Do I tend to overthink things in filmmaking?

[Brian Drysdale]

When costing you need to include the cost of the whole crew during the extra days you're filming if using a single camera.

Co-director relationships vary, they may not in practice be covering the same aspects of the job. Given your messages in the forums, it would probably end up with the other person doing the directing.

[Paul R Johnson]

I can not do any 'co' role with my wife. It is impossible. We do things so differently, by different methods, and very different routes that whenever we try to do almost anything together it causes conflict - I either end up doing 100% or she does, because that's how for us it works. We split things, and in 40 yrs marriage, it's worked brilliantly. If we had to work together it would be disaster!

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

When costing you need to include the cost of the whole crew during the extra days you're filming if using a single camera.

Co-director relationships vary, they may not in practice be covering the same aspects of the job. Given your messages in the forums, it would probably end up with the other person doing the directing.

Yeah that's what I thought, it's just others said it more cameras and operators would cost more, so I thought that was true, if that's what others filmmakers with that experience said. And I am open to co-directing, it's just I thought it wouldn't work out based on what others said before, when I suggested the idea. I don't think it would be the other person doing all the directing if that was the case.

But I can try to apply for funding, if that's more do-able than I thought it may have been, based on this other filmmaker's experience with it so far.

As for multicameras, I may only be ablet use two though, because the third one will be seen in a lot of the shots, if I were to use three. Unless I really change the shots around, but I feel a lot of them may be compromised if I do that, to fit a third camera in.

[Brian Drysdale]

Of course two more cameras and operators will cost more, assuming you're actually paying them, Your filmmakers seem to have limited experience, but to get the same coverage with one camera is going to take more time than shooting with one camera, In professional film making time is money.

There is a compromise in using more than one camera, in that one camera may be in a less ideal position.. However, from what I've seen in your films, it won't make that much difference, since they're more TV than cinema.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Ryan your movies suffer from more fundamental problems that multi cameras wouldn't fix.

Given the right situation it can be viable approach. Even with a small cast and crew of 6 people paid at paltry sum of $100 day ($600 x 10 days = $6,000). Renting a second camera would quickly pay for itself by reducing your film time. Even if it didn't save you money it be easier on your cast and might be the difference between being able to film a scene before getting kicked out of a location or before the light changed.

In your case I don't think you could handle the added complexity, additional camera operator, syncing, framing, matching exposure/white balance, etc.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. Well I would have to try to make sure that both camera operators have the cameras on the same white balance and exposure settings. As for syncing, wouldn't the syncing be the same, but just with one more camera? Why would syncing be more difficult? I would just be syncing two cameras to sound instead of one, but is that much more difficult?

Looking at my shots, though, I would have to move the second camera over in some shots not to be seen, so it would be not as ideal but maybe it would be worth it...

However, with two cameras, the actors are doing less takes. Say for example, an actor does five takes in the master shot, and then 5 takes in an MCU. That's 10 takes. But if we have two cameras, and the goal is to save time, then they are only doing the same five takes for both the master and the MCU. So by saving time that way, they would only be doing half the takes, and I wonder, if the performances would suffer from multicamera therefore?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

We've been over this before. In some situations multi camera have more benefits. For example car chase or fight you can capture two views without re doing it. With a conversation you could have each camera over the shoulder of each person, or cu over the shoulder of one and medium 3/4 shot of both. When you get the best performance/take you don't need to redo it to get the medium or close up shot if you were filming with one camera. Just because you have two cameras doesn't mean you always use them. You can pick your places where it makes sense.

Under changing lighting brightness and color temp outdoors you have to pay particular attention that the cameras are of similar exposure/white balance. Often it can be fixed in post but it's more work you'll have twice the footage to sort through that needs to be labeled and organized.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I didn't think I would have twice the footage to go through in post, because if I were to use one camera for all the shots, then it would still be the same amount of footage, just all taken with one camera, instead of 2 or 3, wouldn't it?

