One camera vs multi-camera

[Victor Nguyen]

I apologize for this novice question. Which do you prefer, using one or multi-camera and what's the reason?

 

[Ayan Pratap]

Generally 1 camera.. maybe 2. Its much easier to control and light for single camera. Second camera can however take inserts from a long lens at the same time and they will be in perfect continuity. Although I have Directed a feature with 3-4 cameras, the lighting gets compromised as you can't light for so many cameras effectively without seeing things in shot. OTOH if you have very few days to get your script shot, then shoot 2 cameras if that suits you.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

I decided to drop back down to one camera on our last short. We used two on the previous film and I was constantly compromising composition and lighting. My stuff is heavy on image though and I gave myself 5 days to shoot 15 pages. If you have a piece that has a lot of dialogue and you're a little less concerned about the image then I'd go multicam.

My 2cents

 

[Elsie N]

When shooting on a tripod with available light, If I have the time to do the double setups I use two cameras. I'm always editing in my head as a rule, that is, I want two angles to cut between when editing. Especially if I'm shooting an unrepeatable event.

But also if I'm shooting scenes because at present I use raw talent. The difference between raw talent and trained talent in some cases is repeatability. The raw talent can get the scene right if you have enough takes, but they lack the repeatability of a trained one. That's why I want two cameras to give me the two angles... so when they do get it right, I don't have to struggle with a single camera shooting a different angle in hopes they can repeat that.

Hand held I think one camera probably gets the job done unless you've got the money to do a multi-camera shoot.

 

[Phil Holland]

Pretty much what Elsie said. I'm mostly a one camera sorta fellow, but I'm slowly becoming a big fan of two and three camera setups. Especially for dialog heavy scenes.

Gives you a whole lot of flexibility back in the editing room. Perfectly matched continuity for each take from different angles goes a long way.

 

[michael zaletel]

As with the transition from film to digital, all cinematic storytelling will shift towards multi-camera as software and technology improves. Lighting isn't really the issue.

-Michael Zaletel

 

[Hywel Phillips]

As with the transition from film to digital, all cinematic storytelling will shift towards multi-camera as software and technology improves. Lighting isn't really the issue.

That's a very odd and absolutist reply, with which I respectfully disagree.

There are plenty of times when multiple cameras are a really good way to shoot, if you have enough crew and your location is large enough and there's time and space and money to put in the lights where you want them and you maybe don't care so much about fine tuning the light on every camera simultaneously. Any one-shot action sequence explosion, you'd be mad not to cover with as many cameras as you can point at the scene, for example.

There are also plenty of times when a single camera is a really good way to shoot, like if you're trying to shoot a scene in a cramped location where changing over to the reverse of a conversation mandates moving a bunch of lights because they have to go somewhere and there's not much space. Or if you have a small crew, where you may want to concentrate on a single camera and do it well. If you have an inexperienced small crew and a hassled multi-tasking director without monitoring of both cameras simultaneously, in my experience there is a risk of assuming "the other guy got it" and neither camera really getting what you need. If everyone is looking at just the one camera, you KNOW you haven't got it if it wasn't right on that.

You can be more agile with a single camera in some situations (stealing a shot in a crowded location) and more agile with multiple cameras in other situations (covering a conversation from multiple angles simultaneously, as others have pointed out). And you absolutely can concentrate on the lighting and polish more completely when one camera is all you need to have looking good at a time.

I don't think ALL cinematic storytelling will inevitably move to multi-cam. Hollywood? Maybe, but I'm not even sure they will for every shot. Those of us lower in the food chain? No. There will still be plenty of projects where one camera is not only sufficient, it will actually help one produce better results.

Hywel.

 

[Glen Powell]

I apologize for this novice question. Which do you prefer, using one or multi-camera and what's the reason?

What are you shooting?

I sometimes shoot a cooking show - 4 cameras - gives me huge amount to work with, less trouble with continuity when doing cuts ( I can have multiple angles of the same action and choose the best).
I sometimes shoot a cooking show - 1 camera - gives me a huge amount to work with, I can exactly light every shot, I can be more disciplined with what I shoot, I have to be more disciplined with my angles.

 

[Nick Morrison]

As a producer and director I like multi-cam for heavy dialogue, and single cam for when the imagery needs to be more sculpted.

I'm a big fan of "capturing" the moment, and I like the freedom to improvise, so me for me shooting multicam (a master and two closeups) is a really exciting workflow. It's also extremely flexible in post. Multicam needs to be treated with respect however, and all the coverage needs to be well thought out (all my closeups use matching primes, and the master is often the exact same lens we'd use if we were covering the scene single cam). I like to use primes on multi-cam because we can control the aesthetic better and sculpt a "look". Zooms have a tendency of creating random coverage, that becomes noticeable in post, and leads to more limp edits.

But to quote Quentin Tarantino, sometimes you need to be "a DIRECTOR, not a SELECTOR" so nothing truly beats the sculptural ability of single cam, that's for sure.

But for my workflow, I definitely like the spontaneity and freedom multi-cam gives actors, especially young or inexperienced ones.

It can also save you a lot of time when you have lots of dialogue.

 

[Jacques Mersereau]

As has been said, single vs multi is lighting vs continuity. If multi, I generally do NOT go for two or three different angles - more wide, med and close. If you do for more angles,
unless your lighting is 'fat and flat', like a TV sitcom, there can be issues - one side of the face flat and bright, the other dark. (kind of messes a bit with the continuity in a way)
SO, if multi, you just have to see what's possible. The huge gain is continuity and time. This is really huge when the actors are using with lots of props.
So the cup/ciggy/gun doesn't suddenly change hands, sweat doesn't come and go, etc. But WMMV.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I think it depends on the genre, too. Comedy clearly thrives on multicam, and the lighter tone also leads to more even, simple lighting (that in turn allows for better continuity).

