Multiple cameras + Lighting = fill in the blank!

starcentral

starcentral

Veteran
I'm curious to know fellow DOP's thoughts on multiple camera use for cinematic / dramatic type film work (shorts or features).

Obviously from a lighting point of view it can make it all that much more challenging. And depending on the exact look the film is going for (ie. dark vs. sitcom) it could be easy or hard depending.

What would some of you tell a director who insists on shooting with multiple camera's on a shoot and how would you go about the coversation?

Cheers
 
Last edited:
I would tell him there's almost always a lighting compromise when shooting two cams, it can be done, but don't be surprised if one of the angles comes out flat compared to the other.
 
Always shoot with two cameras. Time on the set is so precious that there is no reason not to. Just make sure to get yourself a kick ass 2nd cam operator (i really mean it - you need a self reliant guy who will understand his limitations and still get you fabulous images).
 
I'm not a DP, but rather am more interested in the directing process. That said, I have spoken to a number of directors (including names you would recognize), and the breakdown is roughly as follows: you do multis for practical and artistic reasons and that is also exactly true of single cam work, but the aims are different. Multis allow you to capture things you can't with single cameras - obvious examples are action sequences, explosions and the like, you can cover many angles at the same time. Purely artistically, multi setups allow you to capture unique events and moments - things cut together very differently; often a multi cam will capture much more organic performances in dialogue etc., because not everything is repeatable, and it cuts together very organically, whereas single cams can cut together very, very badly to the point where it throws you out of the film (happens to me all the time, I hate when it's obvious that the dialogue was filmed over several days, or simply doesn't match over cuts). Coverage with a single camera can be more controlled, because you don't have to anticipate everything the way you do on a multi (with a multi setup it can be very difficult to anticipate the best angles and placement, and actors often can go slightly off hitting marks; the other thing is that you can't cover as many angles with a multi for obvious reasons). When you use multi cam setups, you are much less concerned with lighting beautifully - simply because it's a much harder task, and you are much more limited in your options as a DP... so when you use multis you are honestly not concerned with artistic lighting almost at all, but simply practical issues of filming so the audience sees what you want them to see; great artistry in lighting is more confined to single cam shooting.
 
starcentral said:
What would some of you tell a director who insists on shooting with multiple camera's on a shoot and how would you go about the coversation?

Cheers
Click to expand...

What is your objective in this discussion? Is the director a neophite that is not aware of the affects multi-cam may have on some shots? Does the director need to be educated/advised? Is the director experienced and already understands the consequences? Do you firmly object to multi-cam and think it will compromise your integrity or is there some other issue? The discussion really depends upon what the issue is.
 
The objective is just general discussion and to share viewpoints, perspectives and experiences.

Me personally I don't like multi-cam unless very specific circumstances exist for the project.

Action sequences, comedy, flat lighting, or shooting the same direction with different focal lengths at the same time are situations I'd have no problem shooting with multiple cameras,... but as a DP I care about lighting the most so I'm inclined to always prioritize the lighting, and shoot single cam if I can.
 
Last edited:
What would some of you tell a director who insists on shooting with multiple camera's on a shoot and how would you go about the coversation?
Click to expand...
I would ask the director, how much lighting and camera angle compromise he wanted to make. Then I would describe the how things get compromised by multi camera. Maybe I would say these things in the other order. I would also ask the director why he thought it was a good idea because there maybe a compelling reason to do it.
 
Under the Dome shot everything with two cameras, at similar, but by no means identical, angles. Often used to cover two characters on the same side of the line.
 
OldCorpse said:
When you use multi cam setups, you are much less concerned with lighting beautifully - simply because it's a much harder task, and you are much more limited in your options as a DP... so when you use multis you are honestly not concerned with artistic lighting almost at all, but simply practical issues of filming so the audience sees what you want them to see; great artistry in lighting is more confined to single cam shooting.
Click to expand...

Whoa--simply not true. The vast majority of features and episodic television are shot with 2 cameras on every possible setup (i.e. where it is practical to do so). This wasn't always the case, sometime in the past 15 years it happened right in front of me, but we learned how to do it and with quite a bit of artistry.

Part of the art is knowing how to group camera setups together so that the compromise is as limited as possible. Most of the reason for two cameras is speed, and sometimes for performance/cutting purposes. When speed is the main concern, sometimes it actually isn't faster to get a second angle in there (or even physically possible) and a DP experienced with working with two cameras will be able to make that call.

On indie productions where time doesn't necessarily mean money, it's fine to be take the luxury and shoot with one camera--actually, it's probably more efficient, depending on the experience level of the crew.

The way I look at it is this (similar to Patryk's reasoning): the more we can knock off simultaneous setups, the more angles will be available to the editor and the more potentially dynamic the scene can be. I always feel it in my bones when we are forced to skimp on coverage to make our day; I know that the scene will feel clunky or amaeturish because it cuts between the same few shots over and over again. If I can deliver lighting for two cameras that is 80%+ as good as I could potentially with a single camera, but we can deliver that many more unique setups, the scene will generally play that much better and the lighting compromises become irrelevant in comparison.
 
You may of course be completely right, CharlesPapert - I'm just relating what I heard or inferred from the directors I spoke to on this subject (it came up a few times). They spoke of multis as a matter of practical concerns, and some artistic concerns (as I outlined in my previous post); I haven't heard them talk about lighting in the context of multis, even though I have heard them speak of lighting in the context of single camera shoots. So from that I concluded that it was less of a concern than artistic lighting of single camera setups. But maybe I drew the wrong conclusions from this; which I also based a bit on my own reasoning - if you believe that there is the one right spot for a camera in a given setup for the exact precise effect you want to achieve (as Gordon Willis supposedly claimed), then all the lighting would serve that setup; if you now include a second camera, it seems you are not always in a position to have it also be ideal for the second spot at the very same time; again, it's my takeaway - entirely possible that it's quite wrong.
 
