Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Scripted dramatic film. . . one camera or two?

Stephen Pruitt

Stephen Pruitt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Website
www.thetreemotionpicture.com
Hi all. . .

We shot our last film, "Works in Progress," using two RED Ones. Now that I'm running out of money, I'm wondering how much of a handicap it would be to shoot our next feature with just one RED (M-X).

I'd definitely rather run with two, but the costs may prohibit it. How often do you pros shoot with just one camera?

Thanks.

Stephen
 
I work on smaller projects that don't include large set pieces, stunts or big action, so the only time I advocate for multiple cams is when the scenes would be better played with overlapping actions and dialogue. If my director's priority is to allow the scene to unfold as organically as possible and allow the actors more room to react, rather than act I would go that way. If the actors are particularly good, and have more theatrical experience than film experience, then I am more inclined to support the idea of multiple cams.
 
It really comes down to making choices about how much coverage you are going to get. With one camera, it takes more time to get the same coverage as you would get with 2. You either shoot more days, or you decide that you are going to shoot less coverage. A good DP can make up some time, but everybody really needs to have their shit together.

Nick
 
Using one camera will demand that you, as a director, prepare more. You won't get as many happy accidents of coverage, you'll only get what you plan. You and your DP will have to really be in sync with what you are going for, and a high degree of trust will go a long way. With all that said, I think the clarity of the cinematography can be better using only one camera.
 
I don't really believe in using two cameras. I shot one feature that way where I had two cameras going all the time and I found that it causes more problems than it solves and tends to distract people... I think everyone needs to focus on one frame.

I think there are some situations where having two cameras makes sense. I have had a lot of success leapfrogging cameras from one setup to the next.

Hey Spielberg always shoots with one camera. For him it's not about budget.

Ian
 
Shooting with multiple cameras often means a compromise in light and sometimes in the picture frame (from my experience). Working with one camera is not necessarily a disadvantage. You'll need a clearer view on things while shooting, but that benefits the project.
 
Good comments, I would take good prep over a 2nd camera EVERY SINGLE TIME.

As a producer, I insist my director have a SHOT LIST as soon as possible. Helps everyone in most EVERY dept to PREPARE
for their jobs.

Im surprised how many seasoned... im talking 50 to 100 films dont use shot lists.. because "they dont need em"

well duh, but EVERYONE ELSE DOES!
 
My concerns with just using one camera on a low-budget film are always about continuity. There is almost never enough time to rehearse every possible hand movement and gesture. With two cameras covering two people sitting and talking, continuity between shots is guaranteed. With just one doing things twice, it's assured to be off. And then there is the time it takes to shoot everything (granted, set-up takes longer).

I just don't know. . .

Thanks for your comments.

Stephen
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
Good comments, I would take good prep over a 2nd camera EVERY SINGLE TIME.

As a producer, I insist my director have a SHOT LIST as soon as possible. Helps everyone in most EVERY dept to PREPARE
for their jobs.

Im surprised how many seasoned... im talking 50 to 100 films dont use shot lists.. because "they dont need em"

well duh, but EVERYONE ELSE DOES!
Click to expand...

Being a student, I realize the need for shot lists and all, but at the same time I'm a fairly inexperienced director, so once we get through blocking, I generally revise my shot list anyway depending on what I think works best with the blocking.

That being said, I like having multiple cameras. It speeds things up immensely. Especially doing student films where we're always running behind, usually by an hour or two. If we could do it on every set I'd always have at least 2 cameras. because we're not paying anyone, the 2nd camera is usually a backup and only comes in when needed.
 
I've shot a ton of shorts, industrials and a couple of features. As a director I have to say two cameras is essential. Just because they're there doesn't mean you always have to shoot both on every setup. But when you need coverage of a key scene and time is running low they can save you in the editing room with the additional coverage you'll get.

Also you'll always have a backup camera standing by if there's a technical fault with a-camera. With a single camera that can end your shoot day immediately- $$$$. And though most DPs prefer to light to a single camera, lighting for multiple cameras is a skill many DPs have mastered as a fact of life. That said, it is critical to have a proper crew for both cameras- i.e. each camera has at least a dedicated operator, AC (and DIT if possible- though one can cover two cameras if it's not too hectic.) My $.02.

