• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Question about shooting with multiple cameras?

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?
 
I would always think that using two (or more) cameras would be mostly a plus. The only downside I could see is if you are having to pay extra people to do camera movements. If the cameras are just on a tripod however, I don't see any extra expense whatsoever, except for the extra camera :)
 
Well one thing is, is that you would have shoot with a deep DOF, cause if there is no one behind those cameras, then you will not have someone to pull focus, so the extra brighter lighting might cost more, but that's not much.
 
It makes everything harder.

You have to light for two (or more) angles simultaneously, so you're probably going to be compromising on the quality of how the scene is lit. Normally you adjust lighting set ups for each angle.
It makes things harder for the PSM and boom op. Obviously lavs should be hidden (and I'm only guessing here, as I haven't used lavs before), and that can be done from camera angles. Not a huge deal, but reduces the angles that lavs can be hidden from. More considerable is the difficulty for the boom op. S/he needs to be aware of where they are for two (or more cameras) and where their shadows are. You've boomed before, so you know this takes co-ordination with the camera operator - you have to now do this for more operators, and have less places to *hide* yourself, the boom, and your shadow. You're probably compromising on your sound quality thusly.
Reality is different from movie reality. Your actors may slightly change their blocking for each angle - usually not noticeable in a film, because it's subtle, but important for getting a message across to an audience. They have to make their blocking "good" for two (or more) angles now.
It's hard for the director and continuity folk (etc) to give proper attention to two (or more) monitors. You may miss something hidden by an angle on one monitor that is picked up by the other. You may miss things on both angles.
On a cheaper set, you may be adjusting the set between takes, because you don't have enough space, money, etc to create or dress a "full" 3-4 wall set (the camera is typically that 4th wall). Multiple camera angles can expose those extra walls, so you need a more elaborate set design.

Etc etc.

It also has obvious advantages. But there are difficulties.
 
Okay thanks. Even though the lighting is compromised, everytime I have changed the lighting anyway you can tell it's been changed. So it seems that it's better to light a scene in a way, in where all the lights stay in their same places throughout the shoot, to preserve continuity. You just have to storyboard around where the lights would be.

I have only boomed for multiple camera shoots so far, so I cannot compare to how much harder that is compared to single camera.

Also, how would more walls be exposed? If you have the scene storyboarded, all those same walls would be shown in the shots, whether it's multiple camera, or single, cause all the shots would still be the same anyway, and you would just move the camera right? Or am I missing something?

Thanks.
 
Also, how would more walls be exposed? If you have the scene storyboarded, all those same walls would be shown in the shots, whether it's multiple camera, or single, cause all the shots would still be the same anyway, and you would just move the camera right? Or am I missing something?

Thanks.
It was a fairly stretched example, to be fair. But, for example. I was on a ultra low budget shoot recently as a set dresser, where we were given such a small budget, we had to adjust the set for different angles. E.g. walls 1&2 were seen in shot x. In shot y, walls 2&3 were seen and needed to fill wall 3 with some stuff from wall 2 (it was all out of focus, so didn't really matter, it was just generic certificates and the like). Obviously doesn't happen on any set approaching a degree of professionalism. But, on a set that's actually been purpose built, you would be able to alter the stuff out of shot - so if a desk, or even a wall is in the way of where you want a light, a fog machine, etc, you can move it. You have less of this freedom when more of your scene is going to be covered by multiple cameras.

Again, an exaggerated example.
 
Okay thanks. What if you want to shoot a mastershot and you want to have the actors move around in it. Wouldn't all the furniture and props have to be in the close ups, to match the master?
 
It can be harder and it can be easier, depending on your perspective.

Multicam is harder on sound, especially if the decision maker(s) is/are an idiot and tries to capture wides and close ups.

With multicam, you're often shooting in different directions, which can make it harder to coordinate, and may increase the need for more extras. The more cameras you're shooting with increases the chance of something being missed.

It can increase set up time (and often does), particularly if the crew aren't used to it, sometimes to the point where it would be more efficient to use a single cam setup, which then becomes a waste of resources to have the extra crew and equipment.

You often don't have as much flexibility with locations with multiple cams as you do with a single cam (as in if you have a single room to work with, there's less area where you can store gear, have people out of shot etc).

