Multi Camera editing

[David L Lewis]

Are there any Do's and Dont's when it comes to deciding when to switch from one camera angle to another when editing a multi camera shoot

Obviously you dont wont to jump from one nicely framed stable view to a camera thats in the proicess of setting up a shot but are there any other rules.

And where does sound come into it?

Watching something like Songs of Praise they seem to change shots in time to the music of the hymns ,i.e at the end of each phrase in a hymm , but is it wrong to change at other times. and what about speech , should you only change at the end of a phrase or sentence?

Any Views?

[Alan Roberts]

The only real advice is that your production style should add to, rather than detract from, the production itself. Any trick you use should suddenly announce itself. So, cutting to the music is a good idea, and don't cut into or out of a zoom or refocus or moving shot. Of course, you can always deliberately ignore any rules, just for effect, if you want to jolt the viewer. But the simple rule is that if it looks right, it is right.

[David L Lewis]

Thanks for that Alan

I have been cutting to different camera angles at the end of each line of a hymn and using two camera each of us as camera operators know# when we can and cant move so it works well However it does sometimes just seem too predictable. How do others do it?

[Alan Roberts]

You've just hit the spot, it is somewhat predictable. I find that a selection of cutaways is handy, flowers, windows, gargoyles if you've got some handy. Also a cut to outside, along woith a change of acoustics, can make a point, particularly in pleasant surroundings.

[JerryLE]

Thanks for that Alan

I have been cutting to different camera angles at the end of each line of a hymn and using two camera each of us as camera operators know# when we can and cant move so it works well However it does sometimes just seem too predictable. How do others do it?

Obviously it not a good idea to 'cross the line' without good reasons, even more so if there is any movement, it's quite disorienting to suddenly have you focus of attention change direction - if you need to change shots (moving across the line) use an intermediate shot. Of course in some productions it's quite acceptable, if not a requirement, to disorientate your viewers!

[Dave R Smith]

As Jerry says, frequent reference to a wide shot means the audience can imagine the layout.
Churches aren't too bad because the audience knows the congregation is opposite the vicar etc, so the 'line' rule can be slackened.

Same as avoiding jump cuts, try and cut when the 2 cameras don't have the same shot (if positioned close to each other.

I normally regard one camera as 'The anchor' on wide, fairly static, and use the other for close/detail shots, with less frequent changes of 'The Anchor', when the 'close-up' camera needs to hold position - so line of sight for 2 cameraman and pre-agreed hand signals.

I tend to cut in pauses of words, or end of sentence and less frequently for a church than other, more upbeat events.

[steve]

On my first multi-cam edit of a carol service last year, I found that in most cases, straight cuts seemed to interrupt the pace of the performance, soI replaced them with short dissolves. This created a better flow, much appreciated by the choir conductor. It also allowed a bit of latitude in where the camera changes took place as there was not much opportunity to co-ordinate reframing at the time of shooting.
Material that I found useful for cutaways included pans to the stained glass windows, the vaulted roof and chuch furniture like the tabernacle, altar and even candles, (lit that can be artificially defocused in post).

Steve

[mooblie]

You also have to think about lip sync too, David. For those shots that have backs of heads, or distant faces, you can play fast and loose, moving the shots to wherever you need them on the timeline. If you can clearly see faces singing, then you're stuck and you can't really move those clips around.

(Unless, of course, you move lines sung from one chorus to another chorus though!)

Close ups of organ keyboards being played can be good, but also not moveable along the timeline. Even viewers with little musical appreciation can realise fingers aren't playing what the soundtrack says!

[Barry Hunter]

You can also use cuts from W/A to C/Up of a speaker to re-inforce what is being said!

On Church services, where allowed, we set up as follows, I`m down the front, ideally grooms side, madam is at the back getting C/Up of the vicar but during the hymns she uses another VX2100 to "float" in the side ailes and we will have discussed beforehand whether she gets the verse or chorus. Sometimes we also have a static camera overlooking from say a balcony so then we have 4 shots to choose from, makes for a well presented sequence.

[JerryLE]

Close ups of organ keyboards being played can be good, but also not moveable along the timeline. Even viewers with little musical appreciation can realise fingers aren't playing what the soundtrack says!

