than 2 cameras in probably over a decade. If a client even suggests we do just one camera for an interview I immediately try to steer them clear of that idea.

But I also do a lot of editing, so I know how crucial it is to be able to cut to an alternate angle when needed. And it is DEFINITELY NEEDED on pretty much every edit.

I am exactly the opposite. If a client suggests we need two cameras on a single person, I firmly steer them clear of that idea. I hate watching interviews that cut from one head shot to another head shot of the same person. It looks awful and makes for a boring interview. This is what b-roll, graphics, etc. were invented for.

But I do agree about only interviewing one person at a time if you want good soundbites.

 

[jcadge]

I agree with Doug using B-roll is always better, but sometimes you don't have applicable B-roll available. And I agree 2 shots that are framed similar or the "profile shot for the B cam doesn't work. if the setting is nice a classroom, research lab etc.. I use the A-cam for a wider more deep focus look to show the interesting environment with the subject looking at the A- camera and the B-cam is a longer lens with shallow depth of field with a 3/4 view, both cams have 2 eyes. This cuts better, the closer shot is a more pleasing shot of the person while the other establishes their environment.

 

[DustinSchmidt]

I agree with Doug using B-roll is always better, but sometimes you don't have applicable B-roll available. And I agree 2 shots that are framed similar or the "profile shot for the B cam doesn't work. if the setting is nice a classroom, research lab etc.. I use the A-cam for a wider more deep focus look to show the interesting environment with the subject looking at the A- camera and the B-cam is a longer lens with shallow depth of field with a 3/4 view, both cams have 2 eyes. This cuts better, the closer shot is a more pleasing shot of the person while the other establishes their environment.

Good points on both accounts.

I love a wide shot showing the space and then a tight shot as described above for interview setups. That's not always possible depending on the room and the context, but it does avoid cutting to two nearly identical shots, as Doug described.

There's never enough interesting areas for B-roll on a lot of these jobs, or sometimes not enough time allowed to get it. So having a second angle becomes crucial in the edit.

Also, it's way quicker for me to simply cut to a different angle than it is to create a graphic or even to find just the right piece of b-roll. So shooting two cameras actually saves me time in post when trying to get to a final cut that the client is happy with.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Also, it's way quicker for me to simply cut to a different angle than it is to create a graphic or even to find just the right piece of b-roll. So shooting two cameras actually saves me time in post . . .

And there it is.

I give you credit for admitting the 2nd camera is mostly just a crutch to save time and energy creating/shooting/finding interesting visuals that will reinforce the content of the interview. To me, it will always be the mark of a lazy production. Please don't take that personally, but that's my opinion. In 45 years of doing production, somehow I have never needed a second head shot of the same person . . . and neither have my clients. Nothing is more boring than watching a talking head,l even one that has two slightly different angles and focal lengths. Still boring.

I always tell the students in my interview lighting workshops, that you want to put as much effort as you can into creating the best looking interview that is possible -- and then work as hard as you can getting other visuals so you don't have to use very much of it in post. Put the interview on track one, and then cover up as much of it as you can on track 2 with other visuals that reinforce the message and keep it interesting for the viewer.

And that is what I really dislike about many of the YouTube videos I see on all kinds of subjects. TOO MUCH TALKING HEADS! Lazy. We don't need to see your fuc&^%$ing face in every shot. But that is a pet peeve for another day.

 

[DustinSchmidt]

And there it is.

I give you credit for admitting the 2nd camera is mostly just a crutch to save time and energy creating/shooting/finding interesting visuals that will reinforce the content of the interview. To me, it will always be the mark of a lazy production. Please don't take that personally, but that's my opinion. In 45 years of doing production, somehow I have never needed a second head shot of the same person . . . and neither have my clients. Nothing is more boring than watching a talking head,l even one that has two slightly different angles and focal lengths. Still boring.

I always tell the students in my interview lighting workshops, that you want to put as much effort as you can into creating the best looking interview that is possible -- and then work as hard as you can getting other visuals so you don't have to use very much of it in post. Put the interview on track one, and then cover up as much of it as you can on track 2 with other visuals that reinforce the message and keep it interesting for the viewer.