It's also virtually impossible to cheat shots if you need it.

I suggest that you not consider multicam shoots just yet. If you cannot work out something as simple as how to get your girlfriend to get along with a DOP, more complex issues should not be attempted.
 
Okay thanks. One thing that is for sure, is let's say you want to shoot a master shot with camera A. Camera's B and C will have to out of the shot, so I would have to buy zoom lenses so they can get close enough for the close ups, without being seen in the master.

How is it harder sound? Is it cause the mic has to be closer during close up's as oppose to the master, cause the closes ups need to sound closer up?
 
Lots of reasons, but as others noted lighting and sound are the big ones. Your best dialogue tracks tend to come from the closeups because the boom is much closer to the talent (unless you're shooting a master at the same time and it can't be). It's VERY hard unless you have a huge grip budget to light a shot to look good from three different angles. It's hard enough to make one angle look good.
 
One great advantage of multi camera is for the editor. With a single camera shoot, continuity errors are constant. A character has his hand this way in take one and that way in take two. Three cameras solves that. Also, for the actors, it gives them a chance to concentrate on just the naturalness of the dialogue without having to constantly think about repeating their mannerisms, expressions, physical position etc. from take to take. Also, in real life, in a real conversation, people interrupt each other, talk over each other, etc. In a single camera shoot, every character has to remember to leave space between their line and the next for editors to cut away. In multi camera, it's not a problem and it should result in more realistic dialogue.
 
Another thing where style choices come into play also. Anything being "natural" might be the exact opposite of the intent.

I became less hard headed about it over time. I used to refuse to even listen to the idea that we shoot a scene with multiple cameras. Now, if there's a good reason to do it, and limited downsides, I'll agree to it. I'd still probably come in and shoot some separate closeups.
 
Last weekend I've been shooting in a late medieval castle and we had to get out at 10:00 AM, so we had 1 hour to set up and 2 hours to shoot. (And we cheated with the time to get out ;) )
Some parts were shot with a single camera, but to getall the shots we needed we also shot a few parts with 2 cameras: a wide shot of a group and close ups of a single character.
Without it we wouldn't have made it in time.

But the lighting wasn''t very dramatic or expressive: it was just to make it look bright enough.
A few big (high!) windows helped with that as well.

We also used 2 camera along a freeway to shoot wide and close at the same time, so we only needed one good take. (We had a lot to do and to travel.)

So, as always: it depends on the situation.
 
One great advantage of multi camera is for the editor. With a single camera shoot, continuity errors are constant. A character has his hand this way in take one and that way in take two. Three cameras solves that. Also, for the actors, it gives them a chance to concentrate on just the naturalness of the dialogue without having to constantly think about repeating their mannerisms, expressions, physical position etc. from take to take. Also, in real life, in a real conversation, people interrupt each other, talk over each other, etc. In a single camera shoot, every character has to remember to leave space between their line and the next for editors to cut away. In multi camera, it's not a problem and it should result in more realistic dialogue.

The only reason actors should leave space between lines is to capture clean audio, and that would need to happen regardless of the amount of cameras you're shooting with.

There's a lot of reason to shoot with multi cameras, and a lot of reason not to. It really depends on what you're shooting, your personal style/preference etc.
If you're shooting a stunt you only get one take at, definitely go for multiple cameras.
To light multi-camera properly, you do need to have more experience, as it is more difficult to get all the cameras looking 'right' rather than just lighting for one camera. It also forces you to have certain types of gripping and lighting equipment - with a single camera, all your stands, lights etc. can be just out of frame, whereas with multiple cameras, you're not necessarily going to be able to put your stands and lights where you normally would, lest other cameras see them.

In regards to editing - when you have experienced actors, and an experienced Script Supervisor on your team (which you should), then there should be no issue with continuity of shots, even when shooting with single camera.
 
Also, in real life, in a real conversation, people interrupt each other, talk over each other, etc. In a single camera shoot, every character has to remember to leave space between their line and the next for editors to cut away. In multi camera, it's not a problem and it should result in more realistic dialogue.

Why would shooting with multiple cameras rather than just one enable you to have actors talking over each other? Shooting with multiple cameras makes good/realistic dialogue more difficult/complicated!

G
 
Back
Top