When a scene/movie is shot with more than 1 camera?

Fellipe said:
In which situations a scene/movie is shot with more than one camera?
Click to expand...

Television has been traditionally shot with multiple cameras, and the 'director' selecting which camera, according to the script, during the broadcast. This allowed for 'live' broadcasts, with the ability to switch shots in realtime. It also had the effect that lighting needs to 'work' for all three cameras (typical studio setup.).

There are a number of films that use multiple cameras, but more frequently in the past, those uses center around big scenes with major set pieces or practical effects, such that trying to 'reshoot' with only one camera
would be nearly impossible to get cut correctly. One of the first uses I became aware of 'multiple' cameras for a non-major scene, was in the BTS material for Spike Lee's "Bamboozeled"(2000), which used a number of mini-DV cameras to capture many angles of various scenes.

While this produces much more footage, a director could then have a variety of 'angles' on the talent to choose from for a given look they were striving for.

I've seen mention of more and more multicamera setups from feature films from the BTS since then.
 
also, on non-repeatable or difficult to repeat action, so you can get multiple angles without having to do the thing again. For example, a stunt, explosion, etc.
 
Example that comes to mind is the scene near the end of "Return of the King" outside Mount Doom where Frodo is wiped out and Sam gets down to talk to him before picking him up. Their conversation utilized two cameras in cross coverage due to the fading daylight and they reportedly nailed the shot(s) in one take.
 
Anytime something is difficlut to repeat. Large practical effects ornstunts, Also musical performances. Joshua leonard just shot a film with an improvised script on two red cameras which i thought was an interesting use of multiple cameras.
 
I believe the opening conversation in The Social Network was shot with a few cameras because the characters went through their conversation so fast, the director was worried about continuity, or being able to cut cleanly from one character to another.

(I think that's right, anyway)
 
Another reason to shoot with two cameras is budget. If you have a scene, or multiple scenes, with a lots of actors in it, and you have to pay those actors, it can be more cost effective to hire an additional camera, time code synching equipment (if necessary), and extra monitor, etc. to reduce the amount of time you need the actors. On high-budget films, that's not an issue in most cases. And, of course, the monitor issue, time-code, etc. apply only to video.
 
awelgraven said:
I believe the opening conversation in The Social Network was shot with a few cameras because the characters went through their conversation so fast, the director was worried about continuity, or being able to cut cleanly from one character to another.

(I think that's right, anyway)
Click to expand...

This is true, the opening scene was shot with two cameras. According to the BTS documentary on the DVD, Fincher's choice to shoot two cameras was almost entirely because of the screenplay. Aaron Sorkin's dialogue is fast and complex, shooting two cameras is not only easier on editors but it's also easier on actors.
 
Coming from a background of shooting stills (rather than knowing any filmschool rules) into the world of filming I have been baffled by the lack of multicam

I would shoot nearly everything multicam

Assuming your production can afford two cameras

I have spent hours on set fiddling with half eaten meals, half drunk drinks, half burnt cigarettes, inconsistent actors

To me I would be asking the question when not to shoot multicam?

There are of course many situations where MC does not work, but so many where it does .. IMO
 
morgan_moore said:
Coming from a background of shooting stills (rather than knowing any filmschool rules) into the world of filming I have been baffled by the lack of multicam

I would shoot nearly everything multicam

Assuming your production can afford two cameras

I have spent hours on set fiddling with half eaten meals, half drunk drinks, half burnt cigarettes, inconsistent actors

To me I would be asking the question when not to shoot multicam?

There are of course many situations where MC does not work, but so many where it does .. IMO
Click to expand...

The basic reason why single camera predominates, at least from my view... is lighting. For a variety of situations, the lighting would not be the same, or impossible, to achieve a given look when the lighting has to be set for two or more cameras. The TV lighting, even in the days of shooting film and transferring to video, was shot 'flatter' so as to allow for multicam, and the reduced cost of setups and takes, in addition, the TV system of the day was not able to match that of film. Another element of the 3-camera equation is the audience. Some TV shows, such as the "I Love Lucy" who, which kicked off the 3 camera usage, were filmed before a live audience. This continued for the next 40 or so years... now one is beginning to see '1 camera' TV shows... not before a live audience, and more dramatic lighting...

Multicam seems to sneaking in to film shoots, but I think far more care about lighting, staging, block, etc. is required to maintain the traditional sense of dramatic film lighting. Comedies have traditionally been lit 'lighter', and so seem to be more amenable to a flatter light, and hence more amenable to lighting that works for everyone on set.

From a 'still photographer' POV, think about setting up a shot of two people, (or more), and making sure all have 'Rembrandt' lighting for 3 cameras placed at approximately 45% from each other... and then remember motion pictures often mean 'someone is moving'...
 
