One or Two camera shooting on microbudget narrative projects?

One or Two camera shooting on microbudget narrative projects?

  • One Camera

    Votes: 11 52.4%

  • Two Cameras

    Votes: 10 47.6%
  • Total voters
    21
Luis Caffesse

Luis Caffesse

Admin
Been discussing this topic with a few friends lately and figured I'd throw it up for discussion here.
Nothing that hasn't been talked about before - but it's always good to revisit these things.

I'm interested in knowing if those of you working on microbudget narrative projects have found it more efficient to work with two cameras or one for the majority of your project.
I realize that every project is different - but given that most microbudget indies involve quite a bit of two character dialogue scenes (usually) the temptation (or MY temptation anyhow)
would be to shoot the majority multicam.

Obviously that brings with it some issues when it comes to lighting and setup time - as well as the cost of additional gear and crew and footage (not that that's a bad thing necessarily).
In the end, have you found that it's worth it? Do you feel it actually speeds up your production time? Does it get you better material?
Or do you feel the hassle isn't worth it?

Like I said, I'm really curious to hear from people who have been working in the microbudget narrative world.
(but obviously any experience is good to share).


Personally I'm on the fence about the topic right now - which is partly why I'm posting this.
I haven't done a lot of two camera shooting in the past, but I'm tempted to try it on our next project.... just wondering if it's worth the added headaches.
 
If you can get two cameras which reliably produce matching output (obviously, two identical cameras help a lot in acheiving this), then yes it can be a huge time saver. But lighting setup will be a little slower, as you'll be trying to light for both cameras simultaneously. There will be times when it just can't be done, and you'll have to treat one camera as secondary coverage or leave it turned off.
 
I never do multicam setups for projects I'm shooting, unless it's a shot where you really can't have more than one take. I've found that if the scenes are well rehearsed, the director and I don't want/need more than a few takes for each camera position. This really helps to keep things moving quickly.

I was just on a multicam shoot today and that was pretty easy since it was one lighting setup, all from a grid. But had everything been on a stand, there's no way we would have gotten the whole scene done in a day.
 
Every shooter (director?) who has been to film school seems to think multicam is the home of the devil

I come from stills and live coverage so no rules apply to me
To me its simple - if you can afford it - do it
And with DSLRs, FS100s you can afford it
Especially with those indy two over the shoulder scenes - the time wasted in continuity - half smoked cigarettes - refilling drinks is huge

An argument the other way could be 'why shoot what you know you are not going to use, edit in camera' - that has some validity but certainly for dialogue I think its best to let the talent run through their scene and just roll

While Im a camera nerd like the best of us I think anything that allows the talent more flow, more takes, in the time budget ultimately creates for a better story and that is what will pull in the viewer

S
 
If you're shooting a microbudget narrative thing, chances are you don't have nearly enough experience to shoot, let alone shoot with two cameras.

It's no cake-walk, and I think in the end you'll end up hurting your film. You'll feel the need to always use that second camera to just "get coverage" instead of getting shots that mean something and look as they should. I also just dont like how you're forced to use longer lenses when shooting with two cameras, sometimes it's appropriate and it works, but other times not so much...

This is not to say you should never do it, I was going to shoot this improv comedy show a while ago and the only way we could even conceive of doing it was shooting 3 cameras the whole time. We'd cover scenes in one go and they could do whatever they wanted and it would just always cut. In that case it's would have been a great use of multiple cameras.
 
If you're moving fast on a microbudget shoot, a second camera can be great for B-roll. Get yourself a second-unit director (your pal who wishes he was directing instead of you), and give him the camera with direction about what kind of b-roll coverage you want for each scene. Having shots of the dog, the centerpiece, the actor's hands worrying their pencil, etc, gives you footage to use in the edit room to cut out bad lines, or stitch together a performance. If you plan ahead to get this kind of b-roll, you can sometimes save a film in the edit.
 
I don't have much experience in shooting narrative, but I would imagine that at a micro budget level, you would probably be working with more inexperienced actors. If they have trouble with consistent performances or only hit their marks occasionally, then it would seem like good sense to have that moment well covered.
Obviously, there is the added incentive of useful b roll, as mentioned above. If you've got the crew to cover it, that is.
 
