OT: Shooting a table conversation with 1 camera is absurd???

Jessariah67 wrote on 12/27/2004, 9:39 AM
I need a reality check here...

We're about to start preproduction on a low budget feature. It's my first "movie" as a director. On top of all the other "learning curves," I'm having this debate with my producer, who seems to think we need 3 cameras to shoot a table conversation - a master & 2 for medium shots of each actor. When I tell him, "no, we want to run the scene through 3 times with 3 different setups," he looks at me like I've got two heads. That's when he starts telling me I'm just begging for a continuity nightmare. And that's when I tell him we're making a movie, not taping a television show.

Am I completely nuts? I've been on the set of a few films in different capacities and have NEVER seen more than one camera. I know it happens sometimes, and there's an argument for "saving time," but I also think more than one camera going could easily split the focus, not to mention logistical/lighting complications, additional crew members, etc..

Are they out there filming movies nowadays with multiple cameras? Is that becoming the norm? I see minor continuity problems all the time in close two-way conversations. It's just part of it. If I'm wrong about this, let me know and I'll go get some mental help...

Thanks for any input.

K

Comments

p@mast3rs wrote on 12/27/2004, 10:07 AM
Personally, I would shoot with three cameras uisng three different set ups. Thats the beauty of video these days is that tape is cheap and the only thing you spend a lot on is time to redo it for each set up. So what do you have to lose? You get 3 times as much footage using three different angles and you have more to choose from especially if initial setup doesnt pan out the way you hoped. The more footage you have to choose from the less you chance you have being stuck with having to choose from a limited shot or having to reshoot something all over again. Again, its just my opinion.

Personally, I love the idea of using multiple cameras. Not only does it save time but not every take will be perfect but there will be that one time you will wish you'd have had multiple cameras to capture that perfect take. better to be safe than sorry.
rmack350 wrote on 12/27/2004, 10:12 AM
The continuity problems will be where you cut from a wide shot where their hands are on the table to a close up where their hands are in frame. That sort of thing. Or if you use natural light then if it changes drastically it's a problem.

Multiple video cameras add a continuity issue because they are very unlikely to look the same. Shooting it all in takes with one camera will probably save you time and money in post because the color work will be simpler. So it's a trade-off: shot continuity vs color continuity.

You've also got budget issues. Which is cheaper? Shooting several runs of the scene at different angles or shooting several runs of the scene with all three cameras rolling. Either way you have to shoot each angle a few times for performance. Consider that three cameras will save a little time and the actors may not get as tired BUT three cameras will consume time getting it all set up and they may add to the confusion and crowd the workspace.

Also, if you are the DP, ask for three camera operators. You stay back and watch all three monitors and direct the operators. If you're the DP you're in charge of the look-lighting and composition.

It's expensive to add the three cameras but if it saves a day of production then it might be a wash, financially. Maybe it's worth the money.

Other considerations, aside from cost: Can you all fit inside the shooting space? Will there be any room left for lights? Do you want to use a dolly and track? Can you get three cameras of the same model (at least)? How long will it take to get the cameras set up, shoot charts, adjust color balance, etc?

Generally, things are usually shot the way you say. Some people, Rob Nilson for instance, shoot with multiple cameras. It's spaghetti city to get all the video feeds back to monitors but if you have emotionally intense scenes then you won't wear out the actors. I should go look at "Woman under the influence" or maybe "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" (sp?).

Just rambling on...if you shoot in a noisy environment and want to use the sound you get then it might pay off to shoot with multiple cameras. If you hear a car going by in the wide then you want it to har it in the closeup as well. I imagine you'd be more likely to use the sound as a reference track when you re-record the dialog later on.

Blah, Blah. I think single camera is probably better. You are making a "movie". Producers usually are making a "Money". If you want to get you're way, use the money arguments.

Rob Mack
rmack350 wrote on 12/27/2004, 10:14 AM
I'd feel the same way if I thought I could get identical looks from the video cameras. I don't, though.

Rob Mack
Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/27/2004, 10:15 AM
Sounds like your producer doesn't know what he's talking about. You're wanting to shoot it like a "movie," he wants to shoot it like "television." So no, you're not completely nuts.

Multiple cameras are, more often than not, used when the shot can not be repeated, like a giant train crash, the blowing up of a building, anything that can't be "put back" and reshot--a one-shot deal. In some cases, complex action scenes will be shot using multiple cameras as in Enemy at the Gates.

By the way, if the actors are incapable of giving your three like performances, then recast it!

