Three camera event video technique. Suggestions?
 

We have videoed several local events over the past two years and I'd appreciate some suggestions to help make things go smoother.

A cam is on the left , B cam is on the right, and C cam is up in the tech booth. C cam normally gets long shots. It's for A and B cams that I need a suggestion.

We videoed a local school event yesterday with about 250 students on stage together singing and instruments.. What's the best assignment for A cam and B cam? Invariably, as they each pan across the students, they will both get together and video the very same students at the same time. Although they start out on opposite sides, they still seem, unknowingly, to get together. They don't always stay together, but it seems to happen when I need footage of the other students. I do use C cam footage, but it is mostly long shots.

I'm sure there is a simple obvious solution, but I can't see it. Suggestion(s)?

Thanks, Tom B.

Or communicate between the cameras. Cam A tells cam B what he has so he doesn't get the same shot. Even better, get a video feed form each, and have someone watching them, directing the cameras what to shoot.

"A cam is on the left , B cam is on the right, and C cam is up in the tech booth. C cam normally gets long shots. It's for A and B cams that I need a suggestion."

A better solution would be to have B & C at the tech booth next to each other. B picks off close shots & C is your wide cover shot. Cam A moves from center of stage to left or center to right and picks off low angle and audience reaction shots. Cams A & B should NOT be on opposite sides. This "crosses the line" and breaks the 180 degree rule. Go to any televised sporting event or concert and you will see the same setup - they just have more camera's to work with.

Thanks fellows. This introduces techniques I've never considered.

In a recent stage production we noticed that B cam on the right side of the auditorium, shooting across, could get better shots of the faces of the talent on the left side of the stage because the talent was, many times, facing their left. Same idea held true with the A cam, being on the left side of the auditorium, shooting across to talent on the right side of the stage, facing to their right.

In our case, cam in the tech booth is too far away to get close shots. Even on medium shots, the quality drops off a bit compared to the two cams on the floor shooting about 50 feet back from the stage. We are shooting SD.

Thanks again for your good suggestions.

Two at the back and one at stage side does offer plenty of scope, and in fairness, more than two at the front, one at the back. However, for some products, the worst one is better - but for an odd reason. If it's something like a dance show, or other similar production where there are lots of individuals on stage, and the cost of the shoot is being met by DVD sales, then it's essential to get as many closeups and 'busy shots' as you can. If the cameras can communicate, then it's possible to for the left and right to coordinate, but it can still go badly wrong when both cameras lose their subjects near to the wings at the same time. Ballet is a bugger for this. They split and space and it means your single rear camera has to go stage width to get them, until they move forward again. For anything other than cast/family financing, two at the back is much handier. Although I don't do it myself, I see quite a few others simply have one of those crossbars on their tripod, and the two cameras next to each other. One in a wide shot and the other covering closeups. This, plus one stage side on the floor in front does pretty well for a two person, three camera shoot.

The rail systems people are now using allow the classic sideways track over the audience heads from the back. This always looks good, and even though the track length is minimal, the movement works.

Putting cameras on either side of the hall is standard procedure and does NOT cross the line. You would only "cross the line" if one camera was upstage shooting back toward the audience while the other one was in the hall shooting forward (and even that CAN be done on occasions).

Lots of good advice here, and this issue is why we always use four cams. We generally have the two cams up front and to the sides make sure they are shooting in an "X" pattern for just the reasons you describe -- less duplication and those on the opposite side of the stage are more likely to be facing the cam. On the same side of the stage, you tend to get the backs of heads more often than not, particularly in an Orchestra or Choir semicircular setup.

The two cams in the back can be next to each other or, in our case, on opposite sides of the booth. "A" cam is always locked down on the wide shot for the times when all the other cams are moving or otherwise yielding unacceptable shots -- I call it the IdiotCam because that's the one I operate and it's incredibly boring... until you get into post and realize you need that shot. The other rear cam -- "X" Cam -- goes in for tight closeups, slow zooms and pans.

About "Crossing the Line": As Chris correctly noted, The "Line" in this case is the proscenium or front edge of the stage, so having cams in the audience section to either side of the stage doesn't cross it. Having one backstage shooting forward would, but people still do this all the time.

We long for the day when I can just sit in the booth and see all four shots with a quad-split monitor and communicate with all the shooters, but we just don't have the space or money to do that. Yet.

Wow... lots of good suggestions.
This will give me a lot to consider. I appreciate all your comments.

Adam, Never thought to call it an "X" pattern. That's just what we have noticed too.
Thanks fellows.........