I too don't have much experience with narrative, but for the tv stuff I shoot 2 cams is the way to go. (don't think I could shoot most of it with just one cam)
 
I seem to recall that most of the time, in a typical dialog scene between two people (or at least, this USED to be true), instead of using two cams to have one pointing at one person, the other cam pointing at the other, you'd point both cams at the same person, but one on a MCU/wider/OTS, the other on a CU. This way you get double the angles, and few if any lighting compromises.
 
Although I've worked more on traditional naratives and single camera documentaries in recent years, my early training and experience was as a studio, sports and EFP director where I usually had at least three cameras available, so I tend to think of that as the standard for shooting full scenes with continuity. It makes sense if (a) you're short on time in the location; (b) you're working with inexperienced actors who may have trouble delivering an expression or hitting a mark exactly the same way each time; (c) you're dealing with complex or expensive effects or props that would cost a lot of time or money to reproduce; (d) you want to reduce continuity hassles.

The main downside is the compromised lighting and blocking that may be necessary to cover all angles and keep the cameras out of each other's way. Excluding obvious candidates for multi-camera like sports action or expensive car stunts, to me it would basically come down to whether time was tight, for one reason or another, in the particular location where I was working.

A slightly off the wall reason for shooting multi camera is that as an educator, I spend much of my time working with students and beginning professionals who are anxious to get time behind the camera. Having two cameras gives them twice the opportunities to develop their skills.

- Greg
 
It would seem that success is greatly dependent upon your actors. If they are good, I would shoot one camera where you have a better opportunity for good production values. If not, two cameras.
Good luck,
Ken
 
For narrative shooting I would never use more than one camera to shoot a dialogue scene. First of all I think that most indy films now days use way, way to much close ups. Everything is in CU or MCU. Also there are lots and lots of detail shots, ie. a person picks up something, drops something, etc., etc. Films don't usually have close up shots and they especially don't show everything in detail. So if shooting with more than one camera you are almost certainly constrained to a close up, which I don't do.

As for shooting a one person with more cams that's a no no IMHO for film! This will undoubtedly produce TV like results - when there are amateurs at work. Film is film and TV is TV. I know exactly how indy films look and how they are edited when there are more cameras rolling simultaneously on one person. What gives it away is mostly that editors cut from a medium shot to a close up one after the other. This is TV (reality or studio, or news, or...) not film, it's usually not done how it's supposed to be done.

So if you ask me it's better not to shoot multiple cams at once, just to avoid these problems. The other thing is that if your dealing with an amateur crew you really should put all your energy into one thing at once! This is IMHO also very important when dealing with a non experienced crew. Do one thing at a time and try to do it as good as you and your crew can.
 
I'm directing a short next month and i think I might use two cameras for one of the scenes. My reasoning for this is that the scene in question is emotionally intense, to the degree that i'm not sure if the actors will be able to get there repeatedly. Therefore I think it might be best to try to cover their performance as best as I can. I hope this will help them relax and know that they only need to really get it once. Aside from that scene though I think I will stick to one camera.

I am curious though, why is there all the hate for multiple camera setups? I read in an interview with Roger Deakins that he flat out refuses to work on any project that is multiple camera. I understand it can be a problem aesthetically, but it seems to work wonders for actors.
 
jghenderson said:
I am curious though, why is there all the hate for multiple camera setups? I read in an interview with Roger Deakins that he flat out refuses to work on any project that is multiple camera. I understand it can be a problem aesthetically, but it seems to work wonders for actors.
Click to expand...

The main reasons tend to be both the reasons that we've heard in this thread -

1) Compromises must be made both in lighting and composition.

2) Results can feel TV-ish as opposed to cinematic (that one obviously is up for debate, depending on execution).


And those are basically the things I'm trying to weigh.
I was hoping to hear from people who have tried both single and multicam shooting on their projects and decided either that it was definitely the way to go for them, or definitely not.... and why exactly.

The thing that attracts me is the ability to get plenty of coverage quickly.
Now obviously that comes at a price.... but personally I am willing to compromise the image for the sake of the performances.
In an ideal world I would not compromise either, but in an ideal world this thread woudln't have had to include the word 'microbudget' either.
 
