I am sure the answer is yes, but I am not sure if it is common. I have only shot one single cam wedding and it seemed very limiting in post to say the least.

The reason I ask is that I am contemplating a budget single cam wedding for a client. Most of my time in post is spent mixing the camera angles and audio. A single cam shoot would be a much quicker edit.

What do you think?

Declaration of non-interest: I don't do weddings for profit at the moment but have done plenty over the years.

I think it's far too risky not to have another camera running at least for backup. You don't have to use much (or any) of the B cam footage but may save your a*s if a critical shot is blocked or missed.

If the client understands the limitations of having only one camera and that's all they are willing to pay for AND you think it's worth it... go for it!

I tried it, once. Chickened out and fired up a second camera anyway.

Personally I would never shoot a single-cam wedding, but that's because I don't ever want to be in a situation where I have to explain to a couple that we have no footage because the camera died or whatever. Even if the couple knows the risk in advance, I don't want to be in that situation.

That said, I would say there is a healthy market for single-cam weddings. There are plenty of couples who have virtually no money for video that would jump at the chance to get anything on tape. So just make sure they know the risk up front and make sure you're okay with dealing with a potentially bad situation.

The single cam option is one of my wedding package, but I never recommend the couple unless they have almost no budget for the video.. just like Travis said.
I have done 2 single cam out of 20 wedding I did this year, but both of them, I personally did not enjoy that much... because I was thinking at whole time about the editing that there were just too much thoughts going on during shoot. And I felt like every single shot has to be p-e-r-f-e-c-t whereas if I have 2nd cam, I know I have cutaway shots while I tried to get the best shot at the moment. Even though I had unmanned 2nd cam while I do solo, I would still much prefer manned camera over unmanned. no doubt.
Just my 2cents.

JJ

I think it's far too risky not to have another camera running at least for backup. You don't have to use much (or any) of the B cam footage but may save your a*s if a critical shot is blocked or missed.

I agree with this totally. I lost one wedding before, Im not going to do that again.

So, Im gonna set up an unmanned for the ceremony (if I do this). That will help prevent a possible total disaster. I just have to resist the temptation to use the footage later. Doing that would circumvent the one cam shoot economy.

I'm a single camera shooter... not by choice though.. I would love to have another unmanned camera set up somewhere... I've done both, and it's a lot less stressful when you have a backup.
Unfortunately for me it's not in my budget to go out and buy another camera :-(

I think the best advice is to set up a second camera somewhere just in case something happens. You don't have to use the footage from it.

Im a single camera operator.

For a while I used to set up a second camera but got tired of it.
Instead i got myself a CF Recording device to back up my tape recordings.
In my opinion a second camera, unless its manned is pretty much useless.
If you miss something its probably because you weren't paying attention.
I have a second camera sitting in my bag ready to go if needs be but thats it.

This has been discusssed several times before. You might get a lot of useful info if you search the site. Can't remember the thread titles, but you should be able to find them.

Well, I've only ever shot one cam weddings (except twice), but as I said before, I previously didn't target weddings, so it wasn't a huge deal. I've only shot about 25 over the years, and while I've had near disasters, it wasn't due to footage failure. This year I'm planning to do more so I'm picking up an an HV20 for backup. But before you guys torch me too bad, let me explain. There is tremendous value in having two skilled videographers covering a wedding. Especially once you've worked together for awhile. One can play it safe, while one goes for the money shots. That being said... Is a two camera wedding worth double, because it's twice the work/cost. A two camera edit is also pretty onerous. And if you're paying a body to just to stand by a locked off tripod, that's expensive insurance. I would use a second camera to b-roll the vows. Other than that, I should be able to get all my shots, the back-up cam is in case of camera failure.

If someone wants to pay me $2,500.00 then I will add a second cam. No problem.

In my market, I have a hard time selling a $1,200 wedding. This is one of the reasons I've avoided weddings. It's just not worth it. I sure can't pay another camera op and spend the extra 15 hours capturing and editing the 2nd cam. I can't imagine adding a 3rd Cam.

So the angle that I've been working on is less the typical wedding and more the shorter form 'Love Story' (highlights type). Where I have the vows, the dress, families etc, mostly in montage form. The last wedding I shot only had the vows (about 6 minutes), the rest was scenes set to music.