As you've probably noticed, different folks have different nomenclature for the differing camera positions. I go clockwise starting at 6pm, with A cam being the wide shot from the rear of the theatre, mostly because that's more of a master shot and I seem to recall that's how they did TV Shows from my Network and Studio days. Then the two up front are B & C, while the right rear cam doing closeups was either D or X --- again a holdover from Hollywood.

Now neither our card recorders nor Premiere let you designate cams with letters, only numbers, so our cam positions have been renamed to 1, 2, 3 and 4. Annoying.

Even after years of doing this for the same people, we still get questions like "Why can't you use only three (or two) cameras?" I used to explain camera and production theory to them, but now I just say we can do that as soon as they remove one wheel from their car and one leg from all their chairs.

If you cut from A to B or B to A, you cross the line IF you aren't "head on" with your shot. If you are shooting cross stage with A and cross stage with B, you absolutely cross the line as the audiences impression of where the stage is in respect to the audience "flips". Can you get away with it? Sometimes but it is TECHNICALLY a faux pas. In order to pull this off as I mention above, you'd "need" to go out to C between cameras A & B.

IF all shots are head on, then yes, cut away with impunity.

I think you're gonna have to draw a diagram 'cos what was described by the OP is NOT "crossing the line", technically or otherwise. It sure ain't a faux pas unless every director of every entertainment show ever broadcast doesn't know the meaning of the phrase.

Certainly in the UK, and I believe it may be the case in the US, broadcast video multi camera studios refer to the cameras with numbers. Film productions refer to the cameras with letters, I assume this is to avoid confusion with all the numbers (scene #, take# etc) that you get marked on clapper boards.

FORGIVE the quality of my "diagram"...

If you cut from camera A to camera B as shown in the "diagram", screen direction changes, therefore the cut is TECHNICALLY wrong. Do TDs do this all the time? Sure BUT it is still reversing screen direction, thereby contrary to the 180 "rule" and CAN be distracting to viewers. Less of an issue with stationary performers but live sports or dance, it can be seriously distracting and/or confusing.

North American convention is cameras get numbers and playback gets colours.

ie.
Camera One - "Ready One... TAKE One!"
VTR Green - "Roll Green... TAKE Green!"

The 180 line is now along the stage, not along the actor's eye line. I cut this way all the time, as it's the only way to cut a multicam stage shoot. There's no reason to cut from camera 1 to 3 (or whatever you called it) if there's only one person on the stage. If they're talking to someone else, the actors will cheat out and face one of your cameras. Then you have a regular TV cross shoot.

Shaun, I've been taught that playback gets letters and cameras get numbers. I've never heard of decks getting colors, but that's certainly a possibility.

You guys are right... my memory of cameras having letters does come from multi-cam film (i.e. sitcoms [Happy Days, Cheers, Taxi... yeah I'm old...])...

And I was going to bring up the point about dialogue on stage, where you'd replace the solo performer with two actors sort-of facing each other but cheating out to the audience, in which case you'd be cutting from one side to the other with the dialogue... and then basically apply that same technique to musicians, dancers, etc,. Even though it may be a change of screen direction in terms of eyelines, it still seems to me it's not crossing the line in a classic sense of it being disorienting.

But then again, Shaun knows more than I do about practically everything...

TV studios, arenas (at least the four I've worked in...) and remote trucks here use colours for playback. NEVER heard letters but I've only worked in Canada on lives...

Thanks for the diagram. By my quick calculation your cameras are around 165 degrees apart - thereby NOT contrary to the 180 degree rule and so NOT crossing the line. A cut from A to B is comprehensively not wrong and is done all the time. It is not reversing screen direction, it is merely taking the opposite view - there's a big difference in those two statements.

A GENUINE example of "crossing the line" would be to imagine a football match where cameras are placed on the opposite side of the pitch from each other. When the ball is kicked from one camera it appears to travel from left to right, but when the second camera is taken it suddenly is traveling from right to left. You sometimes see this in horse racing coverage when the director is too late switching from the last turn close-up to the final straight long shot.

The 180 Rule is designed to keep screen direction the same. In the case I diagrammed, which admittedly is a poor example, as soon as you cut from A to B, you've reversed screen direction IF there is anything in frame that "gives it away".

Cutting WWE/WWF Wrestling live to inhouse video boards is the hardest lesson I ever had to learn: the handheld camera guy ringside would follow the action and I had to keep straight in my head WHICH WAY to send him to maintain directional continuity against my hard cameras. Again, with action "on stage", it is much more critical to get screen direction "right".

