Shooting

Well, I would start with a whole take in a master shot, to establish the location, and cut to just in case. Then I would film close ups on either actor (at the same time if possible, "CameraA and B") and then probably a lower rotating dolly shot around the table as he gets up and throws it, focusing on him throwing it, and the reaction of the person getting it dumped on. I'd then have a wide shot for a tense moment, slightly above, and angled over the table, so it is evident the entire restaurant is watching. It would linger as the character who threw the water walks away, leaving the splashee to be watched by the restaurant, who would quickly go back to thier business as it lingers on the splashee's reaction.

That's one master shot, two closeups, one dolly shot, and one wide shot. That's 5 shots.

What about you other guys? How would YOU shoot this puppy?

I like the idea of two cameras shooting over the shoulders of both actors. That way you are getting both reactions in every take. This I have noticed tends to lead to more improvisation. In scenes similar to this that I have seen that work extremely well. Almost always when I go back and watch the directors commentary, they were using two cameras on both actors and then editing in pieces of all the takes to make the best scene possible.

Shooting two cameras at once seems to bring up concerns for Indy Filmmakers who may only be able to rent or purchase one quality camera at a time, and thus the consistancy in quality of shots throughout the film may suffer.

PaCKT said:

Shooting two cameras at once seems to bring up concerns for Indy Filmmakers who may only be able to rent or purchase one quality camera at a time, and thus the consistancy in quality of shots throughout the film may suffer.

Click to expand...

Ideally, you could get a DOP who had a nice camera, and then only have to rent a duplicate.

Or cast good actors who can nail it every time.

I would likely run through most if not all of the scene from basically every angle. That way you're sure to have your coverage, and it makes life in the edit suite a bit less stressful (and makes reshoots a little less likely.)

Good tip, especially if you're working with a larger crew and have a gaffer setting up lots of lighting for you.. start with the furthest away shots FIRST and work your way in. That way there will be less down time between shots, since the lighting might need to be tweaked a bit for closer shots, but that major light setup for the master shot takes a lot of time.. also it makes it easier to keep continuity in the lighting.

Thats a great tip Will Vincent.

I would also suggest to use Will's idea when deciding what shots you want and what order you'll do them in for another reason. The actors will feel more ease if you start far out and slowly move to their close-ups, its more a gradual process for them to get ready for the more "demanding" facial expressions, and "vanity" concerns. As well it will give them an opportunity to gradually be blended into stronger lighting.

Well it depends on how far away your master shot is, but yeah.. potentially a master shot can effectively be an on-camera rehersal of the scene.

Also, shooting your masters first lets you wrap extras more efficiently. You won't need as many of them in your close ups.

Well thats a lot of Pros for starting big and getting small. I wonder if there is any cons, there must be some but I can't think of any.

Well, starting with a wide (establishing shot) and then moving in for close-ups is basic camera work 101. There may be times when other setups are more practical, but you’ll pay for it in editing. If you have the time, space, and time then do it that way. I personally love using 2 and 3 cameras because I do a lot of live-action shooting that you just can’t set up and do multiple takes. I have one set up on a standing wide, and one or two roaming for MS and CU and cutaways. I would very strongly recommend having a video engineer on the set when using multiple cameras. S/he will have tools to help set exposure levels and such MUCH more accurately than you can by eye or with zebra stripes. If you’ve ever used a waveform monitor and vectorscope you’ll know what I mean. They can also analyze and adjust the chroma levels to match. In fact, if you have time, you should have the eng set up the cameras prior to the shoot to save time on set, but s/he should still be there for the filming. This will save you a lot of time in color correction and may prevent you from loosing footage. I was on a shoot once using 2 XL1 and we were running both into a monitor. They looked fine on the monitor, but in post, the chroma was high on one and low on the other, and the difference was so great that I couldn’t cross-cut between them. I had to sacrifice the half the footage, and it impaired the final product. Any eng from your local TV station should be able to help.

i would probably shoot with close-ups of the two characters. like Spatula, camera A and B, but not on their faces. I'd focus on their clothes, mannerisms, food choices. forget the establishing shot for me. cut from ties, cufflinks etc. try to show the difference between them beyond the argument. only have wide shot at the end, just after water thrown or maybe even when thrown.
Someone mentioned earlier how unnerving it may be for actors with cameras close up at first, and suggested using wides to work through. I would do this, but with the cameras in close up just not on.