And that is what I really dislike about many of the YouTube videos I see on all kinds of subjects. TOO MUCH TALKING HEADS! Lazy. We don't need to see your fuc&^%$ing face in every shot. But that is a pet peeve for another day.

No worries, no offense taken. Every shoot is a push and pull with the client for more time with the subject, a better interview location, more access to facilities, etc. etc.

I certainly wish I had the time, resources or access on every shoot to put more effort into b-roll that reinforces the content of the interview, but ultimately I take what I can get and live to fight another day.

 

[LennyLevy]

Things will move very fast - I think the 24-105 will do you well and yes Clear image zoom can be very helpful in reaching further in + its fast . No one will see the minor loss in quality. Also if you're shooting in 4K most people are finishing in HD so you already have the option of doubling your focal length. In 4K and with clear image zoom it would practically be like having a 24-100.

If you wanted a second lens i think the 16-35 is very very useful for covering documentary situations where width often is more important than getting in close from far away. In a classroom you can often walk in for close shots and you're usually observing behavior not close details.

I've shot in classrooms plenty and totally agree with Peter C . You'll constantly have things happen between students and between teachers and students and you can't anticipate when good things will happen. No one will care if you don't have extreme closeups , but they will want to see the interaction - that's what you're there for - not beauty. That's why I think the 16-35 is a great addition. You would find out very quickly which lens was better for your situation . Also those wide shots always look great, camera movement & shake are minimized , your always in focus and its really fun to shoot that way . You can practically run constantly while walking around and always be quick to just pan over and catch something happening. It will all look good, but long lens shots need to be right or they suck and you'll probably be out of focus when something happens.
Also I agree with Peter that the kids will forget about you very quickly as long as you try to be unobtrusive. Its easy to walk around even in structured classrooms . They give you a lot of leeway when your the camera guy. I always tell the kids right up front though to ignore me and that if they look at the camera and try to ham it up I'll turn away immediately and they'll end up on the cutting room floor.

 

[scorsesefan]

Things will move very fast - I think the 24-105 will do you well and yes Clear image zoom can be very helpful in reaching further in + its fast . No one will see the minor loss in quality. Also if you're shooting in 4K most people are finishing in HD so you already have the option of doubling your focal length. In 4K and with clear image zoom it would practically be like having a 24-100.

If you wanted a second lens i think the 16-35 is very very useful for covering documentary situations where width often is more important than getting in close from far away. In a classroom you can often walk in for close shots and you're usually observing behavior not close details.

I've shot in classrooms plenty and totally agree with Peter C . You'll constantly have things happen between students and between teachers and students and you can't anticipate when good things will happen. No one will care if you don't have extreme closeups , but they will want to see the interaction - that's what you're there for - not beauty. That's why I think the 16-35 is a great addition. You would find out very quickly which lens was better for your situation . Also those wide shots always look great, camera movement & shake are minimized , your always in focus and its really fun to shoot that way . You can practically run constantly while walking around and always be quick to just pan over and catch something happening. It will all look good, but long lens shots need to be right or they suck and you'll probably be out of focus when something happens.
Also I agree with Peter that the kids will forget about you very quickly as long as you try to be unobtrusive. Its easy to walk around even in structured classrooms . They give you a lot of leeway when your the camera guy. I always tell the kids right up front though to ignore me and that if they look at the camera and try to ham it up I'll turn away immediately and they'll end up on the cutting room floor.

Thanks. Great advice, Lenny. When I'm doing DP doc work I often try to cover the scene wide and if necessary come in close depending on what action or emotion is playing out...

 

[Kubicixfactor]

No worries, no offense taken. Every shoot is a push and pull with the client for more time with the subject, a better interview location, more access to facilities, etc. etc.

I certainly wish I had the time, resources or access on every shoot to put more effort into b-roll that reinforces the content of the interview, but ultimately I take what I can get and live to fight another day.