And with regard to entertainment lives, NORMALLY you have more cameras to "play with" so you'll cut from a stage left shot to an overhead jib move to a high angle balcony cam and then MAYBE to a stage right shot so that the viewer gets an idea of the space and can then "visualize" where the camera that they are viewing is situated. The effect is much more pronounced when you have a limited number of performers on stage AND you are unable to vary the framing much between camera angles.

In the diagram I supplied, IF I NEEDED TO cut from Cam A to Cam B, I would have Cam A in a medium shot or tighter and have B in a long shot to show the space and thereby lessen the effect of the jump cut. A medium shot on A cut against a medium shot on B is WRONG, at least in technical terms. And you are HIGHLY unlikely to see ANY seasoned switcher/editor make that edit decision UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY OR he/she is TRYING to create a disjointed effect visually.

The 180 rule has nothing to do with the degrees between cameras - it is an imaginary line that, when crossed, causes the action and/or screen direction to become reversed, as seen in my diagram.

Nice diagram Shaun, you should be an artist :). I work on lots of mobiles and in Canada VTR's go by colours. When I work on American Splits for hockey some directors use colours some use letters and some use both. It isn't uncommon to have gold, silver, brown and X, Y, A and B I'm glad I'm a camera guy I'm always a number.

"I am NOT a number! I am a free man!"
-The Prisoner

The rule is actually called "the 180 DEGREE rule" - what do you think the 180 stands for? - and relates to the angles upon which cameras are placed in relation to a base line. Think of a protractor.

And yes, it is an imaginary line past which action would appear reversed (as I pointed out in my last post about football and horse racing). As Edward correctly pointed out, in the case in question the "imaginary line" is the line of the front of the stage, so in the OP (and your diagram) no cameras are crossing it so no crossing the line has taken place because all three cameras are on the same side of that line.

And yes, wrestling (and boxing) are both examples (like the horse racing problem) where you can get yourself to cross the line by following the action a little too far and if you compare it to the present discussion, your "ringside camera" would be "Cam B" and he would cross the line if he moved a few paces to his right and crossed the line of the front of the stage. However, as it stands, no crossing of the line takes place.

I'm quite sure we could argue this point for the next few years and nobody could persuade you that you are confusing "crossing the line" with a purely artistic opinion about shooting patterns. It reminds me of a director I worked for when I was a broadcast television cameraman (about forty years ago!) who always confused the term "headroom", which made for some strange framing in her productions!

Reason being I am NOT incorrect in this regard and IMHO, the "imaginary line" is NOT generated at the front of the stage, but is meant to emulate the viewpoint of a person seated in the audience and their viewpoint. As well, the "line" is "reset" whenever there is "neutral" screen direction involving the subject(s) in frame, which allows for cutting back and forth between A to C to B to C to A... without disturbing visual continuity ASSUMING the subject is FACING camera C in my "diagram".

Two cameras left and right of the stage following an dancer upstage going downstage, does look 'wrong' when you cut halfway along, when they were going screen left to screen right, then suddenly screen right to left, but in practice we do this because we have to, and it works. If we were doing a race or football game, then it doesn't work - because we've wrecked the 'journey' sequence. On stage, with plenty of movement, it's the movement itself that makes a dance exciting - it still looks good. This crossing of the line, which it still really is, only impacts when we attempt to follow an individual. When we cut across the centre line then it takes a moment to get oriented and find an individual in the group.

180 degree rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube - Moviemaking Techniques180 Degree Rule

Cinematography, 180 degree rule - Film School Online

Crossing the Line

Radical suggestion
 

FWIW I err on the side of Shaun here but not entirely. This is based more as viewer than on theory (and not in practice as I've only ever used one camera). TV shows will tend not to flip from side to side whilst looking at the stage though do do it on occasion. However they do very commonly have angles from the stage looking out to the audience though still on the same side as cameras pointing at the stage (e.g. talent shows - view the 'talent' from the audience perspective then cut back from behind him to see the judges reaction with audience behind them). This would place 'the line' down the centre of the auditorium not along the stage. Mind you if it was a staged drama this would never happen of course and cameras L and R of the stage would be more logical to capture the action, so it really does depend.

Having said that as viewers we are so used to the set up of a theatre that almost anything will work in my view if done carefully as we will adjust our perspective automatically and not get confused, so it is a special circumstance.

So going back to Tom's question I would somewhat radically suggest camera A in Shaun's diagram be placed at the back / side of the stage somehow, on the same side of the theatre as camera B and angled across the stage towards the audience!

Probably a stupid idea though.