Here's what I would typically do. A) arrive early B) shoot lots of B-roll - not necessarily to use, but in case of disaster. Shots of guests looking forward as they're waiting for the ceremony to begin. Flowers, decorations etc.,As far as prep footage goes, if I can only cover one, it's the bride. I moved my camera twice during the vows (continuing to record audio), and cut around it in post.

One camera weddings aren't for everyone. As I said, I'm adding an HV20 as a back-up, that I will lock off for b-roll coverage of the vows.

I think that we should strive to make better films with what we have rather than adding cams and ops just for insurance. Don't get me wrong, if the clients are paying then WTH.

I would think though that a really good camera op could salvage some great footage from a wedding with even a $500 DV cam in their bag.

Let the flaming begin.

I would say that about 75% of my weddings are single operator weddings. It's a little limiting but we run an unmanned wide angle to cut in, and in my market it makes a very acceptable wedding video. We really hustle to tear down and set up, and shoot as much in-between action that we can, and we've had a great response with it. We usually sell a single operator wedding for about $1000.

years ago single camera weddings were pretty much the norm-the cost of gear back in the 80's (that's 1980s not 1880s) ;-) really limited the number of cameras one could afford. Frankly I think everyone should shot some weddings with a single camera. Thats not to say you shouldn't have a spare handy, but it's one mans opinion that when you shot a single camera wedding you become a much better shooter. First you really have to pay attention to what's going on, SECOND you learn how to do slow pans, zooms, tilts. You learn proper framing and exposure and how to tell a story from a single point of view.
Now having said that, today I do use 2 cameras. My second cam is unmanned and runs a "safe shot" hopefully somewhere from the front to get face shots but that's not always possible. I DO however shot as if that camera is NOT there. You never know what's could happen. The shot might get blocked, the tape could break in the camera, the battery could die, the camera could die, all sorts of things can happen most of them bad. SO if you use multiple cameras try shooting as if they weren't there and I think you'll find that your footage from your primary camera will be even better than it already is.
Please keep in mind I'm old school and it's just my opinion.
YMMV
Don

Don, I couldn't agree more with all of that.

I"m a single shooter as well with a "ready to go" backup camera in my backpack. I also agree with Don that shooting with one camera makes you a better shooter as whatever you do has to be done right from the first time so you pay much more attention to everything you do.
This does not mean I'm limited in post, I use every single minute available to shoot b-roll footage. The only limitation I have is when doing creative stuff during the ceremony as there is virtually no time for this.
Actually, the same applies for a photog, most of the time their alone as well and also have to get it right the first time.

Working alone is a risk, I know, but so is basejumping. You just need to prepare as good as possible and try to calculate the risks you take and then close your eyes and jump. :)

I shoot single-cam. I'm in the same boat as Stephen, with no budget for another cam and about 8 things on my need-to-get list before a second cam. My solution is borrowing a second cam from my girlfriend's mom, who happens to be something of an artist and video enthusiast too. My cam does hd but hers does not, so I shoot in sd. I tell my clients that hd is an option (I can author bd on mom's pc), but only in my single-cam package. Haven't had any bites on hd yet =)

Up until 2-3 years ago I only did 3 cam weddings. When I realized that people were no longer buying any of the "add-ons" and really looking for deals I had to offer 1 cam weddings ($495). Now I do them all the time.
I explain that it is a "highlights" video and that small portions of the ceremony might be cut out if someone stands in front of me or if I have to readjust the camera or whatever. No one seems to have a problem with this, and if they really want the entire ceremony they must buy a multi-cam package.

I offer 1 cam for $995 but I explain the risks in detail. If I have an extra cam that day I take it and set it up in the back and run unmanned, which is almost always.

I use the single cam package to attract customers, but they almost always upgrade to 2 cams before ceremony.

Or I will run two cams and then when I start editing I call and explain I ran a second camera and how much better their video will be if I add the second camera, they ALWAYS pay for second camera at that point.

Offering single camera weddings is for me a sales tool primarily. Though I actually did use only one camera once last year. It worked out fine because the venue was extremely small.

I have turned away a few who were set on single camera if their wedding was at one of Cincinnati's very large, dark Catholic churches with a very long aisle. I would rather turn away business then to risk putting out a poor video.