I think you can have two cameras and use approriately

All those words 'appropriate. balance, compromise' bla bla

I dont think there is a right answer like everything its all balance - even holywood multicams the bang bang car crash stuff - thats pretty obvious

Personally I think you need to ask

-do I need both shots (rather than just bogging down the editor) ie if both shots are on the stroy board then do em both
-can I do this without compromise

-ive done Two shot dialogue where it just saves time and the shots were both required

-Ive also done 'ninja cam' when I had downtime (I was operating the jib as my primary task) - here I shot what I could with a 100-300
Now I reckon 30% was out of focus, 5% hit a light stand or saw some crew, and 20% was pure gold - its an interogation/fight scene - I did loads of hands, whips, crash zooms - all that pony - also such over the top operating that no op would even dare such shots without getting coverage too from another camera. - The A cam was getting coverage off the story board and I was having a ball making powerful shots that will be in the edit..

It is worth considering Ninja Cam (gale tattersal blog - cant find it) - thats an op with a long lens probably monopod who takes no orders films what he wants, pulls his own focus - gale said 18% of House was done like that

I guess really its also stylistic - super structured stuff wont work - but the Bourne/Green Zone et al look Im sure is very often multicam

Im also sort of scripting something myself at the moment and its so fixed in my minds eye that I could not see a reason for two cameras

Have a look at this test I did.. https://vimeo.com/17164513 (actually its not two cams but two shots) you will love or hate the look..

S
 
Last edited:
It seems like the viability of ninjacam would be very specific to the "feel" the scene in question is supposed to have. There may be no place in the edit for the various moves you described, or they be all wrong for the vibe of the scene. But then, you were talking about an interrogation scene...i imagine ninjacam would be doing very different things in a period romantic drama. Also dont agree with the "takes no orders/films ehat he wants". There should at least be some basic guidelines given as to "make all your moves slow and deliberate" or "slow and deliberate has no place here, be really jerky/shaky/frenetic with everything." Otherwise guy might get really creative but shoot unusable stuff that doesnt belong in the same movie everyone else is shooting.
 
I haven't done a ton of dual cam shoots, maybe a dozen or so. What I have found especially helpful was when shooting over the shoulder dialogue as a close up, or medium close up. As long as you can get the same field of view. I always match the field of view when in this situation anyways. Of course your lens package matters, so this can be achieved. So when going back and fourth between actors, it's pretty much the same shot, same FOV. I hate to watch a film when an over the shoulder shot has different fov, and shot composition. It throws it out of whack and becomes distracting.

Also it can save a ton of time as long as it works for the scene at hand. of course lighting and setting up will take longer, the benefits out way the negatives in my eyes.
 
As a DP I would abhor the idea of ninjacam, and this is basically why I really don't like the idea of multiple cameras as well.

What'll end up happening is they'll end up shooting some garbage, which will make its way into the final cut, then people will see that and think "oh, he shot that?" It always seems like the crap you shoot will find its way into the final cut no matter what, so the solution is just to not shoot crap.

Hopefully my distaste for this isn't coming off too strong, but I've just been lured into the trap of "the amount of coverage we could get with two cameras!" one too many times.
 
I agree with you all. Totally.

OTS dialogue pairs - seems to work (can we get the boom in - do we need two boom ops??)
Frenetic Bourne Cam seems to work
Long lens seems to work
Stunts/Breaking Stuff - budget usually forces getting the max from a single take

Many other more classical shots/sequences it would not work and can just prove that the story telling is not suitably focussed, planned or understood - why shoot shots you dont want? - shoot the shots you do want properly with the full focus of the entire crew

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
It is worth considering Ninja Cam (gale tattersal blog - cant find it) - thats an op with a long lens probably monopod who takes no orders films what he wants, pulls his own focus - gale said 18% of House was done like that
Click to expand...

Probably worth noting that in the example you cited, Gale is shooting for TV, so achieving a TV-ish result is not so undesirable. When in the role of DP, like RyanT I would never be comfortable with the addition of an unknown element that could end up with my name on it. Too often I have been disappointed with the way my work has been reflected in the final edit because of poor (in my opinion) editing decisions. The result? Now I try to shoot absolutely everything with intention - which to my mind pretty much nixes any ninja-cam. Not saying it's a bad idea, I just don't like it.

Would/do I shoot multi-cam? Not if I can avoid it. Maybe it's just personal taste, but my feeling is that it's much harder to maintain your craftsmanship when shooting multi-cam. Getting the shot in the bag is not the same as nailing the shot. <rant> And I hate the "getting coverage" approach. A scene should be better thought out than that before you ever show up to shoot it. </rant>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top