I was just wondering what everyone's feelings were towards multicamera shooting? I'm thinking for dialogue, that having a multi cam set up would make editing much easier, but is it that much more work in setup?
It's tough to light really well for more than one camera/angle on a typical dialog-based narrative film scene. There are other issues such as actors' blocking and camera moves that get a lot trickier too. It's why most features are (mostly) shot with one camera.
On the other hand, for action scenes, especially complex ones, more cameras are definitely better. For anything involving destroying something (like a car crash) get as many cameras/angles as possible...
All the below is said with the caveat that I'm somewhat of a minimalist when it comes to camera movement...and additionally tend to write dialogue-heavy scripts...
It makes a couple things easier, including but not limited to:
1. Editing dialogue.
2. Saving time.
3. Increased scene coverage.
4. More room to experiment with shots/angles outside of what you had planned.
5. Increased likelihood of laziness and/or bland and/or disconnected cinematography...because you lean too heavily on the advantages of 1-4.
I have directed a couple of two camera shoots, and will probably continue to use additional cameras...but have always done so while sticking much more closely to my shot list and storyboards, which prioritize one camera as the goto camera for shots and lighting arrangements where the second needs to be ditched...than to any of the advantages that I just listed.
I would say it comes down to your preference...and probably many other factors as well. I'll echo Ted's point about lighting, too, because I've run into that problem here and there.
Storyboards, and, subsequently, lighting and camera placement/movement diagrams can be a great help in determining if/how a multiple camera set-up might work for a given script.
I don't like it. I like being able to really concentrate on the shot I'm getting and make sure it's what I want. Doing it with multiple cameras feels too much like I'm just getting the shots for coverage and not because I need them that way. There are also many situations where you simply can't do it without compromising the shot. Sometimes it's the only way to get it right, though, so I'm not totally against it. Just not totally comfortable with it, either.
I do use multiple cameras for event videography and filming improv actors.
What I found that works good is to have an A camera setup for most of the movie and then a B camera setup for steadicam shots. That way you wont have to balance the camera for every steadicam shot. I think rolling 2 cameras at once is risky. I like to focus on one shot at a time.
I refuse to shoot one camera for music videos. It's absolutely brutal and retarded. There's no reason not to use two cameras on every music video shoot. No reason AT ALL. You have way too much coverage to do, and I don't care how X, Y, Z directors do it, it's purely stupid not to shoot at least two cameras. I want 20 takes of the song. You really want to make the band go through 20 takes of the song? I don't think so -- nobody's energy is that high. It ends up looking like crap at the end because you're asking too much to have them perform at that level for that long. Two cameras, 10 takes. You get a few different wide shots at first, when you go for coverage you get closeup on the drummer and closeup on the lead guitar, let's say. Or you have two on the lead singer, one close, one medium. There are lots of ways to do it. After shooting with two cameras on my second music video, I never went back, it's just a bad way to film without at least two.
But with narrative, I much prefer one... I want to focus on what I'm getting from just that camera.