tricks/techniques for getting coverage?

[nycineaste]

Robert Rodriguez mentions zooming in (or out) quickly during recording so you also get a closer shot or insert that you can crosscut to.

Any other tips, tricks, procedures or techniques for getting coverage/alternate shot sizes and angles with single camera shooting ?

 

[stefancolson]

Firstly, know your edit before you begin shooting. If you know exactly what you need, you are free to pick off alternate shots during coverage. For example, if I'm shooting coverage of a character that only speaks during one part of the scene, I might have the actors play the entire scene out and grab inserts and alternate coverage that I know I'll need while the subject isn't talking. In scenes with many characters, you can sometimes pick off everybody's coverage in a single pass if you know the material and have a lot of control over the camera, your actors are rehearsed, and you know exactly what you'll need for the edit. Again, the real key here is to know exactly what you need before you start shooting. If your B-roll/insert plan is to just grab a bunch of different things and sort it out in the edit then you've already lost the efficiency battle.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Yes, this is what storyboards are for. You visualize the completed film and draw (crude is fine) pictures of every shot, then you break it down to "what do I have to shoot to create those images" AKA a shot list. Then you shoot some more on top of that. I try to stick to the 30 degree rule most of the time. When you move the camera (shooting coverage of the same scene) it should move at least 30 degrees clockwise or counter clockwise. This is how you prevent jump cuts. I generally shoot everything at least wide (master), medium, close.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I'd personally be leery of thinking of shooting for an edit that exclusively--you never know if a line or two has to be cut or moved, and you've missed out on a critical reaction shot that could help bridge that. Unless you are scheduled so tightly that a few minutes here and there will make a big difference (in which case, the schedule was probably too tight to begin with), it's worth getting at least a single take that plays through the scene on each piece of coverage so that you have a full set of reaction shots. Sometimes it ends up being that much more powerful to be on a reaction rather than the person speaking--impossible to know until the edit itself.

That said, not every character needs coverage and if there are many in a scene, it may be possible to limit the number of pieces of coverage. The trick comes in combining pieces, which often plays a part in blocking the scene as well. Years ago I was operating on a feature and we rehearsed a big scene before lunch, then the director and DP broke it down to something like 22 setups. A depressing concept, since it was a night shoot and we were eating at midnight. I sat with the DP and showed him how we could tie many of the pieces together and we triumphantly returned after lunch with half the shots crossed out.

One great way to simplify is to block on a line, i.e. limit the number of camera angles you need to tell the story. Picture a scenario that starts with two people walking and talking; they stop and continue the conversation, then a third person joins them. One approach is to start with a moving shot pulling the two actors; they land and turn to face each other in a 50-50, and then the third person approaches and lands in the middle. It's a nice master shot. However, you need coverage. You are already set to do the third person, so you drive the camera in (or tighten the lens) and clean up their coverage. But now you owe the coverage between the first two actors, which looks two new directions, which is generally a lighting reset. There may well be multiple sizes (over the shoulder and clean) versions of the coverage, but in general, you have three setups with three different backgrounds.

Another approach of the same scene is to start the same way, pulling the actors. When they stop, one of them rotates around to face the other actor, who remains facing the same direction. Essentially, the master shot becomes the coverage of that actor. If you are using a Steadicam, you can land in a nice over-the-shoulder shot even if the actor with his back to you misses his mark slightly. Now, when the third actor arrives, he comes in behind the actor who is facing camera, who then turns to him. A tighter size of the same shot will give you a closeup of that new character. Now all that is left is to turn fully around and shoot out the other side of the dialogue. In this scenario you have eliminated one whole direction of coverage from the previous version--that's blocking on a line. if done right, it is seamless to the audience but very efficient.

 

[stefancolson]

I'd personally be leery of thinking of shooting for an edit that exclusively--you never know if a line or two has to be cut or moved, and you've missed out on a critical reaction shot that could help bridge that. Unless you are scheduled so tightly that a few minutes here and there will make a big difference (in which case, the schedule was probably too tight to begin with), it's worth getting at least a single take that plays through the scene on each piece of coverage so that you have a full set of reaction shots. Sometimes it ends up being that much more powerful to be on a reaction rather than the person speaking--impossible to know until the edit itself.

I certainly didn't mean that you should only shoot dialogue for each character in a scene, ignoring reactions. At least one of the angles should be complete takes of the scene for each character, including reactions, and it's usually (in my mind) a good idea to shoot the duration of the scene on each take when not unreasonable. I only meant that good planning (ie knowing exactly what you need for the edit) free you up to think about what else you want or is working well and should be expanded upon coverage wise, rather than worrying about whether or not you have enough to make a scene work. I would think starting and stopping to only shoot parts of a scene for each take would be a horribly inefficient workflow (not to mention very tiring on the actors). Also, we should definitely be including things like reactions in your breakdowns/storyboards/shotlists. You might not know exactly where you're going to cut away to a reaction, but there's no reason that you wouldn't know that you wanted to see a reaction when previsualizing an edit (before shooting).

BTW, big fan of your work Charles. Key & Peele looks as good as it is funny.

 

[PopcornFlix]

Shoot B-roll. That means shots of things on the set/location, but not linked to any particular part of the scene. It gives you something to cut to so you can shorten a take, or change takes without the audience knowing. Pro editors call this "cutting to the dog."

Another variation on this is to have a B-camera shooting the take of the actor, but shoot CUs of their feet, or their hands, or the prop they are manipulating. You can use that as a cutaway, too, and it can really change their performance. For example, if an actor did a good take, but took an extra long pause before a line, you can cut to their hand holding a glass, and then cut back to the line, completely cutting out the awkward pause.