Question about 3 camera shoots

T

texast9018

Member
Hey all I have often heard from filmmaking articles that its a good idea to shoot movies using three cameras. Camera one to get the master while the other two get the over the shoulder shots at the same time. But is it possible to do this without getting the other cameras in the shot? If so is there some technique to doing it?
 
Multiple camera shoots tend to be the exception rather than the norm for precisely the reasons you stated. Very difficult to set up light and have dynamic blocking for multiple cameras. Even Hollywood films tend to stick with a single camera unless it's a special effect shots like a car blowing up or something.
 
It also, in my opinion, results in less creative work, where the director or cinematographer becomes more interested in keeping the other cameras out of frame and using a couple of standard setups than doing what is best for the story. I'm not a fan (in narrative work).
 
Actually, I have found that A/B camera setups are increasingly common on 1-hour drama type programs.

As far as 'technique' goes, that's just called planning your shots.
 
3 camera shoots on anything other than special effects one time shots is not directing. It's obscene coverage.
 
Under certain circumstances, it's perfectly reasonable to go for obscene coverage.

Like on a television schedule.
 
While I'm no expert on this, I understand that TV sitcoms that film on a set in front of a live audience typically use multiple cameras. But it's a different aesthetic - more of a 'filmed play' effect than traditional moviemaking. I believe they also do separate close ups/cutaways etc. to a certain extent as well though, and of course other scenes that are off-set (driving, real locations, etc.). "Seinfeld" was a good example of this.

I think SadMax is probably the guy to listen to here where the above is concerned though...
 
I avoid 3-camera shows like the plague, but Ted's correct: most sitcoms shot before a live audience are acquired that way.
 
Three cameras I think is a bit much, but I've been on a bunch of features with two cameras running at once and it does make quite a bit of sense if you're trying to move fast. Very easy for A camera to get the MS and B camera to go in close, or for you to shoot both reverses in one shot. You've definitely gotta plan your shots and I think the best two camera shoot is one where the B-camera doesn't play for every single setup. That's obviously one that's keeping in mind the coverage and what's right for the story, not necessarily just sticking it anywhere because you've got it.

In the end, you just need a DP who has a clue. Otherwise...oh man. Life becomes no good.
 
My friend acted in a James L Brooks film and he said they used like 6 cameras for his scene. While that's overkill I could see it useful in a comedy where actors improvise a lot and you don't want to miss anything.
 
Sad Max said:
Actually, I have found that A/B camera setups are increasingly common on 1-hour drama type programs.

As far as 'technique' goes, that's just called planning your shots.
Click to expand...

Yup! - To make sure they get the production value before 12-hour turn around gets then into 12 P.M. call times by Friday. But depends on the director they book for the episode(s), some will refuse to do it. - But obviously you're dealing with all professionals, access to stand-ins to perfect the setups without tiring the actors. TV Dramma schedules are insane.
 
If you have standard HiDef cams or lower then a two cam setup can make sense. The two cameras would essentially sit right next to each other. This means that the lighting is the same as it would be if you were just shooting one cam but you get twice the footage per setup. You would set up one cam to get a wide shot while the other camera gets a tighter shot on one actor or the other. Or maybe one camera pans while the other doesn't. The point is that you get the same performance with two different camera angles. If you can manage it your editor will love it.

If you shooting 35mm film or the Red camera you can actually crop down to a quarter of the frame without loosing any resolution (assuming a 4K scan and a 2K print), but you have to be careful as the quality of the bokeh does change.

Bob
 
Yep, DJ is right. Epsodics are typically multicamera along with soaps and shows like SNL. When you have time to edit it is nice to have cameras in iso. It is more typical for TV than film.
 
Bob Gruen said:
If you have standard HiDef cams or lower then a two cam setup can make sense. The two cameras would essentially sit right next to each other. This means that the lighting is the same as it would be if you were just shooting one cam but you get twice the footage per setup. You would set up one cam to get a wide shot while the other camera gets a tighter shot on one actor or the other. Or maybe one camera pans while the other doesn't. The point is that you get the same performance with two different camera angles. If you can manage it your editor will love it.
Click to expand...