On an off beat note, in more ways than one, another problem area are steam engines, just as the organ keyboard needs to be kept in sync with the music the exhaust smoke/steam needs to be kept in time with the steam engine 'Chuffing'.

[David L Lewis]

Thanks for some of the tips folks.

I always try to get lots of cutaways of things like organ pipes, stained glass window, Flowers etc before the service and I record both static and panning shots and zooms of the same features to give me a choice. Takes time but they have saved me a few times when both cameras have been setting up a shot at the same time.

The more I film events the more I wish I had extra cameras. At the moment I'm just using two and follow the standard set up of having one positioned in front of the bride and groom so that I can get the bride facing forward during the vows, and the other at the back of the church. If and when I buy a third camera Id love to be able to get more close ups of the congregation listening to whats being said but that means again being up front and most vicars ive met would be reluctant to allow that . so how do you guys get those close ups. Is just good timing between the two camera operators or are there any good tips.

At the last wedding I did I got a shot of the organist playing from the side view with her hands obscured by the side of the organ which I found very useful.

[ClaireTall]

I know it's not possible during a wedding but I often do live mixes and find it much easier than doing the multiclip thing afterwards. I've done many conferences and Songs of Praise type things and you just get a feel for when you should change shot and whether it should be a dissolve or cut. I just copy the style of a TV programme. As Alan says, does it look right?

The last wedding I did a couple of year ago on 2 x HDV Z1's I agreed with the other op that during the church service one would shoot as it was the only camera and the other did all the different shots including close ups of the brides/grooms Mum at the appropriate times for adding at the edit. Along with the shots taken of windows, flowers etc beforehand it cut together very well afterwards.

Mixing is my favourite job and totally occupies my brain which stops it obessing about stuff.

[David L Lewis]

Mixing is my favourite job and totally occupies my brain which stops it obessing about stuff.


I totally agree with you Claire. I look back at some of the Single camera weddings I shot first of all and think now how dull they look compared with the two camera shots I'm now doing . Having more cameras and therefore more angles and shots to choose from is rising rapidly in my list of things that I want to have.

[Alan Roberts]

Now lean back and think what it's like to do a football match with between 18 and 30 cameras to choose from, in real time, not to mention all the replay and slo-mo machines :)

[David L Lewis]

I should imagine doing it live might actualy be easier than doing it later. I cant imagine that you can observe the output from 30 cameras at once so you probably only look at a few and make an instant decison as to which shot to go to next and once youve chosen thats it, its gone out.

with everything being recorded your able to go back and forth and take your time making that decision and posibly trying diferent combinations. So it must take considerablty longer to put something together.

I was fortunate enough three years ago to be the "subject" of a BBC4 documentary. Although the programme was only 30 minutes we actualy shot over 24 hours of Video from a single camera. The reason I was told that we kept shooting similar parts of the story over and over again in different locations and did walking shots over and over again was to give the editors lots of choices in what they could put into the final edit.

even for a 30 minute documentary the editing took several weeks

[StevenBagley]

I should imagine doing it live might actualy be easier than doing it later.

It isn't, it really isn't ;) Especially if you are mixing and directing at the same time.

Steven

[Dave R Smith]

Now lean back and think what it's like to do a football match with between 18 and 30 cameras to choose from, in real time, not to mention all the replay and slo-mo machines :)

Alan, Regarding camera direction/zoom/focus etc, would they all be indivudually manned cameras or many left unmanned on pre-set sections of the pitch - or perhaps one operator per 4 cameras on remote control?

I know this is a main revenue source, but 18-30 cameramen (and their assistants) seems over the top...but enough men/women for their own footy match at the end.

[Alan Roberts]

Most would be manned. Look at the logistics: 2 cameras central high in the stand for the wides (must be 2 in case one fails), 1 on a crane to get the aerial shot (probably remote-control), 4 on touch lines (Steadycam), 2 behind the goals, 2 opposite the commentary for entry/exit, 2 (maybe 4) fixed in the goal mouths, 3 manned in the interview studio. That's 18, about normal for football.

The director normally looks at the 2 mains, high in the stand, and mixes from them, but goes to line-sides for throws, fouls, player replacements, crowd shots etc. It's a tiring process but not that hard, once you get used to it (they tell me).