Most of Judd Apatow's work is mult-cam, as is Adam McKay's. I personally got into mult-cam after I read the American Cinematographer article on the making of Pineapple Express. They would sometimes shoot on as many as 4 to 5 cameras, and this really opened up my eyes on how to approach improv (I've posted a number of comedy pilots using improv comedians).

So multi-cam has it's place, and shooting on 3 to 5 cameras doesn't have to create continuity issues as long as the lighting as a bit more even...which I understand for many DP's feels like a compromise.

But again that brings us back to genre and tone. A very stylized piece with strong lighting will have trouble with multicam because the coverage will become uneven. But a more naturalistic approach to lighting pairs well with multi-cam, which in turn is very supportive of actors and their performances. It's all about what you need. If there's a tight script and great talent, and the director knows what he needs, then single cam will be very direct and well crafted. But if you are short on time or the talent is inexperienced, then sometimes multicam is exactly what you need to get the job done.

Like anything. It's a tool and an approach. There's never one answer.

 

[Marc Wielage]

As has been said, single vs multi is lighting vs continuity. If multi, I generally do NOT go for two or three different angles - more wide, med and close. If you do for more angles, unless your lighting is 'fat and flat', like a TV sitcom, there can be issues - one side of the face flat and bright, the other dark.

I agree. I think shooting A&B cameras to provide -- say -- a simultaneous 2-shot and a close-up can work fine, done from the same direction. What makes me crazy is when directors try to shoot a wide and a tight at the same time, or cross cameras to shoot close-ups of two characters facing in different directions. This is just bad blocking, period.

Many (if not most) dramatic TV shows today always shoot A&B camera, and I think most feature comedies also shoot A&B cameras. It's rare I see them go to 3 cameras, and I think there are quite a few compromises in terms of lighting, sound, and post. There is such a thing as overwhelming the editor with too much footage.

On the other hand: Les Miserables managed to shoot 3 or 4 film cameras simultaneously, and they were able to get the lighting, sound, and performances to work pretty well. So it can be done, but it requires a huge amount of time, money, and planning to get it right.

 

[Elsie N]

The OP didn't constrain the discussion by specifying camera so I'm thinking I can cheat by using one camera with high resolution (Epic) and give the finished output the look of a multi-camera shoot. That is, I can crop different sizes to go CU, medium CU and all points in between from the same footage of an establishing shot And with Dragon, it should be easily possible to get 4k footage from the ample 6k sensor.

 

[Kwan Khan]

And with Dragon, it should be easily possible to get 4k footage from the ample 6k sensor.

Yup'''... Absolutely agreed

 

[Victor Nguyen]

The OP didn't constrain the discussion by specifying camera so I'm thinking I can cheat by using one camera with high resolution (Epic) and give the finished output the look of a multi-camera shoot. That is, I can crop different sizes to go CU, medium CU and all points in between from the same footage of an establishing shot And with Dragon, it should be easily possible to get 4k footage from the ample 6k sensor.

That's true. But I'm talking about different angles and how that will affect compositions and lighting.

 

[Marc Wielage]

That is, I can crop different sizes to go CU, medium CU and all points in between from the same footage of an establishing shot And with Dragon, it should be easily possible to get 4k footage from the ample 6k sensor.

It's a lot better (and easier) to just frame the shot correctly while shooting. Small errors in framing are fine, and those can and do happen sometimes. But I wouldn't go into a show on the assumption that you can reframe every single shot, or get a medium shot out of a wideshot, because then sharpness will constantly change shot to shot -- more than it will ordinarily, just with different lenses and depth of field.

 

[Elsie N]

... But I wouldn't go into a show on the assumption that you can reframe every single shot, or get a medium shot out of a wideshot, because then sharpness will constantly change shot to shot -- more than it will ordinarily, just with different lenses and depth of field.

I'm counting on the audience expecting a different look when viewing a CU or a wideshot. I've done this before when outputting to 1080p and quite frankly if the 5k footage is clean, the crop comes across as pretty clean as well. And besides, with Neat Video or sharpening available, you can pretty much punch up the CU for effect.

 

[Elsie N]

That's true. But I'm talking about different angles and how that will affect compositions and lighting.

Then I would say go with the multi-camera shoot if you can reconcile the lighting for the two shots. Otherwise, you may as well use one camera and move to your other angle and reshoot. You may lose continuity but at least you will have the shot in camera and not have to do the post work. My preference is the multi-camera setup and reconcile the two images in post, but that's just what works for me.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Some good replies here, and unfortunately while I love Quentin, I disagree with some of the shit He said, like the part of being a Director, not a Selector??? Were does He come up with that shit, ha ha, as a Director you are exactly both, having said that, I have a use for both Single camera and Multi camera set ups, and while I love actually working my own camera when possible, I do love the multi camera shoots as it offers immediate multi positions and multi framing of the same shot, and or in Narrative, when in Dialogue it offers immediate intercutting of the scene with the same dialogue and a better tool for continuity, were with a single camera set up then you'll have the same dialogue repeated over and over to get the various frames on each of the Talent which I prefer to avoid, but that also depends, and of course multi cam set ups are always a must on FX shots, were you surely can't repeat or don't want to repeat a scene containing explosion, crashes and so on, were then becomes critical the capturing as of many angles as possible and with various Focal to give different perspectives of the scene shot.


At the end of the day, there is a definitive use for both, and always will depend on many variables, budget, scene to be filmed, space in which such scene is been filmed and content to be filmed.