How many cameras do DP's and Directors usually need/use to film a dialogue scene???

C

Crossroads Films

Active member
Hi im having trouble agreeing with how to shoot a scene, were trying to figure out if we need 3 cameras or so to shoot a dialogue scene...When is it necessary to get alot of cameras involved and when is it not...and how do u avoid the cameramen from looking at each other in the shots...or do u use only one camera and do the scene from one angle then the next, then a wide shot

anybody have there own method
 
start here first...

http://masteringfilm.com/cover-your-scene-and-your-butt/

unless your short on time... you can get coverage with 1 camera... not sure what you mean by the cameraman looking at each other... they shouldn't be in the shot anyway... so it doesn't matter..

the only reason to have more than one camera is... its a stunt or shot that you can only get once... a high priced actor can only be there for 1 day... so more coverage in a somewhat faster time... because you're dp has to know how to light for more than one camera... are you have a short shooting schedule and need to get as much done as possible in a short of mount of time...
 
thx yea I watch film riot alot and they said one cam would suffice but my director watched the Expendables making of and saw like 4 cameras and said we need that...i was kinda like yea its cool to have alot of coverage but at the same time those are stunt scenes and fights...do we really need to have 3 dudes trying to coverage dialogue
 
I shot most of my latest feature dialog scenes with 2 cameras. It's a limitation on space really, you can always put more cameras in the scene if you can afford the space to separate them out. I know some comedies that use multiple cameras to maintain the actors pacing (über important in comedies).

But if it's just two or three characters talking, one camera is enough.
 
It's important to have the proper lenses to shoot multi cam takes. For instances, if your shooting a dialogue scene with the cams over the shoulder, your focal lengths need to match, It will not look right if you have one cam with a med close up, and the other with a med wide. So if you have two cams, make sure you have the same focal length on each cam for dialogue scenes. And match up the frameing so when you cut back and fourth between actors it flows and is not distracting. Also it's hugely important to WB and match contrast ratios between cams. It sounds silly basic, but I see this get screwed up all the time. Usually because the cams are either different models, or the glass is completely different. And it shows, You can always work with it in post but it's time consuming, and much easier to get it as close as you can in camera.

Also as long as you adhere to the 180 degree rule, it will be easy to shoot without getting your other camera crew in the scene. If thats what you were talking about. not sure though.
 
1 is enough. Shooting with two or three cameras requires more skilled people, more gear, and you have to be able to light for multiple angles at once. You also start to venture into territory where you're no longer shooting shots that work for the story, but instead you just start getting anything you can get.
 
I use two cameras on nearly all jobs, unless there is a compelling reason not to. Not all scenes dictate or require it and sometimes space is too limited to fit in another size. But in the never-ending battle between getting coverage and making the days, it's worth it. It is the de facto setup for nearly all episodic TV shows and most movies. For certain days we'll add a third camera, and for big stunt days more than that.

There are plenty of tricks to knowing how to use two cameras effectively. In the case of dialogue scenes, sometimes it's cross-shooting (getting over-the-shoulder shots on two actors facing/talking to each other) and other times it's two sizes on one side (an over-the-shoulder and a closeup of the same character). The former is often preferable from a performance standpoint since it allows actors to improvise dialogue, however it is more complicated to light. In the case of the latter, it can be difficult to get the closeup camera "inside" the over-the-shoulder camera, i.e. where the eyeline is closer on the tight lens.

The key to making two cameras work is to break down your coverage on the shot list with this in mind. I'll often take a shot list from the director and build pairs of shots that can be done simultaneously in an order that groups within lighting setups i.e. shooting out one side of a room then turning around--you don't want to turn around multiple times. Sometimes there are camera reconfigurations such as converting into Steadicam or jib mode, in which case we'll schedule a single camera shot to be done while that is all in process.

The real trick to all of this is not taking longer to shoot with two cameras. The operators have to know how to work together efficiently, and there needs to be a pecking order to be efficient. A camera is traditionally the wider lens and should be set first, then B camera gets what it can get without getting in A camera's way. Once you start compromising A camera's shot for B camera, it's a house of cards and pretty soon you were better off just shooting with one camera.
 
Last edited:
So much depends on the time and budget, but for me the key top this is the standard of the acting. Will the actors actually repeat gestures and head movements, let alone say exactly the same words. If they are amateur or novice actors, then the first shot may have quite different delivery to the next, when they suddenly think of a different inflection to put on a word, or cut out a pause or things like that. This is where a good Director ears their money by controlling them and not being afraid to ask for 'one more'. You also need decent continuity people to keep things the same. Using multiple cameras is harder to block and match technically, but usually gives you more usable takes to work with in the edit. If I work with very green actors, then multi-cam is often cheaper, but working with pros is often quicker to do single camera - and does offer the scope for more interesting busy shots when you don't have to worry about the other cam being in shot.

It also helps if you have a tight LX budget, because you can re-light for the reverse angles if you have to, and even move the set and people to make the most of limited budget.
 
Charles - I love it when you chime in.

Im always thinking "the answer is A"

You pop up say "A"

Then I know it it "A"

S
 
Crossroads Films said:
Hi im having trouble agreeing with how to shoot a scene, were trying to figure out if we need 3 cameras or so to shoot a dialogue scene...When is it necessary to get alot of cameras involved and when is it not...and how do u avoid the cameramen from looking at each other in the shots...or do u use only one camera and do the scene from one angle then the next, then a wide shot

anybody have there own method
Click to expand...

