Set up the light and audio for both and shoot and establishing shot. Set up the light and audio for one actor and then shoot them. Then set up light and audio for the other and shoot them. That way you have the best look and sound for each.

Personally I think using two cameras is the best option if possible. I think the extra money up front will be made back by moving quicker. The only real problem is you have to arrange light and sound for both at once.

RJSchwarz

For me, two cameras create more trouble. Lighting is more difficult and
having the extra people (camera operator) is usually something I can't do.

And moving the camera after each line is a lot of work. work the editor
can do with no effort at all. As you point out it causes audio issues, too.

It's not a stupid question at all - and you already know the solution.
What we professionals do saves time and money. I know your issue
isn't money, but having a second camera on a pro shoot means an
entire camera crew getting paid.

Scene 22 is Bob and Mary sitting at a table - it?s three pages long.
As RJ said said, you will set up the ?Master Shot? - both people at
the table, camera getting a head to foot shot of both of them. On
your slate you will write ?Scene 22 - Take 1?

Scene 22 - This will be the entire scene from one angle. You do as
many takes as you feel you need. Again, shooting all three pages
of dialogue with all the action.

Then you will move the camera to get Bob?s side of the table. Adjust
the lights and set up the dolly track. Again, you will shoot all three
pages of the dialogue, then you will ?punch in? to get inserts and other
coverage you might need. These set-up requite only minor adjusting
of the lights as you get closer.

Scene 22A - A slow dolly push in on Bob - from a full shot into a close up.
Scene 22B - Close up of Bob.
Scene 22C - Over Mary?s shoulder on Bob.
Scene 22D - an insert shot of Bob lighting a cigarette.
Scene 22E - a close up on Bob?s hand putting the cigarette in the ash tray.
Scene 22F - a close up of Bob taking the contract, looking at it and signing it
(from Mary?s point of view)

Now you do the same thing - this time from the other side of the table. This
is a major lighting and equipment change - moving the dolly and track, all
the lights and the crew.

Scene 22G - A slow dolly push in on Mary - from a full shot into a close up.
Scene 22H - Over Bob?s shoulder on Mary.
Scene 22J - Close up of Mary.
Scene 22K - an insert shot of Mary putting the contract on the table.
Scene 22L - a close up on Mary?s hand snuffing out the cigarette in the ash
tray.
Scene 22M - a close up shot of Mary putting the contract on the table, putting
a pen on the contract and pushing it to the middle of the table.
Scene 22P - a close up of Bob taking the contract, looking at it and signing
it (from Bob?s point of view)

Another major lighting change. You want to do a dramatic, overhead shot of
part of the scene. You know you won?t be using much of this in the final scene
so no need to shoot the entire three pages.

Scene 22 R - start when Mary puts the contract on the table.
Scene 22 S - zoom in to get only the contract - follow all the business with the
contract.
Scene 22 T - while the camera is up there might as well get a shot of the two
actors sitting down at the table and then leaving the table. Who knows? You
might want to use it.

So now you have shot from several different angles and have a lot of
coverage. A total of 15 different set ups. Most covering the entire 3
pages. Not only do you now have more choices in the editing room
but you have audio takes to choose from and your crew only moved
the camera and light three times.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

You are right about extra time to do lighting (or not) but there is a reason sitcoms do a three camera set up. It saves time and money if lighting isn't a factor. Perhaps it has something to do with comedy as well, as comedy spoils in take after take and this way you capture everything, good bad and ugly, from three cameras.

RJSchwarz

A "standard" scene on a professional set is shot like this:

Start with a wide master of some kind. It may be static (on a tripod) or on a dolly or an elaborate Steadicam or crane shot. Whatever it is, the more elaborate, the more you'll likely want to use it for the majority of the scene. Don't waste time setting up a "one-er" (a scene done in a single shot) if you intend on cutting it apart later and inserting coverage.

Most features these days have an A and B camera going for most of the shots. Your A-Camera will take priority while the B-Camera will work to get an alternate shot that works but doesn't impede A-Camera in any way. Your master will be primarily A while B may pick off tighter shots or an alternate wide.

Once the cameras drive in closer to the Actors, the A-Camera will first concentrate on getting an "over" (over the shoulder) on one of the Actors (assuming this is a two-person scene). IF the situation allows it, meaning if the lighting is acceptable and the set works for the shot, etc... the B-Camera will either pick off an alternate two-shot (likely both Actors in profile) OR the B-Camera may slide in very tight to the A-Camera. In that case, the A-Camera will likely be on the longer lens getting the "Oscar clip" close-up while the B-Camera is slightly wider getting the "over." This saves time and allows the Actors to do the scene fewer times overall. There can be a compromise doing it this way as the A-Camera is lining up to have the "perfect" close-up, so the B-Camera may be shifted a bit to the right or left of where it really wants to be. But filmmaking is wrought with compromises as you have to balance the "art" with the logistics of making the day (getting all the shots done that are scheduled).