Jay
p@mast3rs wrote on 12/27/2004, 10:20 AM
I dont buy the money argument when it comes to shooting video. With film, I can because it is MUCH more expensive to shoot on film than on video. While I understand it is a low budget, I doubt a $5 MiniDV tape is that big of an issue.

jay, I have seen some actors that I felt were good actors, never do the same scene/exchange the exact same way. Not saying that is impossible, but not as likely. Perhaps the little exposure I have had thus far shows my ignorance on the issue but I would much rather have more choice in which to cut from than I would taking a gamble and hoping it is right or can be fixed in post. Maybe its just preference.
busterkeaton wrote on 12/27/2004, 10:33 AM
Rent Goodfellas. Go to the scenes where Ray Liotta is in prison and his wife is visiting. His wife has their two young children on her lap. The kids are playing with some blocks, stacking them up. The continuity of the stacks of blocks is all over the place. Then ask yourself, am I going to make a movie that's better than Goodfellas if my continuity is better?

For dialogue scenes you should go with one camera and try and find someone to act as a continuity person-- what they used to call a script girl. Shooting with three cameras would probably drive your boom operator nuts. If you have good dialogue and good actors you can get away with doing a scene in a single setup.
Coursedesign wrote on 12/27/2004, 10:38 AM
Jay is right on.

There is another reason why even $100M features are normally shot with one camera. It a) makes it possible to set up MUCH better lighting, and b) it allows more freedom of movement for the one camera. No risk of dollying across an intimate kiss and suddenly seeing a huge matte box staring at you from the other side.

When episodic television is shot with multiple cameras, they generally have to use a broad even lighting to make it work for all cameras. A lot of drama can disappear that way.

Camera matching is an issue with multicam, even with the most expensive gear. Need to use identical cameras AND lenses and preferably a $1K Chroma-du-Monde Chip Chart together with a vector scope.

For low budget, there are many acceptable shortcuts of course, but single camera can give you better quality for less.

Get Steven Katz' book "Film Directing - Cinematic Motion" (make sure to get the 2nd edition, it's better). This book is absolutely 10.0/10.0 on staging, and it also has fascinating interviews with different crew members on how they see the staging. With this, you'll have your own understanding of the issues.
rmack350 wrote on 12/27/2004, 11:22 AM
The money argument has nothing to do with tape or film stock.

If you are renting space,
If you are renting equipment,
If you are paying insurance,
If you are paying crew,
If you are paying actors,
Etc,

Then paying one additional day for all of these things may be more expensive than hiring three camera operators, two additional camera packages, two additional field monitors, etc. The producer shouldn't be telling you how to shoot it without adding up the cost. Money and budgets is what the producer is there for, including saying that she won't pay for what she doesn't want.

Jay's point about things being impossible to repeat is very important. If that's the case, for whatever reason, then multiple cameras are probably required.

Lighting-wise, if you shoot single camera then you can do minor tweaks to the lights. Things often don't look quite as good in a close up and you may want to adjust the fill or cheat a scratch farther around. You can't do that with multiple cameras. All you can do is regret the shot.

Oft times the day will go much more smoothly if you just use one camera. Everybody stays focused. Less chaos for actors.

Rob Mack
Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/27/2004, 11:23 AM
I have seen some actors that I felt were good actors, never do the same scene/exchange the exact same way.

Patrick, that's what directors are for! And when you see films where things change from shot to shot then the continuity person and the director have dropped the ball. If a director can't shoot a simple conversation between two people with one camera, then he needs to consider another line of work.

Jay
rmack350 wrote on 12/27/2004, 11:32 AM
Oh, yeah. Forgot to point out that you'll need more audio coverage if you shoot it all at once. Maybe more mics, maybe another boom operator, maybe an audio mixer guy if you don't already have one. You probably need one anyway.

The other option will be to shoot multiple cameras but do it for each actor at the table so you can get the audio. At that point you've lost any advantage you might have had.

Rob Mack

Jessariah67 wrote on 12/27/2004, 11:35 AM
Thanks for the feedback. The movie is in one location, and we have it for several weeks. I already own the lights, crane, dolly, so rental expense isn't an issue either. Crew expense could be an issue, but I'm still not convinced it's the overall "time-saver" it appears to be at first glance. And because the majority of it is two characters at a table, I really want to be able to move around and layout some long shots. The picture matching wasn't something I was thinking about, either.

