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

The really good reason is I guess that if you have XX set ups to do in YY days you might get them done in YY-1 days, or at least not actually take YY+z days to complete.

S
 
The argument the other way would be that the additional setup time to light it to look good for both (all) cameras, additional issues of getting the boom op out of the FOV of both (all cameras), etc... etc... eats about as much time as it saves.
 
Indeed there is no right answer.

I think if you need to crack through a lot of two person OTS dialogue you just have some stock lighting configs that work and some stock framings.

Mix in cigarettes, drinks, food etc and a lot of time can be saved.

S
 
If you're going to do it, that is the time it makes the most sense (well that and giant explosions you have one shot at). Setup for OTS both ways or closeup both ways, especially in comedy. My DP was a camera op on the TV show "Moonlighting". There was a lot of quick back and forth banter and occasional improv. In a situation like that (timing is critical, lots of stepping on each others lines) is does make some sense.
 
Also there are some moving shots.

Depends on your skill level.

If it is low, like mine, and the talent is walking/running towards the camera and you are on a tele then a shot from the side can usually keep focus and be cut to if you drift on the a cam focus

Saves many takes. Same with bad steadicam ops, like me, a tele from the side gives you a 'cut to' when you jolt the rig

and of course you get a cut option if the editor suddenly decides the long walk shot was boring, which it mostly is, or needs to hit a musical or other audio keyframe

or if the long walk was really interesting you can extend it !

or in dialogue a no mouth shot (hands) can help you edit/muddle/pace the dialogue

S
 
Last edited:
gonzo_entertainment said:
The argument the other way would be that the additional setup time to light it to look good for both (all) cameras, additional issues of getting the boom op out of the FOV of both (all cameras), etc... etc... eats about as much time as it saves.
Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly my point. You have to have a DP that is good and fast enough to be able to light for two cameras in the time it would take to light for one, boom ops who are on top of it and are planning their approach during the lighting setup etc. The typical low budget shoot would have a DP setting lights and eventually an operator announcing "that's in my shot", so the DP moves the light and eventually checks the other camera and now the light is in THAT shot and round and round we go. Meanwhile, the boom guy is at craft service or playing games on his phone. When you finally roll camera, he brings the mike in and whosever on the wide camera is telling him he's in frame, so finally he gives up and says "I have to wire them" and everyone sits around while that happens. So obviously in that scenario, it's better to work single camera because that suits that particular experience level.

Ultimately, it comes down to necessity. If you are able to state "it doesn't have to be done except for explosions and improv", you obviously have your jobs budgeted to be able to work single camera and more power to you, it's an envious position to be in. I have had exactly one of those jobs in the past year, a one-page cold open sketch for a comedy pilot. We had four or five hours to shoot 12 setups and we moved at a pace that to me was all but glacial. That budget didn't support a second camera nor did we need one.

Contrast that to the pilot I shot last month: the script was 38 pages and included four musical numbers (a la Flight of the Conchords). That should have been at least a six day shoot but it was budgeted for four days, and there was a mandate not to go over 12 hours to avoid overtime. So: 48 hours to shoot 38 pages, with high production value. And the piece needed to move quickly so it required a good number of setups. The director and I worked hard to pare them down, to combine shots, to design a battle plan with no down time. We had two cameras at all times, although there were certain scenes that simply could not accomodate a second camera. We knocked out 40 to 55 setups a day (again, 12 hour days).

Were there lighting compromises? Yep. Were there sound compromises? Yep. Regardless: will it still look and sound good? Sure. And few people will know the difference. Had we been more precious about either component, we would have had to drop coverage, and the final result would have suffered far more, felt cheaper. It's a high energy comedy that plays in cuts. It needed every piece we got (and we still had to drop a few shots here and there).

Yes, two cameras require an additional AC and operator. Yes, the cameras and lenses should match. That should be a given. If a production can't afford it, they can't afford it.

The bottom line once again: if the director, DP, sound dept etc are not skilled at implementing multiple cameras, it will indeed be a clusterf*** and you are better off shooting with a single camera. But I assure you that many times it can be done, it IS done on most shoots beyond a certain size and if it comes down to dropping setups vs the compromise of two cameras, it's worth it.
 
Last edited:
Unless things have changed radically that I am not aware of MOST large budget narrative films are still shot single camera. The main exception being action films where there are a lot of stunts and practical effects (where multi-camera makes sense). I do fairly slow paced narrative films and can't stand the current quick cut editing style. A blistering pace for us is 6 pages a day. I prefer to shoot 3 or 4 pages max. In my fantasy world I'd shoot about 2 pages a day.
 
Every studio film I've worked on in fifteen years has had A and B camera. Most were dialogue-driven dramas or comedies. For action scenes, more cameras were added. I've done plenty of 2-page days. We still had two cameras. Less compromise, longer time per setup, more crafting, but still two cameras on the payroll.

Again, there are certain scenes that are shot single camera, and others where the second camera is only used for a portion of the scene. It's not a "we have to use both cameras for every setup" scenario, although I've certainly had producers put that pressure on us.
 
Again, no "right" answer. For us it makes no sense really. With a small (12 to 15 people) crew with MAYBE 2 grips max I prefer to focus on getting the scene lit, framed, etc... correctly for one camera. A second camera is just more trouble than it's worth. They shot movies that way for about 100 years, no reason to change now. Digital makes it economically feasible I guess, but eh.. just not for me.
 
CharlesPapert said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's all very true. I've tried numerous times on the lower budget shows I've shot to bring in a second camera to try and speed things up, but in the end we just didn't have the budget to bring on a skilled enough camera crew, let alone another operator for A-camera to get me out of the mix. You end up just doing a little bit too much and with the time you've spent getting both cameras to look mediocre you could have made one look great and already be moving on to the next. I've just regretted the second camera one too many times on the lower budget jobs.

I do agree, you should try it out if you have a project where it makes sense, because eventually people are going to ask you to do it and you should know how. However, if it doesn't make sense to the story and your schedule, just know that it shouldn't be taken lightly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top