I"m a single shooter as well with a "ready to go" backup camera in my backpack. I also agree with Don that shooting with one camera makes you a better shooter as whatever you do has to be done right from the first time so you pay much more attention to everything you do.
This does not mean I'm limited in post, I use every single minute available to shoot b-roll footage. The only limitation I have is when doing creative stuff during the ceremony as there is virtually no time for this.
Actually, the same applies for a photog, most of the time their alone as well and also have to get it right the first time.

Working alone is a risk, I know, but so is basejumping. You just need to prepare as good as possible and try to calculate the risks you take and then close your eyes and jump. :)


Hey Noa, nice analogy about Base Jumping. Do you jump? I have about 350 base jumps and over 9,000 skydives myself.

Anyway, regarding single "manned" cam op wedding shoots. I started offering them about a 2 years ago. My rates for 1 manned cam op shoots aren't cheap (about 2,300.00) and 3,500.00 and up for multi-cam op packages.

My edits are all "short form", no matter if I shoot alone or with 1 or 2 other cam ops...most of my clients finished films have a run time of about 30 minutes and I do not offer long form style finished movies....never did and that goes back a long time from today.

It takes me about a day to cut most of the work and another day to rap things up with menus, audio sweetening, cover art, etc.

When I shoot alone, during the ceremony I ALWAYS have at least (2) unamned cameras going as back up and lavs and other audio sources running to those unmanned cameras as back up and additional audio. I wouldn't do it any other way.

Single manned camera op packages work very well for "short form" style edits....but maybe not as well for long form style edits??

Don is right on about what he stated.

When you shoot alone, you pay A LOT more attention to how you shoot imo...and that is just a good habit to have anyway. You can not afford to shoot sloppy as a one man show.

When I shoot Super 8mm packages, I also shoot these alone most of the time. again my style is not so much for everything to be seen in it's entirety and this is always discussed with clients so they know what to expect. To date, all of my clients prefer this style over the long form style of editing.

I have 3 Sony Z1u's and an HC5, plus I still have 3 Sony PD150s so back up cameras is not an issue for me. I would not recommend anyone shooting a wedding with one camera, and NOT having proper back up gear to cover you butt.

Regarding "single" manned camera packages being the cheap way for brides to have videography for their wedding, THAT depends on who's doing the work. I do not consider my rates on the cheap side for a one manned camera op package.

I like producing these style wedding films for my clients, it's much less editing in the end and they still get a very nice polished film.

I do about 40+ weddings per year and the past 2 years have almost been split with multi-cam op packages and single manned packages.

As long as you can pull it off, why not offer them.

On another note, I am now offering photography as well so I will be splitting the workload with photo shoots, and single and multi-cam packages.

For anyone thinking about offering single manned camera op packages it's a very good idea to think about how you're going or how you would like to edit the final cut first. This should help you plan out your shots so you're not scratching your head on game day.

Declaration of non-interest: I don't do weddings for profit at the moment but have done plenty over the years.

I think it's far too risky not to have another camera running at least for backup. You don't have to use much (or any) of the B cam footage but may save your a*s if a critical shot is blocked or missed.

I just eliminated the single camera shoot from my service offerings this year. I haven't shot a single cam wedding since Feb which was the first and only single cam pf the year (and that was a freebie for a friend.... and looking at the footage, it still was not the best footage as a result).

I told the brides at the wedding show this weekend, if your "friend / relative" is shooting the wedding for you on 1 cam, then you are gettign what you paid for..... static & boring shots of your wedding day. With two cams I can show your faces, not just the backs of your head.

We shall soon see if the $2500 in printing, design, & booth fees bring in the bookings to recoup that cost plus make any money this year (or even to stay in business!)

Hey Noa, nice analogy about Base Jumping. Do you jump? I have about 350 base jumps and over 9,000 skydives myself.

I consider jumping into the videobusiness the most exciting thing I ever did :)

I am a single camera operator and I thoroughly enjoy it. Ofcourse I always have a second camera sitting in my bag ready if anything goes wrong. Occasionally, at the reception when there are long cues to congratulate the couple ( a custom in my country) I have the main camera on tripod and use the second camera to film various shots of the guests.