I just think (at least for me), having one thing to focus on, and making sure it's captured right, will make a bigger difference in the final product than being able to say we shot 20 pages a day because we never had to reset a shot.
JonnyMac wrote on 12/27/2004, 11:38 AM
Unless you use the same take from all three cameras (not very likely) then there is still the potential for a continuity problem. As hard as we try, we actors don't move or gesture exactly the same from take-to-take (we're more worried about being truthful to the moment than were our hand is).

And it seems like you'll probably spend more time lighting for three cameras than you would for multiple single-camera setups. Which actor is going to get screwed lighting-wise?
Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/27/2004, 12:16 PM
... we actors don't move or gesture exactly the same from take-to-take (we're more worried about being truthful to the moment than were our hand is).

With all due respect to such actors, I've known actors who could do both. And the true professionals--past and present--do it all the time.

Jay
Orcatek wrote on 12/27/2004, 12:18 PM
One camera or three, you will probably mix and match the takes to cut the final scene so continuity is not the key issue for shooting with more than one camera. Ideally you will choose the best version of each segment of the take. Your skill editting here will make the scene, not the number of cameras used.



farss wrote on 12/27/2004, 12:38 PM
Well, I beg to differ. Certainly Hollywood may well shoot this with only one camera however they'd almost certainly do the audio later. Loss of visual continuity is only noticeable to the geeks looking for it, loss of audio continuity jars everyones brain. So unless you plan on taking the talent into a sound studio sometime down the track I'd go with three cameras.
I've only last week watched a pretty full on local production that has exactly this problem. You can tell immediately that the dialogue between the talent doesn't match, not only is the timing off (I'm talking only a few frames worth) but the intonation / background noise etc doesn't match.
The alternative is to make certain you get one good continuous audio take recorded and cut to that, this may simplify the lighting or maybe not. If you've got a master shot that sets the tone of the lighting then cut to a closeup with different lighting that's going to look pretty obvious.
Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/27/2004, 12:50 PM
That's why God created ADR! ;o)

Jay
patreb wrote on 12/27/2004, 5:43 PM
Shooting table convo like taht is stupid theer are situations though when you have to... Think of Spielber's "Duel" that wouldn't be possible if he didn't use multiple cams.
Jessariah67 wrote on 12/27/2004, 9:51 PM
Farss,

How does 3 cameras solve your audio problem? If the room noise/noise floor is going to be THAT different from take to take, what's the difference between cutting between takes on a single-camera vs. 3 cameras? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but there's nothing that is going to solve a severe change in BG noise from run to run, regardless of how many cameras you have running -- unless you do multi-cam and everything you choose comes from the same take.

I think if you are able to quiet your set enough, a continuous run of room noise would cover up any minor differences in the sound that's captured with the dialogue. If not, it's a good thing my best friend owns a recording studio with a monitor...
farss wrote on 12/27/2004, 10:40 PM
It's not just the bg noise. It's how people time and stress words. I was asked to help finalise / re edit a local drama production and this was exactly what was wrong with it, they'd shot 2 and 3 person conversations with one camera. Now I'll admit they could have done a much better job even with 1 camera but with two or better still three they'd be miles ahead.
Certainly only having one camera may solve many issues of lighting etc if as was said you go with ADR.
In any case good talent should be able to get a conversion right in one entire take. One thing I was told many years ago, you can judge the ability of talent by how long they leave the camera on them. I'd forgotten that until this reminded me of it.
Probably a lot depends on the details of the specific scene, if it's a heated argument with people shouting over the top of one another, hmm. If it's two people having a quiet chat over a drink, should be easy to do with one camera.
Of course if it's a live event like I did recently, all I can say is I need my head read big time trying to shoot it with one camera, major disaster I can tell you.
Bob.
Jessariah67 wrote on 12/28/2004, 5:46 PM
I believe that.

Thanks again for all the opinions/experiences. This was a fun thread...

Kevin
rmack350 wrote on 12/28/2004, 8:53 PM
I think we're illustrating that it all just depends on what you're shooting. I've certainly seen many actors who could repeat a performance very consistantly. If the scene is very measured and reasonably rehearsed then one camera has it's advantages. If the scene is live or the performances are heated then it's worth it to use several cameras and take the color correction hit later.

For live conversations done in one take, sound ought to be fine. You're talking about something like the Charlie Rose show here

As with everything, you just need to make informed choices.

Rob Mack
Coursedesign wrote on 12/28/2004, 8:59 PM
"then it's worth it to use several cameras and take the color correction hit later"

Particularly if you are shooting 8-bit video (as most people are), you'll get a boost in image quality if you can match and color correct the cameras just before shooting. If your cameras don't have much control, at least shoot some color and grayscale charts, that saves a lot of time in post.
JonnyMac wrote on 12/29/2004, 7:10 AM
With all due respect to such actors, I've known actors who could do both. And the true professionals--past and present--do it all the time.

