Why would you need a B Cam?

Richard J. Johnson

Richard J. Johnson

Joystick Member
I was thinking of getting the T2i as a B cam then I began thinking, why the hell would I need a B cam? I have shot over 20 music videos, 4 short films and 4 feature length films and I have never had a B cam nor did I ever wish I had a B cam. I can see if I'm doing a bunch of expensive action stuff with car crashes and explosions but I really don't know why I would need one. any input would be great.:dankk2:
 
Richard,

That is pretty much it. Unless you are doing intense scenes that cannot be duplicated or you hav a need for a B unit there really is no need.

Some directors will use two cameras for dialoge scenes but IMO the time saved doing this is not worth the sacrifice you have to make in lighting.

I am sure some will disagree.
 
phudsontx said:
Richard,

That is pretty much it. Unless you are doing intense scenes that cannot be duplicated or you hav a need for a B unit there really is no need.

Some directors will use two cameras for dialoge scenes but IMO the time saved doing this is not worth the sacrifice you have to make in lighting.

I am sure some will disagree.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I can barely get the lighting and the shots right with one cam, 2 could be nightmare:)
 
As an editor, all I'll say is a B-cam cam be a lifesaver. It can get you out of a continuity jam, or let you tighten up a performance without cutting away from the actor. Use the B-cam, even if you're just shooting a different angle on the same shot.
 
It's great for improv dialog scenes, especially comedies where the lighting doesn't matter so much and you can get both sides of the conversation and let the actors overlap their dialog.

I've tried to use it to get more coverage in a 'regular' scene but if the actor(s) has a bad take, you now have two shots of a bad take!

I think it's essential for documentary and live shows.

Other than that, I use the 2nd cam for BTS.

I notice that when I see it in the BTS of a movie, it looks like they're getting 2 angles or a Med and CU the same time. In my experience, this can be bad, because you think you have coverage of a scene, but you end up with less performances to pick from when you go to edit.
 
well if all else fails I could always just keep it locked to the Glidecam so I don't have to waste too much time trying to balance the damn thing on set when I need to go back and forth. and BTS would be a great addition since I never had any.
 
Well, Let's say you have a scene where a man walks through a door. You want to shoot a medium shot and an ECU of his hand turning the door knob. So you set up your A cam for the medium shot. Then using the similar angle and same lighting you set up your B cam o get just the close up of his hand. Now you've gotten both shots you want and can do a bunch of takes to get it right and not have to worry about the close up looking right. Can you do it with one? Sure. But you can certainly use a B cam to save you time. And of course time=money. But that is just my opinion.
 
For music videos why not? More coverage is never a bad thing.

For other things...eh. For how I shoot, with more wider angle lenses, even on the closes, 2 camera coverage would rarely work.
 
Last edited:
a B cam for shots your A cam can't do. For example if your A cam is a 7d and a scene requires running through the forest hand held.. or a scene with a car mount rig.. well an overly sensitive cmos cam aint the best choice..
 
You would have to be really UN-creative not to find some cool set-up for your B cam on any given set. It's a time and money saver. Lots of people are against using 2 cameras but i have this feeling it comes from inexperience with working with 2 cameras. There are big directors out there who chose NOT to work with multiple cameras but in general it's an anomaly. Riddle Scott is famous for working with more then 3 cameras on any given shoot. You watch "American Gangster" (that was shot with 3-5 cameras at any give time) and ponder why it looks so flat-is that is until you realize that due to time contains they simply could not NOT to work with multiple cameras. The movie simply couldn't be done if not for lighting compromises caused by usage of multiple cameras (often those cameras shooting into each other, by the way).
 
Almost every "single-camera" show has at least two operating units.

Sometimes, the B-Cam will peel off to do pick-ups or provide extra angles during master shots and cutaways.

A will often get the master, say a two-shot, while the B is on a longer lens, but effectively on the same composition. Lighting can be an issue if you try to get too far off of the A-Cams line.

Conversely, in my business, two camera coverage is the absolute norm and as many as twelve cameras isn't insanely uncommon.

e
 
We've been shooting action scenes over the last month.... One super16 cam, one hvx. Awesome results, we've been able to knock out scenes with a quickness and maximize the blanks for 2 ak47s, shotgun and 2 pistols. Of course that's with 2 operators.
 
One HVX or the like with a 35mm adapter and another without one, but on a jib, steadicam or shoulder rig could save quite a bit of setup time on many shoots.
 
I only wish I could afford a B-cam right now. Your options for shooting are really opened up with an extra cam.

I'd definitely go for it.
 
I refuse to shoot a music video with just one camera, I think it's stupid personally. I shot my first video like that, and after that it was all two cameras, and I would never go back.

