PacMan2006

I've wanted to know this for a while (TRY TO PICTURE THIS SCENARIO). Let's say, for example, that in a scene, two people are sitting across from each other having a conversation. The camera work is "shot reverse shot" over both characters right shoulders (typical camera work).

If this is true, though, how does it work, because you never see the OTHER camera over one of the characters shoulder in the background. How do they do it, do they have the conversation done one sided, and film character A's dialogue over character B's right shoulder, stop tape, flip camera position, and just do character B's dialogue? That doesn't seem right.

Or what about, say, when two people are walking towards each other. It's another shot reverse shot scenario....

I guess my questions are just directed towards situations where it looks like the interaction between the two characters is very contionuous and happening in "real time." I know, for example, that if they are filming a chase sequence, they'll film one person running away, stop tape, then have character B running after him (more or less).

But during conversations, it seems that the dialogue is so fluid and with the camera shots in the scene, it makes me wonder how they got them there.

bdshort

multiple takes from different angles, and editing.

Giantrobo

don't they also videotape so they can review takes or is that a luxury?

filmerp

Usually shot with single camera takes. Haven't you ever wondered why it takes so long to shoot a movie?
Editing does wonders stitching together alternate takes. Often the best editing is also the most underappreciated because it's invisible.

eedoon

afaik, most director can review their takes on a small video monitor. I don't know much about this but I hope this helps.

marty888

They first film all of one person's dialogue, reactions, etc. Then they film the other person's dialogue, reactions, etc. Sometimes Actor A isn't even there while Actor B's "scenes" are being filmed. Strange, huh? And it all ends up looking like a seamless conversation - that's why it's called "movie magic" I guess.

If you listen to Ridley Scott's commentary on Thelma and Louise he discusses why he shot the coffee shop conversation they way he did - he specifically did NOT want to do it the usual "over the shoulder" way becuase he felt it would really hurt the ability of the two characters to pull off that scene. so it is mostly a two-shot where they are actually talking to each other!

Jackskeleton

Simple rule IF they are shooting with two camera's. DO NOT BREAK THE 180 RULE. You can have a two person shot with two cameras positioned over the shoulder and still be able to NOT see the camera if you just follow the rules of the road and not break that 180 line.

Other methods of course is to get multiple takes of the shot and put them together in post production. Hell you can even play around with it and have them say different questions and answer different things out of order.

Parcher

Prepare to be enlightened...

Often the cams are spaced faw away using telephoto lenses. As a result, they don't see each other.

Pants

Yes they can, but this has nothing to do with how they shoot two people talking to each other.

As others have said it's one camera and clever cutting. Television and some directors (Kurosawa) often use multiple cameras to capture different angles all in one take (even dialogue scenes)

devilshalo

PacMan2006

Wow, so you guys are saying that most of the time, when two people are having a conversation in a scene, it's usually a shot shot camera deal, where character A says all his dialogue, switch the camera 180 degrees, and have character B react and say all of his dialogue, with no REAL interaction between them?

And it only seems real through the editing process, where it all looks seamless like it was made in one take?

If that's true, that's amazing.

Patman

I think you are confused what you'd see in a play where all of the character in the scene are actually in the scene, with what's going on in a film.

It's true, with the magic of editing, directors/editors can cut scenes that give the viewer the illusion of characters being in the same room having a conversation without the need of both actors to be in the same room. It does take tedious amounts of time to actually ACT and speaker and emote, etc when doing these type of conversation scenes for the scenes that alternate between the 2 characters instead of showing both actors in the same shot of the scene.

Jackskeleton

No, what we are saying is person A has the script of everything they will say and a list of what type of reaction they will have (in scripts it will say "Surprised" )

so person A goes through there script reads it and does the reactions. then they go to the next person if it's a single camera shot. they can't afford to turn the camera 180 degrees after every line because that would mean changing lighting and so forth. the 180 rule is that if there is a camera in on position that you can only put cameras in the 180 area without having it show up in your shot. You would have to imagen that there is a line coming from your camera out straight ahead. You can not cross that line if you are already on one side of it. imagen it like this "D" the line going us is the line comingout of the camera. You can only say in the middle of the arc and not go over that line to keep a couple of things straight.. first off to not confuss the audiance by turning the world opposite and to not have your cameras seeing each other.

Say A is camera 1, X is the subject and Y is who they are talking to and B is camera two.


A ...................X___Y........................ B


that would not work because you would see each other's camera not to mention the back of the heads.. this is the way the camera's should be set up so that they will catch a Medium close up of each subject and not show up in each others camera

...............................X___Y......................