Over in the latest "UserTalks" thread Jay Duplass is interviewed by Stephen Mick and the discussion of multiple cameras comes up.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?311748-UserTalks%85with-Writer-Director-Jay-Duplass

From the thread:

Stephen Mick said:
4. You guys have talked before about using multiple cameras on-set. Why is that an important tool for your work, and does it complicate your jobs as directors, or make things easier? Shooting multiple cameras makes lighting harder, but it makes story and acting better from our perspective, because we are interested in real moments between people that truly only happen once. In other aesthetics, that level of truth isn't necessary. But for us, we believe the truth of the moment is the best thing we have to offer. So if it happens once, and then you have to turn the lighting around and re-start that moment hours later, it never feels as true for us a second time.
Click to expand...
 
It's just yet another different technique to learn. The practical upshot of doing multiple cameras (or single cameras in lots of positions) is simple more lighting equipment. TV have been doing it for years, and developed some workarounds that save time and kit - the backlight for position 1 becomes a key for the side angle shot, and a fill is better placed centrally to enable two keys one each side - that kind of thing. With proper planning you can still achieve nice lighting. The rules don't change. You just need to make sure the positions work. Flare can be an issue without the planning, when you find a critical light source shines straight into the lens of another camera. So setup time goes up, but the results can hopefully justify it!
 
Time is money. Two cameras is preferable to get additional angles and is easier to edit. If there is only one camera of a particular make available, and the director doesn't want footage from any other camera, then you are effectively down to single camera shoot. Ofcourse, for large productions that is not an issue.
 
To again take this discussion out of realms of pure theory. Even on a low budgeter it's IMPERATIVE to get a skilled 2nd cam op. An AC witch aspirations to DP won't do it, an average cam op won't do it. You really need a "junior" DP to make 2nd cam shine because in a way it's a much harder cam to operate then A cam. A cam gets all the extras: great art direction, great lighting so it's up to the B cam operator to take all the handicaps and still come up with kick ass image. (I just did a 2 week shoot where my 2nd cam op was an AC and 90% of shots are crap.)
 
Time is definitely money and TV might have been using multiple camera setups for years.. but clearly looking back 10 years doesn't everyone agree there is a very clear difference in lighting style and cinematography between TV and Film?
 
Shooting multi-camera just to get the coverage is what many productions do as has been discussed. Many times it is just a way to reduce set ups and provide the cut away or get the reverse or wide shot. That being said, a well budgeted, directed and executed multi-camera production should yield very positive results. In 2000... what seems like an eternity now in the changes of digital production, Sidney Lumet wrote and directed multiple episodes of 100 CENTRE STREET, a critically acclaimed show that aired on A&E. That show was shot 3 camera live switch to HDCAM tape using Sony F900 cameras.. the first SONY F900's available for rental in the US were put on the show.

The company I was with at the time, Plus 8 Digital, provided the entire camera/switcher/engineering production package needed in a mobile production unit for the first season. While counter intuitive to the conventional shooting styles of the day this production went very well. Cinematographer Ron Fortunato, who's cinematography was outstanding-he was nominated for an Emmy, worked hand in hand with Sidney to pull it off and create fantastic images. Lument's directorial experience in TV back in the 50's and 60's, when it was all multi-cam film, was key to the success of the production.

I believe that for TV, if you have dedicated sets then you can set your rigging and lighting in such a way to produce excellent results... but it takes dedicated lighting grid, fixtures and controls... you can't keep redoing your lighting to get the reverse etc... The art and knowledge base of true multicamera direction and lighting for dramatic production such as that which Lumet and Fortunato were able to put together is likely being lost.

Since the show didn't produce enough episodes to go into syndication I'm not sure if there is any place to see it.
 
starcentral said:
Time is definitely money and TV might have been using multiple camera setups for years.. but clearly looking back 10 years doesn't everyone agree there is a very clear difference in lighting style and cinematography between TV and Film?
Click to expand...

If something looks like made-for-TV or Film has very little to do if it was multi-cam shoot or not. Many other factors come into play. For instance, the director's ability to stage the scene so it doesn't revolve around traditional coverage. Here is where certain distinction needs to be drawn, there are two ways to do multi-cam: one is to get traditional coverage faster; other is to find creative angles for 2nd camera - the kind of angles you would never think of because they would be too outlandish for more traditional coverage. When i advocate for 2nd camera on indies maned by talented cam op is to do the later.
 
I read over at Deakins' that he shot Skyfall almost the whole way with a single camera.... with exception of some of the action / special effects sequences. I still think that turned out pretty well...
 
I have only shot with two cameras a few times, and usually for normal coverage (i.e. picking up the reverse). I like the idea of the non-traditional angle camera in the hands of a good op.

I have been looking closely at TV narrative coverage on shows I like and I get the sense that sometimes they are covering two different shots from very close to the same angle. For instance, a MCU and and ECU where the ECU is closer to the eye line. They wouldn't cut together but a cut away and back is employed. It looks like the same performance in both those shots, to me.

If that's what's happening, that technique would go a long way to mitigate some of the lighting problems associated with the 2nd camera picking up opposite angles like OTSs and still make things faster. Does anyone have any experience like that? Has anyone seen such a strategy employed?
 
Last edited:
Drifting off topic - one of the most obnoxious single-camera movies I've seen is Hildalgo, where nearly every shot has the sun behind the actor. It was so distracting. For example 28:30 ,the sun magically jumps behind each actor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alh3fpxHLoM. I understand the technique, but the entire movie is like this. A painstaking effort that is painstaking to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top