The reason is simple -- you can't really do a great job with one camera, it's just not possible unless you're spreading your filming over several days, which is more expensive anyway. You can come up with something good but it will never be as good as it should be. You cannot ask a band to do TWENTY takes of a song and have the first one look as good as the last, they will get tired, unless it's someone playing a piano or something, but not with a rock band. They get tired, they're ROCKING out, hardcore, if they're any good. You're fortunate to get about 8-10 takes of the song, and that's not enough coverage with one camera, not even close. You need about 16-20 takes to get what you need and make it really shine, so that requires two cameras so you don't have to ask the band to keep going past the point they're so tired it no longer looks good. It's a fine balance.

If you have 10 takes let's say, and only 4 band members, you still are only going to get one take on each of the other three guys besides the singer, maybe one close-up singer, one medium singer, and one full singer. That's already 6. That leaves you with 4 various wides, perhaps a dolly, a jib, and two roaming wide shots. I can tell you that it's very tough to get what you need out of a single take from any band member, I definitely want at least 2 takes on a single person, to make sure if they messed something up, we nailed it on one of the takes. Often a band has 5 people in it too, and then you have even more of a need for additional takes.

My first video had I think 9 or 10 takes, just one camera, and we were struggling like heck for footage, because while there is always maybe 1-2 shots that look pretty good, there isn't always something absolutely killer. When you have 20 takes of a song, you got something killer every frame, you have usually 3-4 good options to choose from at that rate that make sense, and that's a great thing.

For narrative, I don't really think you need two cameras, I am not sure if it would save much time really because most of the time is setup anyway, but I don't think it would hurt either. It depends if you wanted to rent an extra camera or own an extra one, and then hire another camera operator, etc. In that case it could actually end up being more of a pain. But I don't understand the notion of it totally changing the lighting, personally, that one has always baffled me. If you're shooting a two-shot with one camera and a close-up with another, I fail to see how it's lit perfectly for the two-shot and not well enough for the close-up. I mean the makeup should be good at any angle, so that's out, and the lighting is going to be designed for two people let's say sitting or standing somewhere, I don't see why it'd make any difference whether a camera is closeup or a bit further away in the lighting department. Sure, I could see that you wouldn't want to have one that's really wide and one that's super close, because it could be lit quite differently, but with what most people are doing, no, I don't see how it'd be much of a difference provided it's not too different of distances. Say a medium and a closeup especially, or you have angle on her, angle on him, both talking, that would work too.

I'm sure you have to think about the lighting a little bit more but some people make it out to be a much bigger deal than it should be.
 
Hey all
Just my two cents.
The focus really is not whether or not you need a B cam. Whats really a B cam? I work as a vfx supervisor and have been on set where we had up to 6 cameras run at all times.

Just plan out what your doing firsts with storyboards or a quick shot-breakdown. This will tell you whether or not your idea can be capture stronger with more cameras running.


Just a few things I think about when shooting.


Dialog. I like to have 2 camera running. There's always going to be that take you wish you had but didn't have the camera. If you have good actors who can relive the same moment over and over this might not be needed, but it all so help to get thought your scenes faster.


:Shooting any type of sfx. Why wast money, setup multiple cameras.


:Action shots, same goes. Always feel that you need to keep the viewer excited and if you can keep the overall action running longer. Using different angels help to do this. (example I was work on set of a football film. There was this scene where the QB get hit as he jumps forward to throw the ball. After two take the actor was just beat. So they ran 4 camera as a back up on the the final take and got the shot they were looking for. But without the extra coverage we would have had to re-shot. Not a big deal unless your out of days at that location.


To be honest. I only use one camera if I'm working on shots that aren't critical to what I'm try to say.
There's always a cost issue, but I feel you'll save time in the end to pay for the extra setups.
Not sure if any of this helps.
 
As a sound guy, two cameras are a blessing an curse. In the wrong hands (most of the productions I've worked) it's an editors nightmare. Why, because instead of using the two cams to cover at roughly the same distance two actors talking. They will park one on a tight closeup on one actor, then the b cam in a master wide. SO, I'm screwed because the sound I give the editor will be from a master wide sound perspective. He goes to cut into the closeup and it sounds like the person is in the other room. Which, at the end of the day, increase the "Suck" level of your production. So please, if you have two cameras at least try to match perspective with the audio..
 
vrc2250 said:
As a sound guy, two cameras are a blessing an curse. In the wrong hands (most of the productions I've worked) it's an editors nightmare. Why, because instead of using the two cams to cover at roughly the same distance two actors talking. They will park one on a tight closeup on one actor, then the b cam in a master wide. SO, I'm screwed because the sound I give the editor will be from a master wide sound perspective. He goes to cut into the closeup and it sounds like the person is in the other room. Which, at the end of the day, increase the "Suck" level of your production. So please, if you have two cameras at least try to match perspective with the audio..
Click to expand...

Or only use the audio from the better sounding position, or better yet, boom and/or lav it to one or both of the cams. Two cams gives you four channels of potentially excellent sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top