Stelios

If you have 2 cameras, I don't see the point in using just one. Set both up at the very least, if you find in post that you need additional footage because you had to reposition your "manned" camera then you have the option to pull footage from your second camera. I don't know about you guys, but I don't spend that much more time in post than I would if I had only one camera, sync up your footage with each other on two different video tracks, then just just cut out sections of each so they switch back and forth between shots. If you don't ripple delete, your timing stays the same (unless you had to change tapes) throughout the entire ceremony. At most you'll spend 30 min extra because of the second cam in post.

1. you'll be able to move around more with cam one to get different shots
2. less stress
3. better quality video=more referrals

That to me is well worth the extra time.

I'm on the same track as Don Bloom and others. I've been shooting weddings on and off since the early 80's when good video gear was expensive and having 2 cams was almost never heard of unless you owned a TV station. I must agree with Don, in that shooting single camera makes you a better cameraman. In all those years I only ever had one mishap, and that was at a mate's wedding, where the groom (mate) had for some reason turned off the wireless mic. (NEVER shoot a wedding for a mate). I now only shoot weddings as freelancer for other video businesses and it's always been a single cam shoot. I still get cutaways, just in case.

Steve.

I don't go back as far as Steve or Don, but I went to film school in 1990-91, we learned to shoot on Bolex 16mm film cameras, edit real film on a Steinbeck, and recorded sound separately on a Nagra. When you're using one camera, especially when we shot film, we were trained to be hypersensitive to what was going on in the the frame (no reviewing footage till it came back from the lab). If you think weddings are stressful, try loading a film magazine inside a black cloth bag, hoping it's loaded properly. We were taught cinematography - composition, framing, headroom and lead room, lighting. Up until the last couple of years, every great movie ever made was shot with one camera.

I'd rather have one truly talented artist working with a camera, than several camera ops just pointing cameras to cover angles. A wedding is supposed to be about capturing and creating the magic of the day. IMHO

I am sure the answer is yes, but I am not sure if it is common. I have only shot one single cam wedding and it seemed very limiting in post to say the least.

The reason I ask is that I am contemplating a budget single cam wedding for a client. Most of my time in post is spent mixing the camera angles and audio. A single cam shoot would be a much quicker edit.

What do you think?

I've done them in the past on a few occasions (WedLuxe | TV > Colleen & Neil (http://www.wedluxe.com/index.cfm?pagepath=WedLuxe_TV/Real_Life_Weddings/TV_Colleen_Neil&id=7183)) (WedLuxe | TV > Beth & Nathan (http://www.wedluxe.com/index.cfm?pagepath=WedLuxe_TV/Real_Life_Weddings/TV_Beth_Nathan&id=7180)) but they are so much more work and a pain to deal with for moments in the film like ceremony and speeches. We don't actively offer 1 camera shoots in any of our booking options at this point. You may find that the edit is quicker but a lot more difficult/impossible to mask any of your unwanted camera movements since you'd have nothing to cut to to "cover" it up.

Hope that helps!

I don't go back as far as Steve or Don, but I went to film school in 1990-91, we learned to shoot on Bolex 16mm film cameras, edit real film on a Steinbeck, and recorded sound separately on a Nagra. When you're using one camera, especially when we shot film, we were trained to be hypersensitive to what was going on in the the frame (no reviewing footage till it came back from the lab). If you think weddings are stressful, try loading a film magazine inside a black cloth bag, hoping it's loaded properly. We were taught cinematography - composition, framing, headroom and lead room, lighting. Up until the last couple of years, every great movie ever made was shot with one camera.

I'd rather have one truly talented artist working with a camera, than several camera ops just pointing cameras to cover angles. A wedding is supposed to be about capturing and creating the magic of the day. IMHO

I'll shoot weddings on film once I have the ability to yell "Cut, lets do that again, but this time can you look into his eyes? Ok? Alright, places!"

Till then, the more appropriate analogy would be to TV shows. What TV news shows are shot with only one camera? Or what late night comedy show is show with one camera? Does Leno or Letterman only use one camera? Of course not.

I'll shoot weddings on film once I have the ability to yell "Cut, lets do that again, but this time can you look into his eyes? Ok? Alright, places!"

Till then, the more appropriate analogy would be to TV shows. What TV news shows are shot with only one camera? Or what late night comedy show is show with one camera? Does Leno or Letterman only use one camera? Of course not.