[StevenBagley]

Alan, Regarding camera direction/zoom/focus etc, would they all be indivudually manned cameras or many left unmanned on pre-set sections of the pitch - or perhaps one operator per 4 cameras on remote control?

I know this is a main revenue source, but 18-30 cameramen (and their assistants) seems over the top...but enough men/women for their own footy match at the end.

Generally both. If you look at football coverage, you'll see that there are generally some remote controlled cameras on tracks. Then you'll have tripod mounted cameras with 50x zoom lenses on them in the stadium (usually at least one is level with the centre line), some on jibs, some mounted in the goal itself and several steadicam operators running up and down the touchline.

There was a fascinating BBC4 documentary in 2004 about Sport on TV in the 60s and how it developed. They interviewed the director of the 66 World Cup final and he said how as far as he was concerned there were three teams on the pitch that day, England, Germany and the camera crew.

Interestingly, we've become so used to modern TV coverage that we forget that it used to be done with just two or three cameras (the main one being on the centre line). In fact, I remember seeing a world cup qualifier on the BBC (from some distant european country) a few years back and spending most of the match (I don't particularly bother with football normally) trying to work out why it looked like archive TV footage, since it was 16:9, and didn't have PAL cross-colour. It then dawned on me that it was entirely down to the way the game was being covered with two or three cameras rather than the usual number -- made for a huge difference.

Steven

[Dave R Smith]

Thank-you Alan and Steven.

Generally both. If you look at football coverage....
Steven
That's why I'm surprised... I don't normally look at football coverage, but do appreciate that for volume of fee paying viewers, cost of crew is probably justifed.
I recal the 'wire suspension' cameras being introduced, from a documentary.
In the same way theatre light have pre-programmed positions/set ups, I would have thought these would similarly be automated - especially for the wider angle shots.

Alan,
'4 on touch lines (Steadycam)' They must be fit - I couldn't do it (I'm skinny but fit).
Whenever I've seen steady cams, the operator has the build of Geoff Capes.. built for strength.. not for running on the touchline.
I'm surprised they don't have r/c cameras also on 'wires' mounted say 2.5m high parralel to touchline..as I feel a camera operator with 20+kg of gear is a tad slower than a pro athlete!

Not personally wishing to foot the bill for the 30 camera persons, I am glad Sky Sports is segregated for subscriptions from other apects of Sky... which is also good for the footy fans.. able to pay a few extra quid for improved coverage/experience... in fact you probably see more at home than at the ground.

How long before 52 cameras??
In F1 the cars now have cameras.. soon they'll be microcams on the players.. in fact a helmet cam could be fitted for American football.

[Alan Roberts]

Steadycam ops are indeed tough, but they're rarely big/beefy, most are just tough and scrawny. They used to be cabled, so there'd be a couple of riggers with each camera to shift cable as he ran with the camera, but these days they're all on radio (you'll see the little up-turned tea cup antenna on a pole) and routed via diversity reception just like the other cameras. You'll never see cameras on cables above footballl because the support cabling can interfere with the play*.

On the subject of how many cameras it takes to cover an event, look at Wimbledon. Center Court has the high/long shot(top of the end court), 2 just behind the serve wall, two at grass level oppsite the umpire, two behind the player seats at grass level and at least two more wherever they can get at low level. These are all manned. 1 or 2 high in the stand unmanned for wide shots, maybe one high on the net line, unmanned. That makes about a dozen.

From 1990 to about 1996, we also covered the Centre Court on two HD cameras (later on 3), and relayed the pix to big displays around Wimbledon (and transmitted live to IBC one year). I was the video engineer for those jobs, manned a camera when needed, kept the kit going. Because the picturesd were so much sharper than SD, and 16:9 as well (Sport's only now moving into 16:9), it was easier to get decent coverage with these 2/3 camerras than it was with the dozen SD cameras. The recordings BBC made of those matches are still the best HD pictures the BBC has ever made, because they were on 1" cameras and recorded uncompressed on 3 D1 machines (720x576, 10-bit) to start off, and then 4:1 compressed onto 1 D1 for the latter years. The pictures still amaze me.