I am thinking about the OTS shots, but wouldn't the camera be seen in the shots though, if you use two? The other filmmaker I worked with who used multicameras, never did OTS shots, that I recall, so I don't have any experience there. But I thought you would still see the cameras in the OTS shots. For example, in this scene, with two OTS shots, wouldn't you see the camera in the shots, if they used two cameras simultaneously?

Public Enemies (2/10) Movie CLIP - I Rob Banks (2009) HD - YouTube

[Josh Bass]

I'm not sure why you would think that. Think about where the cameras would be for those opposing OTSes: same side of "the line", one pointing toward him, one toward her. Think of what each cam's field of view looks like. Draw a diagram if you have to...no problem keeping out of each other's shots.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, because even if I draw the diagram, one camera is behind one actors shoulder, and the outher is behind the other's shoulder. Therefore in the opposite shots, you would see the camera behind them, wouldn't you? Looks that way to me anyway, even if I draw it out. But this also depends on what kind of OTS shot too perhaps.

I think in ones like these you would see the camera behind the actor, wouldn't you?

Public Enemies (2/10) Movie CLIP - I Rob Banks (2009) HD - YouTube

Where as in ones like this, you wouldn't it?

Skyfall - Bond and Severine's Conversation (1080p) - YouTube

[Josh Bass]

It's not literally right over the shoulder, it's off to one side enough to stay out of the shot. It may not work in all situations...the more looking toward the lens axis, the closer in (closer the "shoulder" actor) the cam has to be. So yes, if you want opposing OTSs with multicam then you're going to compromise the eyelines some, making it more "profile-y" than what you can get away with using a single cam. However, with focal length, camera position, framing and even cheating the actors (they may appear in each shot to be directly across from each other and in reality be diagonal), you can probably get away with it.

[Paul R Johnson]

You don't always have to have wide lenses and have cameras in close Ryan. Do you watch TV? You can shoot drama with maybe 6 cameras and keep them all out of shot. If you got cameras in shot, you put them in the wrong places. PS - you're also VERY keen on your over the shoulder shots, but yours never seem to look like these ones?

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. And I do like using shots where actors are looking close to the lens, I am not a fan of profile shots for the most part. But maybe it can still work. One idea is, you won't see the cameras if they are farther enough back which means using telephoto lenses, or longer lenses at least, but those would cost more, and I think the locations might not always have enough room for that, but may still work the cameras may not be seen, if I am willing to not have the actors look so close to the lens perhaps.

As for watching TV and how they keep the cameras out of the shots, the problem with that is, is that the shots are very compromised. When you watch a show like Seinfeld for example, they are very limited to where they can put the camera, or so it seems, as they constantly re-use the same shots over and over. Isn't that because it would mean seeing a camera in another shot, if they do not stick to those same shots, over and over?

As for why my over the shoulder shots do not look like the ones in Public Enemies, I will have to pay closer to attention to Public Enemies when designing the shots now.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

It’s hard to believe that OTS has to be explained to you. You over think everything and make problems where none exist. You asked where you could use multiple cameras and then you proceed to find problems at every turn.

A reoccurring issue with all your movies is that your actors don’t act natural. In an OTS setup they interact as they normally would instead of talking to a camera. Like always you fail to identify what’s important and instead get stuck on rules or copying scenes from other movies.

[Ryan Elder]

Well why does it have to be explained? I thought that the cameras would be in each others shots, and I used that Public Enemies example. Are you sure they would not be in those shots, in that example, or what am I not understanding that has to be explained?

Another thing is, when it comes to wider shots, it seems like it will be more challenging for the cameras not to show. There is one scene I storyboarded so that it's two wide shots, where one actor is behind a desk, and he is talking to three other characters, on the other side of the desk. For one shot, the camera will be behind his head, facing the three actors, and the other shot is the opposite, where it's behind the three actors, facing him. But I think that both cameras are going to be seen if I use two, because they are wide shots.