With all due respect, most actors do not in fact repeat movements take after take -- to have to think about physicality in a given take removes the actor and makes him/her a puppet. True professional actors focus on the reality of the moment.

I've been complimented by directors for being consistent -- but it was never a conscious decision, it just happened that I was stimulated similarly take-to-take. The fact is that most people will never notice subtle continuity breaks IF the scene and the moments between the actors are compelling. Many actors make deliberate changes take-to-take to keep the scene alive, preventing it from getting stale ... especially for a director who enjoys doing double-digit takes.
filmy wrote on 12/29/2004, 9:58 AM
This is just one of those threads that I just have to jump in on. I have read all the thread and I agree with some and disagree with others. This is one of those things that can go any way...for any reason.

First and formost the important thing being overlooked here is that "Jessariah" is directing and the person wanting three camera is the producer. There is a very old saying that the only person who can't be fired on a film set is the producer. Also the producer usually gets what they want, this is just the way it is. So be cautious on how much you argue because you could find yourself being replaced as director, or never work for this producer again.

The next thing is this conversation is going on between the Director and Producer - where is the DP and/or Camera Operator in this conversation? Too many times the Producer and Director come up with ideas that don't work in reality for other key positions. A Director isn't going to really worry about set design and the set designer isn't going to worry about audio and they, in turn, aren't going to worry about the actors being bad and so on. On most films I have produced I have told the Director that the location sound recordist has permission to say "Cut" if the audio gets too poor. This is not the norm however. But these things need to be discussed as a team. Multi cameras are something that should be discussed with the DP as well as the gaffer amd the sound person. An old "film school" question is to ask the class how you would handle a scene with 8 people sitting around a table. Each person has dialog. Factors to be taken into account would be set - a built set or a location? Wall/room layout - all walls same color? Moving shots? Locked off shots? Wardrobe? You get the idea.

Overall , in a non video world, it is the norm to use one camera for the bulk of a film. As was mentioned multi camera set ups are more the norm for stunts and such. In many cases this sort of thing goes to the second unit director if you are speaking about action. Although thanks to people like Hal Needham the action film sort of crossed over to second unit directors getting to direct the full feature, and beyond that stunt and action co-ordinators started to get the thanks and recognition they deserve. Jumping back on topic multi camera was (is) more of a TV thing. I have mentioned this around here many times but there used to be a whole attitude between tv people and film people. Get someone who had only worked on TV lighting and you would hear "Man, all the person knows is TV lighting" meaning it was flat and high key. Try to get a job for TV coming out of film and you would get "TV is hard work not like those movies." However it has been changing because now more and more cameras are capable of shooting in little or no light with good results. Now you can light for film while shooting video, and because of that you can now "work hard" in laying out and blocking a film shot on video because you, in theory, have more time.

And this goes into the actors. At a simple level if the film is a dialog driven film the director is directing actors, not fight scenes and car chases. In doing so there should be meetings with the actors and lots of rehersals, just like you would if you were second unit action directing. When the set(s) are ready you could either block out everything there or fake it by rehersing in a studio/office/your house. By the time the actors walk onto the hot set everyone should know what is going on with little or no modifications in action or dialog. IMO the worst thing to do is make the crew all sit around for hours while the director is blocking and rehersing. This is a huge first time director mistake...and part of how when production starts it is like turning a water spout full bore and leaving it on until production is over, except there are 100 dollar bills, not water, coming out. If you have method acotrs be prepared to get phone calls at 3 am from them asking what their motivation is for saying "Yes, I see" on page 34. Asking how they should hold the pen on page 12 and what attittude they should have as they walk to their car on page 76. This is not a bad thing mind you, but just something to be aware of.

Can actors repeat their lines the same way? Yes they can. But maybe this is too old school for todays MTV schooled actors. This may also be a TV vs FIlm thing. Or it may be just a bad director thing...at times I lean towards bad director. I have worked on enough films to see the actor "direct himself" because the director has no clue. This leads to things like the actor saying "Maybe I can say the line more like Clint Eastwood" and the director going "Ok, sure". This leads to the comments about actors don't repat movement or lines the same way take after take. Sure, in the grand scheme of things - out of the thousands of films made ever year - not all actors do this. However, improv aside and actors who are really good at it (Ie - Robin Williams), most good actors tend to reherse dialog and block out scenes. They know that part of their job is sitting in a trailer all day until they are called and they know they are not the director of the film. Any issues with character should be worked out before they step foot on the set. Having faith in the director is important - if the actors don't have that you can have a hard time.