Jason, I have shot for the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno and you are wrong....we shot with (1) camera. Not the studio stuff but in the field was one, (me). I have shot a lot for TV and often with 1 camera.

In tv and movies, there is obviously the opportunity for multiple takes(most of the time), whereas with a wedding there is not. I don't think they should be compared as one being easier or harder than the other....they both have their own challenges and obstacles.

In my country 85% of videoguys do it alone. Unforunately we r paid less than the photographers and most of us cant charge enough to get a 2nd guy. I keep a handycam as a backup too.

This has resulted in contract clauses that states that the videoguy will not be held responsible should the tape mechanism fail during a shoot! I cant accept this as a customer but yet, I cant do it for the clients. The best solution so far is a backup cam.

... I don't know about you guys, but I don't spend that much more time in post than I would if I had only one camera, sync up your footage with each other on two different video tracks, then just just cut out sections of each so they switch back and forth between shots. If you don't ripple delete, your timing stays the same (unless you had to change tapes) throughout the entire ceremony. At most you'll spend 30 min extra because of the second cam in post.

I probably obsess a little too much in post. But besides what you mention, you have two cameras to color grade, another audio track to mix in and compress-enhance-EQ and more footage to run a deshaker script on.

... I had to offer 1 cam weddings ($495). Now I do them all the time...

I wish for the sake of the clients I could do a $495 short/highlights wedding. But, I just can't afford to do that right now.

For the most part of the wedding day one camera is enough, but for the ceremony I'd love to have at least three, but who's gonna pay for it? When you show your clients demos shut with multiple cameras, steadicam and crane they say 'wow', when you tell them that it's not free, they say 'yeah, we'll think about it'.
I shoot with EX1 and have Z1 and HC9 in my car, lesson learned hard, years ago I had to finish reception with the camcorder borrowed from one of the guests, but multiple cameras as a basic package, i don't have such clientele.

I had to finish reception with the camcorder borrowed from one of the guests, but multiple cameras as a basic package, i don't have such clientele.

That's pretty funny.

I probably obsess a little too much in post. But besides what you mention, you have two cameras to color grade, another audio track to mix in and compress-enhance-EQ and more footage to run a deshaker script on.

But for a cheap package, they wouldn't need the color correction and so forth. Use the audio from Cam 1 and it's a simple edit, just cut to a stationary cam here and there throughout the Ceremony in post. I shoot everything myself as well. One maybe 2 stationary cams in the back of the church or the balcony. It gives you more freedom to move around on your manned cam (cam 1) Even if it's for a cheap shoot, I would still use 2 cams. You already have the equipment, why not use what you worked so hard to get. If something goes wrong if you shoot with one cam, someone steps in front of your shot, need to change tapes, etc. youll wish you had that second cam to cover you.

Jason, I have shot for the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno and you are wrong....we shot with (1) camera. Not the studio stuff but in the field was one, (me). I have shot a lot for TV and often with 1 camera.

In tv and movies, there is obviously the opportunity for multiple takes(most of the time), whereas with a wedding there is not. I don't think they should be compared as one being easier or harder than the other....they both have their own challenges and obstacles.

Sorry, I meant the studio parts. The parts that are meant to look as good as possible. They have wide cams, cams on jibs, cams for close up left, close up Right, etc. Just judging from what I watch, no actual inside knowledge of course.

I told the brides at the wedding show this weekend, if your "friend / relative" is shooting the wedding for you on 1 cam, then you are gettign what you paid for..... static & boring shots of your wedding day. With two cams I can show your faces, not just the backs of your head.

Now I must say that with one cam, and the ability to move around, I could still do a killer highlight productions. Just not a long form edit where all the audio must be captured. Though I could run the wireless lapel into my MiniDisc recorder and get the audio covered that way. Hummm, actually not a bad idea.

Actually you just need dual audio jacks, one with shotgun and one for wireless. But I've used a solid state recorder as well on one occasion.

I am sure the answer is yes, but I am not sure if it is common. I have only shot one single cam wedding and it seemed very limiting in post to say the least.

The reason I ask is that I am contemplating a budget single cam wedding for a client. Most of my time in post is spent mixing the camera angles and audio. A single cam shoot would be a much quicker edit.

What do you think?

After all these posts, I'm sure Jeff is now totally confused. Poor Bugger. Just do what you can with what you have and within the budget you have been given.