Why don't you purchase a copy of HollywoodCameraWork's blocking and staging dvd series and learn it inside out? Then you'll always know exactly what to do. Bottom line: You either know what you're doing or you don't.
 
I concur with below. Multicams can be incredibly compromising for angles and lighting ...as well as creating time consuming complicated set ups. There are times when multicams are advantageous when planned for.

RyanT said:
1 is enough. Shooting with two or three cameras requires more skilled people, more gear, and you have to be able to light for multiple angles at once. You also start to venture into territory where you're no longer shooting shots that work for the story, but instead you just start getting anything you can get.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Sam, although really most of us have said the same thing in different ways here. Ryan T.'s point is well-taken and it is the subtext of my post which is: you have to know what you are doing to use multiple cameras, or you are going to waste time, overly compromise the look or just end up shooting "bonus" shots. Probably a combination of the three.

There are many instances where I would have dearly loved to have just shot with one camera, reasons ranging from lighting compromises to a preference to moving the camera closer rather than just rifling in on the lens with the second camera. Every schedule I work on is just so tight that we have no choice most of the time, we would literally have to drop setups if we weren't cleaning them up with B camera. If one's schedule allows, and especially without a lot of experience working with multiple cameras, it's certainly more logical to shoot dialogue with a single camera.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, but our OP is embarking on an actual project which will doubtless, be under the same pressures of reality, budget et al. as you.

Camera and footage is cheap and surely thats why it may have happened less in the past?

Of course we all want to shoot only at magic hour with only one camera don't we?
 
I am a one-camera kind of guy. It's the standard and not only is lighting for two cameras (especially if they're cross-shooting) hard, but sound HATES it. There's never a good way to get great sound then, as where they MIGHT hide, you now have lights. Plus as mentioned, there are often the issues of matching.

However, I shot a scene on a short feature which was all dual cam and I really liked it. It was a simple reason: Stunt and special effects shot. There is a fight that breaks out between two guys, which causes them to fight through a house, one of them carrying a gun. When they get out of the house, the gun goes off on the good guy's girlfriend. So we both had the fight, plus the effects for the shot. We could only do the shot twice for example. That meant two angles provided instant coverage. In this case, the other camera was also doing high speed, for added variety. Same thing in the fight. We had two cameras, one doing normal speed, the other being high speed both of us placed next to each other so we could move together. Worked great for shooting the scene, but for a dialogue we wouldn't have done it. Here we could light most of it on rigs, to be able to see enough. Plus since it's a fight scene, it was MOS anyway (or at least, the set sound isn't going to be used in the end). But the scene starts with a dialogue that segues into the fight, which was shot normal 1-camera way.
 
Gabel said:
I am a one-camera kind of guy. It's the standard and not only is lighting for two cameras (especially if they're cross-shooting) hard, but sound HATES it. There's never a good way to get great sound then, as where they MIGHT hide, you now have lights. Plus as mentioned, there are often the issues of matching.
Click to expand...

I can't speak about film production in Sweden, but in what is generically referred to as Hollywood, single camera is definitely NOT the standard any more. But you don't have to take my word for it; watch BTS footage and count the matteboxes.

Yes, it complicates lighting, but so does high page and setup counts and smaller crews, all factors in today's production environment. As far as sound hating it, they have to make concessions as we all do. The one thing that is notably bad for them is a big wide shot against a tight closeup, and we try to avoid shooting those unless absolutely necessary (and in those instances, they will have a wire on the actors as well as the boom). Otherwise, there's nothing that a couple of skilled boom ops can't work their way around.

Matching: cross-shooting is actually much easier for the editor. In any event, getting clean singles is good protection against possible matching issues.

The best advice I can give to those who have little experience shooting coverage with two cameras is that you should try to get some. At some point you will take a job where you won't be able to make a successful single camera argument and you need to know how to pull off multiple cameras efficiently. There are definitely times when a single camera is the only way to go but it's part of the skillset to know how to determine this.
 
Last edited:
CharlesPapert said:
I can't speak about film production in Sweden, but in what is generically referred to as Hollywood, single camera is definitely NOT the standard any more. But you don't have to take my word for it; watch BTS footage and count the matteboxes.

Yes, it complicates lighting, but so does high page and setup counts and smaller crews, all factors in today's production environment. As far as sound hating it, they have to make concessions as we all do. The one thing that is notably bad for them is a big wide shot against a tight closeup, and we try to avoid shooting those unless absolutely necessary (and in those instances, they will have a wire on the actors as well as the boom). Otherwise, there's nothing that a couple of skilled boom ops can't work their way around.

Matching: cross-shooting is actually much easier for the editor. In any event, getting clean singles is good protection against possible matching issues.

The best advice I can give to those who have little experience shooting coverage with two cameras is that you should try to get some. At some point you will take a job where you won't be able to make a successful single camera argument and you need to know how to pull off multiple cameras efficiently. There are definitely times when a single camera is the only way to go but it's part of the skillset to know how to determine this.
Click to expand...

Film production in Sweden is an often one camera shoot, but it depends on the budget of the project... And space. We do a lot of location shooting here and in many cases then, two cameras might not fit.
But a project like Wallander, which is a pretty decently budgeted one (being German supported) doesn't surprise me that they do a lot of two camera work.

The main issue I find with two cameras is when people properly lack the budget for it. Not only do you need another matching camera and lenses, you need two more people (operator and AC) that needs to be paid. On bigger projects, this is less of an issue. But I've heard (and been on one, nightmare work) of indie projects where you have kits that are so wildly different, only two camera operators and so on, all done in tiny locations where is close to not even enough room for one camera...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top