Noah
 
Its a very interesting topic.

major Problem nr 1 with two cameras: you tend to use long lenses... maybe the correct shot is a wide close up and not a tele shot. This means you are limiting your visual language.

major Problem nr2. Sound. can be hard to get boom in the right place.

major gift nr 1: capturing a beautiful performance that can be edited, thereby enhancing performance in editing.

Major gift nr 2: Time. you should be able to move faster... although that is a double edged sword, if you use more time to setup to cam´s lighting wise.

If you work alot with amateurs who may be unable to repeat "crucial" moments two cam´s is a tremendous help. The pro´s can repeat, although ofcourse with a fresh approach.

If you use two cams for performance reasons, you can also go to far hampering the way the actors can move - especially if you are shooting "both" ways.

Maybe a good compromise is setting up a perfect shot for one camera and then having a second rock´n rolling - so everything cam B gets is just a gift. But only planning on Camera A.
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
I'd definitely rather run with two, but the costs may prohibit it. How often do you pros shoot with just one camera?
Click to expand...

I was directing a TV series last year that generally had two cameras rolling even though it was single-camera style. However, I don't like using two cameras except for two exceptions*.

Generally I find the problems to be:

1. You can only really light well for one shot most of the time.
2. You personally can only be watching one shot the whole time, so you'll not know what the other camera got and someone watching that camera won't have your dramatic or aesthetic sense enough to know if that is covered.
3. It does take time to set up that camera, so it's not free footage. Sometimes as much as it takes to just set up "the right" angle and do another take.
4. That crew requires more people on the set and more people slows a set down except for certain instances.

I'm sure I could think of a few more, but you get the idea. We even tested using the two cameras and it was clear it was slowing us down and so we went back to one. For me, it helps keep things focused and I like to stay focused, get it right, move on quickly.

*These are the exceptions:

1. There is improv and the improv is more important than the general mood of the film.
2. It's a one-shot-at-this only type of thing, like a stunt.
 
It's far beyond my skill level to light most scenes to look their best from two divergent angles. A bow to those who can, but I believe compromises can damage all the shots from multiple cameras.

Add the problems associated with boom placement and simple management demands, and I find it more of a problem, and a time-eating one at that, than a help.

Of course there are the one-time-only scenes, explosions, stunts, etc. that demand multiple cameras, but for regular dramatic scenes, I prefer one camera.

Personal choice I suppose; that's why they have more than one flavor at the ice cream store...

Good shooting and best regards to all,

Leo
 
depends on the project...

Ill be doing a few features this year...

one will be LOW LOW LOW LOW budget .. >50k
that will be ONE camera for obvious reasons... Id rather rent some nice glass than a second body...

One will have some serious money...

that will be 3 cameras.

in the end.. it will save money by having multiple cameras.. less time with set ups..
more options for editing...
so on...
 
Sorry Stephen if this is a bit of a hack, but after so many great posts I would love to hear you guys touch on crew dynamic, and hiring.

It always seemed to me that the wise thing would be to have two cameras, even if 80% of the time they would only be leap-frogging.

I suppose finding a great 2nd unit DP that would work as B-camera operator is the logical move. I imagine the DP and the 2nd-DP/B-Op's relation when leap-frogging would work much like a DP's relation with a Gaffer. The 2nd would guess and build a setup taking into account any notes from the Dir, DP, and shot-list.

If you agree with that, do you hire a second 1st AC? Or a great 2nd AC that can function as 1st AC when shooting two cameras, and hire a dedicated Loader (not the same person as DIT)?

Hope that came out clear.
 
No problem, Roberto. . . I got what I needed.

Thanks to all for helping out.

Stephen
 
Noah Kadner said:
And though most DPs prefer to light to a single camera, lighting for multiple cameras is a skill many DPs have mastered as a fact of life.

Noah
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that BUT it is a compromise !
I couldn't agree more with what Sidney, Mark Allen and Leo Ticheli wrote. Sidney summed it very well. It can slow things and create more problems than solutions, on the other hand it's usefull and a necessity for stunts and one time only scenes.

Anyway, good shooting Stephen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top