One or Two camera shooting on microbudget narrative projects?

[gonzo_entertainment]

I have always been of the "Multi-Cam is of the devil" school, but considering it on this pilot I'm about to shoot. It's going to have a more TV like production schedule (7 pages a day) and my DP just bought a 5D (we now have 2X the same camera), so I plan on doing some simultaneous wide/tight type stuff.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Getting the shot in the bag is not the same as nailing the shot.

Very true - I'm sure we've all been there at the tail end of a shoot when time is running out and you get to a point where you're just checking shots off the list... without scrutinizing whether or not you REALLY got 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>

True - and I may have mispoken when I said it was an issue of getting coverage. What I meant was that I am tempting to shoot with two cameras to be able to give the actors more freedom in their performances. I wouldn't intend on getting shots that were not already on the boards, but moreso to be able to get two OTS shots at once, making continuity easier to deal with, and giving the actors a bit more freedom by virtue of being able to do a few more takes than we might normally because we need to flip around and the other shot. For example - if you do 3 takes of each OTS you are going to spend more time to get less coverage than you would if you did 4 takes with two cameras simultaneously. I'm using OTS as an example (because it's the most obvious). Point is, it's not really about getting ADDITIONAL shots to me, it's about getting the shots that are already intended while allowing time and takes for the performances.

I find it interested that in the posts we've seen so far there hasn't been too much discussion of performance. I'm curious, those of you who have used muticam coverage, did you feel you were able to capture better performances? Or did the additional gear and setup time hurt the flow of your shoot?

 

[morgan_moore]

I find it interested that in the posts we've seen so far there hasn't been too much discussion of performance. I'm curious, those of you who have used muticam coverage, did you feel you were able to capture better performances? Or did the additional gear and setup time hurt the flow of your shoot?

I think the camera dept does better on single cam, the actors do better on multicam

As an operator it is super hard (to me) to follow a long scene

For a bad example..

"But Nigel why have you got a gun" .. camera pulls from nigels face down to the gun in his hand

Just filming the move 5 times in quick succesion you get it really nice, doing it at exactly the right moment after being on Nigels face for two minutes is way harder esp as Nigel has probably forgotton where the gun was supposed to be!

But if its an emotion moment the talent find it better to lead into it

Just IMO

S

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I think the camera dept does better on single cam, the actors do better on multicam

I think you're right - and that is exactly the conflict I suppose I'm trying to reconcile.
I realize the answer will lie in the specifics of a given project... but as of now I'm still on the fence as to whether or not it helps the actors MORE than it hurts the camera dept.
And that's really the question, I think.

If the positive's outweight the negatives (and that's personal opinion, obiviously, which is why I was asking for people's experience) then it seems like the way to go.
But in the end, if the performances are not being benefited and the only real benefit is 'more coverage' - then I'm not sure it's worth the hassle.

 

[morgan_moore]

I think there is probably a balance

For example a scene two at a table you could do a side on medium locked off and an OTS (Ive done this)

Id run through all the way and give camera/talent the chance to redo the hard bits

S

 

[morgan_moore]

Oh and any actor who has to only down two pints of non alcholic beer rather than four will love you.. buuurp

 

[jimpatro]

Considering your's is an indie, low budget shoot, you should definitely shoot single cam. You want the production value to be as elevated as possible and achieving the most optimal comp and lighting schemes will give that pro look. Multi-cam will give you a TV look, ear shots, weak lighting and compromised composition. I decided oh, over twenty years ago that I prefer to shoot narrative even though I cut my teeth in television. Major reasons being the cinematic feel achieved by placing the camera in just the perfect spot, painstakingly setting up the comp and sculpting perfect lighting. You do that with one camera.

 

[sonofaresiii]

Ideally, even on a microbudget, you'll have more to say with your shots than the standard shot/reverse shot, and varied and interesting lighting situations specific to each shot... so in theory, multi-cam set-ups for narratives won't be the best option.

Now practically, we all know that there are plenty of times where you just need to cover the scene, and two cams can help... if you can do it well. I think the biggest problem here is that getting two cams running with good shots and good frames and good lighting and having no problems... is going to be more trouble than it's worth. So unless you're experienced with it, I'd say skip the multi-cam and just go with one.

 

[hscully]

I think the better the actors the better it would be to have two cameras for certain scenes where you want the connection the actors are making at that moment to be in the sequence and not necessarily the best edit of multiple cuts. I remember Kenneth Lonnergan talking about a restaurant scene between Laura Linney and Mark Ruffallo in You Can Count On Me. Certainly not a micro-budget but shot on film and another camera was "expensive" enough to get mentioned in the commentary. Lonnergan was grateful to have that, and that scene is the product of a couple of great actors making it happen in one shared moment. That to me, would be a good reason to shoot two - capturing the shared moment instead of cobbling it together in the edit.

Or maybe say you really want OTS type coverage but want to let the actors step all over each other's lines, or improvise.. stuff like that was why I think about it

For my own purposes I bought a GH2 to shoot second camera with my AF100 but in my tests, I have been unsuccessful in getting a good enough result so I shoot single camera. Honestly, I think I do better with one camera. I'm not fond of the random B roll approach but I could see where you might get lucky on action stuff.