( Often, when there are an A and B camera going simultaneously from the same angle, the A-Camera will have the wider shot while the B-Camera will have the longer lens. This is done for management reasons in the Camera Department. Particularly if there are multiple cameras on a shot (for action or other elaborate shots), the Key First Camera Assistant will need to be managing and checking up on the rest of the Camera Assistants and Operators. A wide lens doesn't require the same amount of time to prepare focus marks as a longer lens, so not having to worry too much about critical focus can free him up to oversee the camera setup. )

When one Actor is finished and the Director is happy, the crew "turns around" and relights the set and resets the cameras and lights to shoot an over and closeup on the other side.

When all the desired shots are finished for that scene, the cameras and lights pull back so that the Director and Actors can block out the next bit. Repeat as necessary until wrap.

The overall point is that you CAN use only one camera all day long, shooting every angle, resetting the camera and lights each time. This is done often and it provides you the most control over each angle and the lighting for every shot. HOWEVER, the trade off is that it takes more time to accomplish. If you have the days to add to the schedule so that you can do just a scene or two a day, then this can be the best method of shooting. If you can't add days to your schedule (because of budget or location restrictions or talent schedules) then you have two choices: 1) add a second camera or 2) cut the number of shots you want for each scene. Filmmaking is fun and all, but so much of it is about logistics, budgeting, and time management. If you can't afford to rent an extra camera and hire the additional crew it will take, then you will be forced into compromising on the number of shots and/or the complexity of the shots you will get each day. If you still want a certain number of shots, then you'll have to compromise on the number of takes you shoot before you move on to the next setup. If you don't want to do that, then, you'll have to cut the amount of time it takes to reset to a new setup, which means compromising on the way the movie looks.

You may or may not have seen the classic triangle which has three choices: Fast, Cheap, Good - Pick two. You can't have all three EVER. If you want it fast and cheap, then it won't be good. If you want it fast and good, it won't be cheap (because you have to hire a top-notch crew to pull it off). If you want it cheap and good, it won't be fast... you get the idea.

A lot of your issues can and should be solved in PRE-Production, meaning, choose locations that allow you and the crew to move quickly...if your budget and time are limited (and whose isn't?) then your script shouldn't require difficult locations and difficult camera/lighting setups. Careful planning and discussions with your Department Heads will help alleviate most of the problems that would otherwise plague you on a shooting day. When everyone arrives on set that day, there should be NO questions left hanging about what shots you want to get and how the crew needs to set up and light to get them. That way, they will move at peak efficiency which leaves YOU more time to concentrate on getting the shots you want to make a great movie. If you feel hamstrung by logistics on the day of a shoot, it means that you planned poorly. NEVER try to make a $10 million dollar movie if you only have $1 million. It'll come off looking like a cheap mess. Instead, if you have $1 million, set out to make an excellent $800,000 movie. It'll look amazing for the budget and it won't look like you had to skimp on anything.

And this all begins with a script that is appropriate to the budget you have available. That said, if you write an AMAZING script, then it may be worthy of attracting more financing which translates into more days and more crew and better crew and equipment and locations. The better your script, the more resources you'll have to accomplish what you want to put up on the screen. If you don't have all the money and time you really want and you can't get them, then you'll have to start compromising somewhere. Where depends on what your priorities are. Maybe you won't have enough money to complete a feature length film at the quality you want. So downshift and make an EXCELLENT short film based on the feature story that might get attention...instead of making a terrible feature that will just show off your lack of resources.

So, your question about how to shoot a conversation has a simplistic answer regarding cameras and lighting... but the real solution involves so much more that starts long before anyone ever shows up on set.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

I hadn't heard that the B camera was standard but Akira Kurasawa swore by it, saying that he rarely went for the B footage but it saved him a number of times during editing to have fall-back stuff to work with.

RJSchwarz

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjschwarz

You are right about extra time to do lighting (or not) but there is a reason sitcoms do a three camera set up. It saves time and money if lighting isn't a factor. Perhaps it has something to do with comedy as well, as comedy spoils in take after take and this way you capture everything, good bad and ugly, from three cameras.

RJSchwarz

---

Sitcoms and features are shot very differently. Many sitcoms
are shot in front of a live audience. In fact, there is a different
pay scale for directors on multi camera and single camera TV.

You're right if money and lighting aren't a factor shooting with
three cameras is an option for features. I suppose shooting a
scene with five or six could be a viable option, too.

However, I've worked on some big budget features and for the
most part one camera is used. Except, of course, for stunts and
action scenes. There are as many exceptions as there are films
being made.

On my low budget movies I can't afford a second (or third) camera
and crew even for comedy. But I have no argument for those of
you who want to or prefer using two (or three) cameras.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

hey guys thanks alot for taking the time answering my question,i trully now understand the concept plus some,thats why i keep coming back i guess

" see things through my eyes "