Going back to the number of cameras, we cover stage concerts quite regularly and always use a minimum of four cameras, six if we have the options of floor and balcony from the sides. The key cameras are co-located in the centre/front of the balcony, one wide and probably locked off, the other with a very long telephoto.

More importantly for the variety in editing, if you're recording pros and there's a dress rehearsal we always put cameras (often hand held) on the stage for rear-to-front and extreme close up shots.

In the precise sense of multicam editing these aren't in sync but most pros have been doing their songs etc for so long they hold sync for long period of time - certainly long enough to be able to insert extreme close-ups into a WS or MS from the balcony to make for interesting edits. That way you can end up conveying the impression there were up to 12 cameras on the job.

It's great to discover so many different techniques. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to relate your methods. You've given us techniques and suggestions that can't be found in most books ,(if any), on the subject.

While the classic cinema narrative 'line' is typically established in a relationship between two character's viewpoints. (Keep Person A on left of frame, Keep person B on right) - and keep movement consistent - if a character moves left to right in the chase, keep them moving left to right unless you establish a 'neutral' shot IE Moving directly toward/away from camera, where you can establish their change of direction.

In documentary/stage/sports and ENG situations - this is not always possible or even necessary. I often shoot concerts live with three or four cameras ranged across the front of the stage - the 'line' being drawn from stage left to right. In closeups, actors/musicians might be looking either screen left or screen right, depending on their location on stage - I do try to use a 'neutral' center wide shot to help keep the orientation fresh in the audience's mind - but it's not always possible for fast cutting. Additionally I often have a camera in the back of an orchestra, shooting the conductor. This obviously, is crossing the 'line' established along the apron. But today's audience is sophisticated enough to understand what they are watching. Pro sports will sometimes slug a shot "Reverse angle" if the camera is across the field from the announcer's position. People understand that the players are now running in the opposite direction.

The language of film and compositional approach has altered dramatically. Recall that in early film, it was unthinkable to shoot a closeup - for fear the audience would be 'confused' by a head without a body. Let alone MOVING the camera, or even PANNING it. But as techniques change and evolve - the audience learns to adapt. I still get frustrated by 'verite shake' of handheld techniques, but it has come to be expected as a more 'real' look, however carefully contrived it is.

Last week, I was watching an episode of NCIS - there was a very personal dialog scene between two characters - and the camera kept jumping back and forth across the line. I mean they were OBVIOUSLY breaking the line to make a point. Sometimes the closeups had the heads on the same side of the screen, sometimes on opposite sides, without an 'establishing' shot between to orient the viewer. I was very annoyed by this - and turned to my wife. "Did you notice anything weird about that scene?" "No, I mean, it was really well acted, they have great writers... what did you mean?" - Never mind.

Of course, one must know the rules, and know them well, in order to 'break' them.

I agree with my neighbor, Mr. Alvarez. For drama/narrative Shaun's observations hold true, but for live events, i-mag, etc., the fact that the same face is 'flipped' usually presents no problems. (Especially if in either 'flip' the face is facing toward the center of the screen. Generally, if you 'cross-shoot';the audience left camera shooting the audience right action on stage and vice versa. I find framing much more crucial, going from a medium shot to another medium shot on a different camera is a bigger no-no. With 3 cameras the decision as to whether to put cameras all from center to one side or splitting them audience-left and audience-right is more a decision about coverage issues for me.

Personally, most important is having you and your other camera operators either be able to communicate during the event via clear-com/pl/fb/intercom system or talk ahead of time about the nature of the show. Something like "if the major interest is stage right then audience right camera cross-shoots in CU and audience left camera loosens to a 2-3 shot. If it then moves to center, camA follows..."

In full agreement with Richard and Eric. And yes, the "too close framing" between intercut shots IS quite visually disturbing to me and oftimes overshadows any issues I may have surrounding continuity editing and Crossing The Line.

My favourite line comes from Richard and it is one I use a lot when teaching - One must know the rules before being allowed to "break" them. I think a lot of the visual language of film has been detrimentally lost by filmmakers that have broken the rules indiscriminantly for no reason other than they didn't put enough planning into shooting and decided in edit that "no one will notice" as opposed to "let's break that rule in order to create tension and unease". This is a natural effect of the democratization of filmmaking - at one point the only people making films were HIGHLY skilled technicians and artists who apprenticed and learned after schooling taught them "the rules". Now anyone can make a "film" seen by millions thanks to social networking and the YouTubes and Vimeos of the world. It's your call as to which is a greater boon to society and the movie watching population as a whole.