.......................A.......................B


Now A will cover Y and B will cover X and you will get a good matching shot of both subjects. In a television setting you can control which camera you are on by a switcher so you can cut from one camera to the other on will and when the person is giving there lines. In film it's better to get someone's footage done and pretty much put it together in editing. Person X says there lines and reacts to what person Y will say then they move on to the other person

(doted lines just there for place holders.)

devilshalo

In reference to Jack's descriptions. (I think )

PacMan2006

Oh okay. I get it now. But I'm still wondering if, for example in Devil's photo above, both characters have a real ongoing conversation with both film cameras rolling to get both people at their respected angles...or, is it that camera B rolls, and the person on the left says all of his lines, including reactions and whatnot--then you stop tape, camera A rolls, and gets the person on the left doing his dialogue and reactions, etc.

My guess is it's the first.

Patman

Have you considered that some small budget films only have one camera?

Groucho

The cameras have special software installed that if they pick up another camera while filming, it is automatically removed from the frame. Before this technology was invented, somebody had to painstaking go through the movie frame by frame and paint out all the times that the other camera was filmed. This is why Casablanca was released in 1941 even though it was filmed in 1937.

caiman

I may be wrong, but I think we are talking two different things here. In devil's photo and jack's explination, we are talking about doing these scenes with the use of two cameras, where the actors can both sit and do their scene by actually talking to each other, taking turns speaking and reacting, just like a normal conversation.

The other method is a single camera, in which the above pictures would not apply. In this case, one single camera moves to different positions to capture each actor's lines/reactions. The thing with this method is that most of the lines in the scene from one actor are all shot together, then the camera switches and the lines from the second actor are shot.

At least I think I've got it straight.

PacMan2006

Gotcha Cai...that's where the mix up happened. Thanks.

wendersfan

To give an extreme example of what is being discussed here, in Kiarostami's Taste Of Cherry, most of which takes place inside a Range Rover, hardly any of the actors in the film ever met one another. Most of the time Kiarostami was in the passenger seat, filming the driver, or was filming the passender without the actor playing the driver being present.

You have to remember that, in most films, the lighting setups are intended for single, specific camera angle/lens combinations, and the lights would be all wrong if multiple cameras were used simultaneously.

However, with most TV shows, to save time and money, multiple cameras are the norm. This is, IMO, the main reason why movies and TV shows "look" different.

Jackskeleton

thanks. My discription in what doesn't look like A B and X Y.

Look, when shooting something with two cameras you obviously have enough of a budget to use to camera's so both cameras will be rolling when the conversation takes place.

if you have one camera then you tape the whole conversation one sided and then you set up everything for the other person and run through the conversation again with the other person. if the actors are worth there weight they will be good enough to create an almost exact conversation like they did a few minutes ago in the first take. You take that footage and you cut it together. remember to use L cuts so that it isn't a basic Cut on dialouge film. Notice how you get reaction shots in films where the person who is talking is not on screen and you see the reaction of the person listening? Well same basics. You really can't afford to just get one line and shift the equipment around to capture the other person. it would get you dizzy and most of all your camera person will not make it in time to get a good reaction shot unless the actor kept that reaction frozen for a few seconds.




Another thing to note why Movies and tv look different. On a large screen you want to use Wider shots. On a smaller screen you want to get in tight since your tv is really a smaller size a wider shot will take away and not offer the same effect something in the theaters can do. That is the major difference with all this. tighter shots would be Medium close ups. this is why you get more of the two camera shots. With any two camera shot though you still need to establish the area so a third camera can really help in being the establishing shot. imagen that there is a third camera inbetween the two in the picture farther away and zoomed in enough to not get the other two cameras. this will allow something to fall back on to see both characters reactions and to pull back incase an extra character jumps in for a few seconds.

devilshalo

My pic can illustrate both a single cam and multi-cam shoot.
Single cam, just move tha cam from point A to point B. You would (or at least I would) still have both actors present in the scene whenever possible to go thru the read so they have something to play off of.

karnblack

I was thinking of this exact book. It's very good IMHO.

If you have The Shawshank Redemption DVD there is a feature on there where the director talks about Tom Hanks performance. You get to see the camera set-up filming Michael Clarke Duncan talking to Tom Hanks off-screen. Tom Hanks is giving an Oscar-worthy performance even though he is not being filmed in order to help Michael Clarke Duncan give his best performance.

I forget which director said "I only use one camera because I can only look through one viewfinder," but it seem that budget is not the only consideration in deciding how many cameras to use.

This is also an excellent book:



It theorizes why cuts work and gives insight into film editing.

Parcher

Why did no one listen to what I said?!!?! This is madness!

What I wrote about the telelenses is true! What is wrong with you....

devilshalo

If I'm shooting a tight scene within very small confines/set (say I wanted close ups of the actors faces with over the shoulder POV), shooting the way you suggest would be very hard to do.

PacMan2006's question was very broad, but Jack and a few others gave him a close estimation of a possibility on how to shoot the scene which could translate into any scenario.