Last edited:
Of course 'cheating' or 'relighting' is one of the issues that makes multicam not work

I also am big into 'motivated' lighting so relighting scenes may break the motivation as I see it

Again being "no film school" cheating/relighting is something Ive not really been trained in (but have used)

Generally I try and do 270 degree lighting or suchlike

Everything is a trade off

Generally my point is that there is a 'film school culture' based on expensive cameras and expensive media (film) whereas cameras and media are often cheap nowadays

Also I see on lots of DVD BTS stuff that 2 or three cameras is very common and not just for explosions and car crashes

S
 
I'm also surprised at the apparent rarity of two-cam shoots in narrative filmmaking. Aside from being much faster to shoot, you also get the "real" natural reaction of both the actors in the scene instead of one feeding lines to the other and then switching and feigning a reaction to a previous line that was delivered more energetically when the camera was on the first actor.
And now with digital cameras getting cheaper the equipment isn't as much of an issue (two timecoded AF100's anyone?)

I think it may become more common over time, but that's pure noobish speculation. For now I'm happy to follow precedent and try to nail the traditional setups. In the future I'll try out more experimental stuff when possible :)
 
Chris Lawes said:
I'm also surprised at the apparent rarity of two-cam shoots in narrative filmmaking. Aside from being much faster to shoot, you also get the "real" natural reaction of both the actors in the scene instead of one feeding lines to the other and then switching and feigning a reaction to a previous line that was delivered more energetically when the camera was on the first actor.
And now with digital cameras getting cheaper the equipment isn't as much of an issue (two timecoded AF100's anyone?)

I think it may become more common over time, but that's pure noobish speculation. For now I'm happy to follow precedent and try to nail the traditional setups. In the future I'll try out more experimental stuff when possible :)
Click to expand...

Depends... But recently I was watching the "Fantastic Four" movie series, and I think I recall that in one scene the Jessica Alba character appears to be talking to Ioan Guffudd character, in the BTS, there was mention made that the shots of what appears to be the two talking... was not only shot on different days, but Alba was shot in New York, and Guffudd was shot in Vancouver...

This could have been a pick up, and perhaps if there was an 'original' on the set at the same time take, there was some reason to reshoot.

If it was setup because of various reasons, talent availability, costs of having everyone at the same place at the same, etc... clearly a 'one camera' deal would be sort of obvious.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The basic reason why single camera predominates, at least from my view... is lighting.
Click to expand...

+1. Exactly. Single camera can do way more than most people realize. I believe the TV show Castle is single camera. It's gorgeously filmed -- Bill Roe knows his stuff, and he has the art department, lighting, and sound people to go with it. And a hell of a cast too, which never hurts. But what makes it gorgeous, IMHO, is the lighting, which is optimized for the single camera. Makes the entire thing look seamless and "natural" even when it's anything but. Which is the secret, yes? Making something as artificial as a TV show look natural.
 
Interesting story I heard on some podcast, I can't remember who it was at the time - in The Spy Who Loved Me, the shot where James Bond jumps off of the huge cliff at the end of the ski chase was actually supposed to be shot with three cameras. Apparently, two of them somehow broke down either right before or while they were shooting it, so they wound up with just one camera angle, which arguably made it better.

But really, any time it's difficult or impossible to repeat, as others have said. I shot a film a couple months ago where someone had a sugarglass bottle smashed over their head at the main climax, we had 3 different cameras for that shot. Throughout the rest of that particular day of shooting, I was on the main camera and there were one or two others getting extra coverage just because they could, but we could have easily done without them (and I would have strongly preferred to do without them actually, since I had to worry about not getting them in my shot).
 
morgan_moore said:
Of course 'cheating' or 'relighting' is one of the issues that makes multicam not work

I also am big into 'motivated' lighting so relighting scenes may break the motivation as I see it

Again being "no film school" cheating/relighting is something Ive not really been trained in (but have used)

Generally I try and do 270 degree lighting or suchlike

Everything is a trade off

Generally my point is that there is a 'film school culture' based on expensive cameras and expensive media (film) whereas cameras and media are often cheap nowadays

Also I see on lots of DVD BTS stuff that 2 or three cameras is very common and not just for explosions and car crashes

S
Click to expand...

Well, I also didn't attend film school, but I usually use only one camera for my work. I think it depends a lot on what kinds of stuff you shoot. For example, my last shoot was in a real, working office. We were given part of it to do our thing. There were reflections from glass in office doors, a wall of windows on the side away from the offices, overhead lights that couldn't be turned off (usually), cubicle walls creating barriers, and the like. And we needed to get as many shots from as many angles as we could to vary the visual monotony of a LOT of people talking to each other over the phone from identical cubicles.

Obviously, with that much ambient light, our lighting setups were usually only for fill and, sometimes, subtle backlight or ear light. We flagged a lot of ambient stuff, gelled some windows on occasion, tilted some framed photos, changed the color of our light and the temp on our white balance ... and basically made do. The result was really quite pleasing, I think, but it simply could not have been done with two cameras. There was no way to avoid reflections, moving through light and causing a shadow, framing so that you avoided lights/the other cameraman in the shot (we shot handheld with snap zooms and rack focusing), etc. for a second camera. Oh, it could have been done one or two times, I suppose, but that's about it.

Now, if I'd had a proper set with lighting instruments on a grid high above my actors, I might have acquired that second camera. But I very rarely shoot under those conditions, so a second camera rarely makes much sense for me.

It's not that I'm high-falutin' or stuck in a culture of one camera and relighting. It's that it's not usually practical. And I suspect many others face the same sorts of challenges I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top