how many cameras?

[Brian Luce]

Is it common to cover a wedding with a single camera?

[Steven Davis]

Common? I imagine that many clients feel that's all they need, but it is not comon for us because typically it's the lowballers that get those jobs.

Is it dangerous, absolutely. By that I mean if you have only one camera, and no backup, if you have tapefailure or other technical problems, you're are up that proverbial creek with out said rowing device.

[Peter Jefferson]

95% of video producers in australia only use 1 camera.. with no backup either.. some use one camera and keep a backup in the car.

in regards to lowballers... i dont believe that to be the actual case.. in fact some of the biggest "name" videographers use only one camera.. in fact, one guy takes 3 to 4 jobs a week and hires newbies to cover the shoot (pays them peanuts) with one camera. Whether they're good or not is relative to the clients needs, but the fact remains, they're making money and taking jobs from other companies by double and triple booking and above this, misrepresenting the experience and skill of the task at hand. In turn showing demos of work filmed by experienced shooters and providing a substandard shooter on the day itself.

Fact remains there are many MANY comapanies that not only do this, but thrive on this single camera mentality.

[Ryan Huddleston]

we allways use two but it could be done with one. i would really recomend having a detailed plan for the cerimony. and i would go to the rehersal and do a test run. just remember that the rehersal in allot faster pace that the cerimony usually is.

[Steven Davis]

Let me expound on my statement about lowballers. Since in our area, our prices are among the lowest when comparred the level of service we bring, the majority of our competition's one camera price is still more than our multiple camera packages, and in my experience around here, those who choose one or are looking for a one camera package, typcially find our prices too high, these are the same people looking for only 30 minutes of coverage and dont' understand that for you to be there for 30 minutes means you can't be at someone else's wedding all day.

So they get uncle fred or those couple of people running around with a 70% lower price.

This is what I was referring to. Thanks Peter.

[John Moon]

We typically use 3 cameras. 2 manned and one unmanned. Plus redundant audio backup.
John

[Don Bloom]

years ago it was not only common but the norm. First cameras were very big, heavy and expensive most of us could only afford one. Second video wasn't commonly done at weddings (I'm talking about 20 to 25 years ago-giving away my age here)
Today with the price and size of cameras 2 3 4 or even 5 cameras isn't all that unusual of course BUT here's the caveat.
ALWAYS shot as though you only have the one camera going. That means, slow moves, slow pans, tilts, whatever move you make. WHY? What happens if your 2nd camera craps out on you, or you have a head clog or you forgot to start it or the shot get blocked or any number of things that can go wrong with electronics. Even when the camera is manned it can still go out on you, so while it's always better to shoot with 2 or 3 shoot the one you're working like the others aren't there. Guess what, your edit will actually be easier.
BTW, there are only 2 kinds of videographers, Those that IT has happened to and those that IT will happen to.
It has or will happen to all of us, some more than once but you gotta go with the flow.
Ah the wonderful wacky world of weddings ;-)
Don

[Peter Ralph]

Robert Allen was (is?) a big advocate of the single camera shoot and the short form only edit. The two go together - if you don't need full narrative coverage, you can create a beautiful product with a single camera. It is risky though - the pro in prosumer doesn't extend to build quality.

You have to be comfortable and confident with your camera moves - you can't do it from a tripod. And vice versa - if you shoot with more cameras than operators, then at least two of the cameras have to be on tripods.

unless you are very imaginative:

http://www.shootingbynumbers.com/?p=133

[Vito DeFilippo]

We do mostly full day coverage, long form video with one camera, though I always carry a small backup cam in my bag in case of disaster.

I would love to do more two camera shoots, but our market seems to find the expense too much to bear. It's a hard sell, but slowly we are getting more, thank god.

It's certainly possible to do a very good video with one camera, but it's stressful, and demands concentration and experience.

[Jason Donaldson]

Originally Posted by Steven Davis

I imagine that many clients feel that's all they need, but it is not comon for us because typically it's the lowballers that get those jobs.

Can you explain the term "lowballer". Who are you refering to when you say this????

[Vito DeFilippo]

Originally Posted by Jason Donaldson

Can you explain the term "lowballer". Who are you refering to when you say this????

A lowballer is a videographer (in this case) who undercuts all the other videographers in order to get the job. The implication is that the product will suck, and the client should have paid more to get quality.

[Yang Wen]

huge difference between those two statements..

a crew of more than one videographers can capture an event in a much higher quality fashion than if it was just one of those videographer working by himself. It's unfortunate that this is a fact of life for us videographers.