* Anecdote. Suspended cameras were tried in the US, 4 steel cables from towers in the corners, each on a powered drum, camera dangling from the join in the middle. Running the drums in/out could move the camera at great speed, and pictures were startingly good, until one drum froze up (I think the cable got tangled) and the other drums carried on trying to pull cable out. When the stuck one finally gave way, the camera was catapulted into the turf, several feet below the surface. Not much of it was recognisable when it was dug out. The authorities then realised just how dangerous it is to have several kilos of metal hurtling about just above the heads of the potential decapees, and banned it.

[Dave R Smith]

Thank-you again Alan from your privelaged insider knowledge.
Interesting also to hear your tale of suspense.
I would have thought the wire system used the same technology as a ski lift...so I'm surprised it bombed.

[Alan Roberts]

Ski lifts use a single, endless cable, around two drums (the toipe one powered, the bottom one just an idler), and the track is of constant length. The system tried in the US had 4 separate cables on separately controlled drums, meeting in the middle to support the camera. If they all payed out the camera descended, if they all pulled in the camera rose (until it reached a safety limit), opposing pairs could reel in/out to pull the camera anywhere on the pitch. The maths to control all that is quite complex, it needs only one failure anywhere in the system and you get a subterranian camera and steel cable whipping around at speed. Not a nice prospect.

[Dave R Smith]

Ah - OK - didn't know exactly how they did it - and I had forgotten about the ability to change height.
Also, I imagined the tension needed was greater to have a reduced parabolic sag.

What I imagined..
Something running say parralel to perimeter of the pitch, 2m out, but more like a mono rail, so support wasn't under tension - this time akin to a ride at alton towers.

I realise cameras are more delicate than students so greater care is needed.;)

Oops Sorry David.. possibly a 30 camera edit on suspended wires is off topic from your question, as your local vicar may not consent to the necessary cabling.:D

[davemitch]

I'm sure I saw something very similar flying around over the pitch at the European Cup Final between AC Milan & Liverpool in Athens?

[Alan Roberts]

Systems like this have been used from time to time, but everyone's very wary, given the obvious dangers.

[Mark M]

And yet we flew performers in the central show in the Millennium Dome from three winches using a triangulation system, with a system developed by Stage Technologies. You could place the performers in three dimensional space with pretty much pinpoint accuracy, and move them along curved trajectories at 3 metres per second... (that's a buzz!!). I don't see why such systems couldn't be used for cameras: if it's safe enough for people, (with an audience underneath) it's got to be safe enough for a camera weighing considerably less than an acrobat. The safety requirements at the Dome were pretty strict.

And what do they use in the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff? I'm thought they had an overhead moving camera system there. Mind you, the only time I was there I spent the match with my head in my hands...

[HallmarkProductions]

Regarding Football,

Don't forget the cameras outside the ground in the blimp, and sometimes out in the street.
I have been fortunate enough to cover a lot of football over the years (initially, Championship matches as a single-camera job, positioned high up above the half-way line).
A couple of anecdotes for the early games - one of my team was filming a match on a very very cold winter day. He was feeling rather dizzy and unwell and got substantially worse as the game progressed. He fainted, pushing down on the tripod pan handle as he fell. There was a slow tilt up towards the sky just as the ball was nodded into the net in the extreme bottom edge of the frame. Final score 1-0. No goals to be seen on TV though!
Another game was an FA Cup match, we had a cameraman with a shoulder mount camera shooting ISO down on the touchline. A sliding tackle from player, hit the ball like a bullet straight into the camera viewfinder which sheared off, inflicting a nasty cut above the op's eye (off to hospital, 14 stitches). A couple of years later, David Beckham was playing for Man Utd and hit my camera with similar force with one of his shots. I called on the previous experience and got out of the way, quickly - my "good looks" were untarnished - still needed a new viewfinder though!.

This season, Wayne Rooney did a similar thing - but i saved it with my hand - got a round of applause from the Stretford End!

Chris

[Alan Roberts]

It isn't just a camera that's flown, it has to be on a gyro-stabilised platform with pan/tilt servos, radio in/out, and enough battery power to keep the whole thing flying for at least 3 hours. With a reasonable lens, that could easliy come to over 50kg. I know the systems work, they're in use, but it doesn't stop people being wary of using them.

[Wicked]

What a brilliant thread this is. I hope it continues to expand and develop. :)