People on here have said that multiple cameras is more costly and takes more time to set up, but why is that? So far I have worked under directors who have used them on their projects, and the work goes by a lot quicker. Your actors would probably have to work for less days, and that can add up to the price of two extra cameras in the long run.
Plus nothing sucks more than a location owner telling you, that you will only have half the shoottime that was originally agreed upon, and things like that. One guy I worked under was able to get a five minute scene shot in 30 minutes, with a few takes each, under three cameras rolling. That's a lot faster than having to move the cameras all around and possibly having to relight as well. Plus the actor's liked it too, in the feature I helped make last year, and it seemed to boost their morale and exceeded their expecations, they said.
So what is it about multicam that makes it more expensive or more difficult to work with, when it just seems cheaper and quicker? What's the disadvantage?
Plus nothing sucks more than a location owner telling you, that you will only have half the shoottime that was originally agreed upon, and things like that. One guy I worked under was able to get a five minute scene shot in 30 minutes, with a few takes each, under three cameras rolling. That's a lot faster than having to move the cameras all around and possibly having to relight as well. Plus the actor's liked it too, in the feature I helped make last year, and it seemed to boost their morale and exceeded their expecations, they said.
So what is it about multicam that makes it more expensive or more difficult to work with, when it just seems cheaper and quicker? What's the disadvantage?