Important factor as well - editing. Multi camera sounds like a good time saver. But at times you end up spending more time in post. This isn't TV we are speaking of now - it is film. In the "good ole days" you would print circled takes. Now with video, and I see this here in these forums time and time again, people don't really want to log anything or "print circled takes" - they just digitzie the entire tape. Many just let Vegas or other software break down the shots. Long time ago I cut a Wheat Chex spot - commercials traditionaly print all and let the editor figure it out. It was a spot with two little boys sitting at a table with the cereal in front of them. They just did what they wanted...after take 372 I was getting so that I never ever wanted to see Wheat Chex again. No take was alike...but really you couldn't expect it to be. This isn't what the norm is for feature films mind you...at least it wasn't. Jump forward to last year and a feature film I have been cutting. Poor directing, shot on video, "shoot everyhting, even rehersals" and a "We have another camera lets use it" method has left me banging my head against a wall at times. I did not get this film on day one, someone else captured everything and I got sent all the materail all ready captured. So I have to sit through "action" scenes that were really just blocking sessions, I have to sit through one actor who changed delivery every take, at times with two cameras that were really two cameras (IE : Different make, different exposure, different chips and so on) and it is just a complete mess. So much that I have requested my name not appear on it. I did what I could do but than, going back on topic, Ithe producer wanted some things put into the film that I *HIGHLY* disagreed with. But the producer wins in the end. In this case the director wanted "everything" in the film - and his cut was a little over 2 hours long. When I needed simple insert shots he went out and directed 5 hours of new material. I cut out most of the new material, and the producer had the final say over everything. Many times over the last year I have said to the producer and director that I had to pull reaction shots out of my ass and make up cuts on the fly because there just wasn't material. A few times I was told "Oh the reaction shots ar eon the second camera/"B" roll. Many times this was shot by the director - hand held - as he was directing. They did this to "save time". Not my time mind you, that is for sure.

Multi camera or not - you need blocking and good actors to edit. If you have three cameras on take one and actor 1 is yelling their lines but on take two actor 2 is better, and actor 1 is whispering their lines. Than normally you use the better take(s). However is you have relied on a multicam shot to get the needed cutaways and reactions it isn't going to be that easy. "Just use take 2" you say - well, in TV this would be what would happen - especially things like sitcoms and soaps, however in film, editors edit shot by shot - not sequence by sequence. Because, again, maybe the acting from take 5 is much better than take 2, but actor 3 is much better in take 1 than take 5 or 2. And if everyone is doing the exact same thing - great, you only have one perfect take to worry about. But, acting aside, we have other things - audio issues, lighting issues, crew issues, cable issues and so on. "Film rolled out", "hair in the gate", "It was great until the plane flew over", "I saw the best boy standing back there" are some of th emore common things. Replace "The tape ended", "The battery died", "The dew warning came on" and so forth for shooting on video.

Best scenrio for me -

1> Get good actors who are hired to not only be in the film but also reherse the film.
2> Block out scenes and actions. Not on the set on day of shoot.
3> Hire a good audio person.
4> Hire a good DP and/or camera operator.
5> Work as a team...stress positive attitude. Working with a DP who looks at a white wall and says "Well, I can't light white walls." on the first day of prep is someone who should be replaced ASAP.
6> Remember the director can be fired. The DP can be fired. The actors can be fired. Be nice to each other, make compromises with the producer and the "studio" (Who, in many cases of low budget, might be the producer as well for all intents and purposes).
7> Multi camera is a choice and a taste. A time saver depends on what time you think you are saving. Same as "Shooting everything" or "Print all" is.
8> Directing is not always easy - rarely ever is it easy. But keep in mind that if you shoot a "group" scene with no blocking and no rehersal until the time you shoot that scene everyones stress level will be on edge.
9> Storyboard if want. Do it with the DP and Camera Operator. Be generic at first. When sets are locked in get the lighting crew involved. (Get the audio person involved when scouting locations as well - do you *really* need to shoot this interior in a room in a building outside LAX?)
10> "We can save it in post" is somewhat of a 'easy way out'. If the entire film is based on this than it, IMO, shows a real lack of pre planning.

Lots more - but more or less - on topic there it is. You don't have to agree, I know some around here won't. (And somehow I feel I will be making another post saying something like "Look what I said was..." LOL)