I like this idea. It's slightly complicated (two camera ops, probably two ACs/P2 wraglers, more complex decision making), but like you said, in the edit you could find yourself real happy you did. Just by going tighter on one camera you could salvage many a take where one actor was brilliant and another wasn't...
 
Bob Gruen said:
If you have standard HiDef cams or lower then a two cam setup can make sense. The two cameras would essentially sit right next to each other. This means that the lighting is the same as it would be if you were just shooting one cam but you get twice the footage per setup. You would set up one cam to get a wide shot while the other camera gets a tighter shot on one actor or the other. Or maybe one camera pans while the other doesn't. The point is that you get the same performance with two different camera angles. If you can manage it your editor will love it.

If you shooting 35mm film or the Red camera you can actually crop down to a quarter of the frame without loosing any resolution (assuming a 4K scan and a 2K print), but you have to be careful as the quality of the bokeh does change.

Bob
Click to expand...

Ted Spencer said:
I like this idea. It's slightly complicated (two camera ops, probably two ACs/P2 wraglers, more complex decision making), but like you said, in the edit you could find yourself real happy you did. Just by going tighter on one camera you could salvage many a take where one actor was brilliant and another wasn't...
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with this theory. If we put this idea up against the basic WS/MS/CU single-cam workflow the only thing we're gaining is -possibly- time. For a lot of actors (I won't say all, but a lot) they get more and more into the scene as they do takes. This is one reason for starting with the wide shots. Wide shots aren't the Oscar Award Winning Money Shots (Oscars, not AVN's), so the actor can be a little off and still have it be okay. I think the closeup is more personal and the actor feels it, if you're always backed off I don't think that they feel it the same way.

On top of this it's interesting to see who shoots how. I can't speak for all people, but there has to be something that keeps productions shooting one camera, and shows like Mad Men shooting one camera (mostly, see: Oct '09 AC). I think it has to do with look (aforementioned bokeh, but also DoF in general) and performance.
 
Scott Lovejoy said:
For a lot of actors (I won't say all, but a lot) they get more and more into the scene as they do takes. This is one reason for starting with the wide shots. Wide shots aren't the Oscar Award Winning Money Shots (Oscars, not AVN's), so the actor can be a little off and still have it be okay. I think the closeup is more personal and the actor feels it, if you're always backed off I don't think that they feel it the same way.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself as an actor, I wish it weren't true, but some of my best takes have been on the wide shot. It's sometimes just another variant on 'first take magic'. Plus, the close ups can be quite intimidating, as in: 'be brilliant NOW - everyone's going to see EVERY NUANCE of it...' Oy...that's pressure. Sometimes I wish I didn't even *know* it's going to be a close-up.

That, along with late-day fatigue from too much waiting and too many takes, can take a toll on close ups. It's been an area that I have concentrated more and more efforts on improving because of the above factors and the tremendous importance of those shots. I wish I could say I totally nail them most of the time, but I don't, and I certainly do fairly often in a wide or medium. Being able to harvest great close ups from that would be really nice I think.

I'll admit to holding myself to a pretty high standard - frankly, I'm not very happy with about 90% of what I see of myself later on in the final cut (although I often feel my better takes were left unused, which is endlessly frustrating). Performing *consistently* at the top of my game is quite challenging. I'll take any safety nets I can find... : )
 
Sad Max said:
I avoid 3-camera shows like the plague, but Ted's correct: most sitcoms shot before a live audience are acquired that way.
Click to expand...

Standard TV studios use to have 3 cameras, along with flat lighting so as to not have any camera having an harsh shadow shot. That way, one could switch back and forth from the control room to get left, right, over-the-shoulder shots, along with either a central or master shot.

I don't think it necessarily was just for 'live' broadcasts, but any in-studio TV production, once magtape recording became standard. Before that either on had live broadcasts, or filmed shows, transfered to video.
 
By 'three camera shows' I mean shows produced under a certain IA contract involving unsatisfactory hours and uninspiring pay, shot across three-wall sets with multiple (usually pedestal-mounted) cameras and (generally) before a live studio audience.

Which I should have specified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top