Filming in a classroom

Point from Charles about using two cameras to cut to different angles either side of b-roll never occurred to me and I can see the value in that to keep things interesting. I'm shooting a recruitment video fro a small business next month which will have quite a few interviews (testimonials from existing staff) and most of my thinking so far has been around the b-roll content so I'll certainly give this a go.
 
I've always found cutaways to a second camera during documentaries distracting. I'm not talking about an establishing shot necessarily, but an entirely different angle of attack. I like the KEEP IT SIMPLE as if I'm sitting there across from them while they speak more pleasing.
 
CharlesPapert said:
. . . different perspective on the subject, to keep it from being repetitive.
Click to expand...
I agree completely about interview shots becoming repetitive. That is one of the main reasons I find it hard to watch a Ken Burns documentary. 50 hours into a story on Jazz, Baseball or whatever, we keep coming back to the exact same shots on the exact same people. It gets really old.

This is one of the reasons I always shoot interviews with a zoom. I can ( and do) change the focal length quite often between questions or whenever there is a natural break. My favorite lens is the Sony f/2.8 70-200mm. 70mm is plenty wide, and that is what I light for. Then I can punch into 90mm, 100, 135, 200, or whatever feels best during the course of the interview. That is a much better way of keeping the shot interesting than setting up and matching a 2nd camera.

I do, however, miss the 2/3" days of doing a nice slow servo zoom whenever the subject started to tear-up or the narrative got emotional. Those were the days. If you want to do something different, try that today. It is unheard of.
 
What keeps Ken Burn's films interesting IMO are compelling interview subjects and he gets amazing b-roll. In the wrong hands docs with extensive sit down interviews (uninteresting people) is a snooze fest.
 
Kubicixfactor said:
Point from Charles about using two cameras to cut to different angles either side of b-roll never occurred to me and I can see the value in that to keep things interesting. I'm shooting a recruitment video fro a small business next month which will have quite a few interviews (testimonials from existing staff) and most of my thinking so far has been around the b-roll content so I'll certainly give this a go.
Click to expand...
There's certainly seems to be a push towards more interview angles in docs lately. Netflix docs seem to have done a good job of making 3 or even 4 angles or more commonplace.

Screenshot 2025-09-07 at 3.39.34 PM.png
 
A couple of years ago I shot some BTS interviews for the Paramount series "Fatal Attraction". I realized I hadn't seen the footage after I shot it, so I hunted it down and turned up this featurette. The BTS producer told me it would be two cameras on sliders, I didn't have a say in the matter. Like so many jobs these days we were pushing a live stream to a remote group of producers, but interestingly that feed began with the lighting setup, and we were given a lot of notes to incorporate stylistically. This clip is cued up to the first cut between wide and tight, there are various others throughout. I do want to point out that the interviews I shot were in the courtroom set--there's another set of them including Lizzie Caplan that was shot by a different team on another day. I'm not going to say this was the best looking interview setup I've ever shot (the foreground level is to my eye too hot compared to the background), but honestly, I think the other set of interviews were pretty lacking from a lighting standpoint.

Anyway, there's a number of cutting to second angle going on within this clip. Considering the overall fast edit style, it doesn't bump me, personally. I just want to go back in and drop the level on the foreground!

 
scorsesefan said:
The shots with the red leather chair are yours, Charles?
Click to expand...
I don't want there to be any confusion on this because the same chair was used both sets of interviews. While I would call my work that day serviceably decent, the interviews I didn't shoot...well, I have notes.

mine.jpg

I was overseen on this shoot and told what the lenses would be, that we would incorporate flares, the slider moves on both cameras etc. I was a gun for hire. The flares in particular I think were the least successful. Several of the shots they use are right up to the flare point, but it just looks arbitrarily milked out. Again not my choice.

The subsequent shoot (as seen in the "not mine") was definitely not my lighting style.
 
Last edited:
CharlesPapert said:
I don't want there to be any confusion on this because the same chair was used both sets of interviews. While I would call my work that day serviceably decent, the interviews I didn't shoot...well, I have notes.

View attachment 5712938

I was overseen on this shoot and told what the lenses would be, that we would incorporate flares, the slider moves on both cameras etc. I was a gun for hire. The flares in particular I think were the least successful. Several of the shots they use are right up to the flare point, but it just looks arbitrarily milked out. Again not my choice.

The subsequent shoot (as seen in the "not mine") was definitely not my lighting style.
Click to expand...
The NOT MINE is obvious and not flattering at all.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I don't want there to be any confusion on this because the same chair was used both sets of interviews. While I would call my work that day serviceably decent, the interviews I didn't shoot...well, I have notes.

View attachment 5712938

I was overseen on this shoot and told what the lenses would be, that we would incorporate flares, the slider moves on both cameras etc. I was a gun for hire. The flares in particular I think were the least successful. Several of the shots they use are right up to the flare point, but it just looks arbitrarily milked out. Again not my choice.

The subsequent shoot (as seen in the "not mine") was definitely not my lighting style.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I definitely think your shot is more subtle and nuanced. I wonder if the other shooter was younger and less experienced? I find over lighting or sometimes high key (if not for a purpose ) to be the hallmark of inexperience. I’m sure the studio execs had fits at Gordon Willis’ “under lighting “ on Godfather but they were wrong
 
For me it's the size of the units. The other setup feels like small panels or tubes. I was using large diffusion, all large sources. Obviously everyone who shoots interviews with multiple subjects is used to dialing the levels on the various units depending on the subject's hair, skin tone etc. I had to do it lightning fast on this because of limited time with each actor, so I was already calling levels to my gaffer (using an Ipad) as soon as I saw them. From the time they sat down to me calling ready was at most 45 seconds per subject, after adjusting key, fill, underfill and backlight (level and in some cases, color temp). I had to give the women more fill than the men because it was more flattering and in a couple of cases that built up more overall level than I would have liked to have gone with but once again, the pressure was on to roll as soon as possible.
 
Not read the whole thread.

In general if this shot breaks.. we need something to cut to. Always have something to cut to.

How can a shot break (need editing)
-talent may frezze
-aricraft may ovberhead
-kid might run into background
-builders next door might start up machinery

whatever!

A second angle will give something cheap to cut to! Of course today jump cuts are seen as 'ok'
 
DustinSchmidt said:
There's certainly seems to be a push towards more interview angles in docs lately. Netflix docs seem to have done a good job of making 3 or even 4 angles or more commonplace.
Click to expand...
To Doug's point about what he feels are obnoxious cuts from A to B, to me this would fall more in the category of a poor editing/Director choice. It could be as simple as using a close up profile for emotional responses and the wide for less emotional responses, never cut together. To those thinking multiple cameras is the only way to get multiple angles, you can also just change camera angles with a single camera. I do this all the time where it's an educated guess on the "split" you want, e.g. it could be:
- 50/50 split of questions from angle A to B
- 80% of interview angle A then switch to B for just a few questions
- 100% of interview angle A, repeat questions angle B
- if interview is short enough, 100% interview A, full repeat angle B

The benefit being no different to multicam narrative shooting where neither angles need to bend the knee to the alternate camera position, as well as cheating the lighting for close ups etc.

Also, it's not a done deal that b-roll is more interesting than the interviews. If everyone imagines their hero speaking on camera about the topic of their choice, I bet many would rather stick with seeing the person speaking on camera. Either way I think a project is in trouble if they're thinking in terms of which is the least boring option to use!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top