I sometimes end up shooting the interview right at the end of the day despite asking that it comes first, then it's a pain to find relevant b-roll to shoot. I like to have the interview first so I can have a bit of time to listen to the content and plan the b-roll shots to get the most value.

I never use two cameras for the interview though for a single person, I always put my attention on the one camera and lighting and audio. On the subject of two cameras, my pet hate is seeing one of the cameras moving on a slider while the main camera angle is static, I'd much rather see illustrative b-roll than a demonstration of modern automation technology but that's me being a dinosaur I guess.

 

[DustinSchmidt]

I'm curious, for those who only shoot one camera for your interview portions, do you also do the edit on those jobs?

Or do you pass footage off to someone else to do the edit?

 

[LennyLevy]

I usually shoot one camera unless the director prefers more - especially if I don't have a second Op. Likewise if i'm passing it off its their choice. I frequently edit my own single camera interviews. As i mentioned before - if you're shooting 4K (UHD) and finishing in HD like most people do then you always have a closeup . I'm also not a fan of the moving 2nd camera or frankly even the side camera unless you just don't have b roll. Otherwise its Just a gimmick for my taste for people who are afraid to let the content do the talking . Rather spend my time making that shot look great. But I'm an old guy with old fart tastes.

 

[LennyLevy]

I usually shoot one camera unless the director prefers more - especially if I don't have a second Op. Likewise if i'm passing it off its their choice, I do what what they want. I frequently edit my own single camera interviews. As i mentioned before - if you're shooting 4K (UHD) and finishing in HD like most people do then you always have a closeup . I'm also not a fan of the moving 2nd camera or frankly even the side camera unless you just don't have b roll. Otherwise its Just a gimmick for my taste for people who are afraid to let the content do the talking . Rather spend my time making that shot look great. But I'm an old guy with old fart tastes.

I'm not generally fond of interviews with 2 people at a time unless there's a damn good reason to . I guess its mainly aesthetic though because I really like to compose nice interviews and you can't do it with 2 people. But ultimately the content and mood are what determine that stuff . If its just off the cuff fast moving interviews sometimes 2 people is great if they have great chemistry . With kids it might be fun to have 2 or even more. Try to get cutaways though.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I'm curious, for those who only shoot one camera for your interview portions, do you also do the edit on those jobs?

Or do you pass footage off to someone else to do the edit?

Both ways.

 

[Kubicixfactor]

I'm curious, for those who only shoot one camera for your interview portions, do you also do the edit on those jobs?

Or do you pass footage off to someone else to do the edit?

Edit myself most of the time now, I did work with another editor for a couple of years who was brilliant with inserting animation graphics onto chromakey interviews.

 

[Peter C.]

In my projects interviews were basic. Teachers are very busy so either I’d pull them aside between classes or after. I’d also let them know in advance so they could prepare what they’d like to say and understand what I’m interested in learning. You should know how to illicit the content you need. For example some people will recite their resume or go off on unrelated tangents.

One camera is sufficient especially when the majority of the video will be classroom b roll. The audio quality and the content of what they are saying is more important. I like pauses between topics and retakes. Leave space at the start and end otherwise you won’t be able to smoothly transition. Don’t hesitate to have them retake if they stumble so you get clean sound bites you can use. The more work here will make your life easier in the edit.

If you can arrange for short student interviews. Read or show what they’re doing or what they like. Eliciting information this way is far more powerful and useful than hoping you can capture it randomly filming in a class.

 

[Kubicixfactor]

With students, particularly younger ones who can be difficult on camera, just getting audio from them can be useful across b-roll. No need to roll a camera.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I can think of countless times I've seen two angles/sizes on an interview in docs and other types of pieces. Have been asked to do it many times myself. I can't see telling the director or client "you don't want that" out of personal preference. Most of the time it's used in addition to b-roll, not instead of it. Either a cut for emphasis between the shots, or coming back out of b-roll to a different perspective on the subject, to keep it from being repetitive.