• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Continuous shot 10 min short - Best camera and grip set up?

Hi,

I'm making a single shot/long take film. Approx 9-10 minutes of continuous action. I will follow the talent from interior to exterior and some light running too will be required.

I have access to a glidecam but can't seem to get any joy with the device at all. Was thinking of having a wide angle lens on a 7d or 5d mk2 but am unsure about the image stability. Has anyone had any experience in doing these long stedicam shots. Any advice?

Kenan
 
The biggest issue will be exposure. How are you going to go from inside to outside without changing exposure and white balance? I mean if you have a grip truck to throw several thousand watts of daylight balanced light on the interior it might work.
 
Ditto the exposure. If you shoot in that short window in the twilight hour where outside is as bright as inside you might be able to pull it off, but you won't get many retakes.

You want a deep DOF with this. A wide lens helps as well as a slower aperture. Would suck to go 9 minutes in and lose focus.

Glidecam can work great with some practice. I'm terrible with one, but one of our camera ops spent A LOT of time with ours and has gotten pretty good with it. Problem with a glidecam is that you don't have focus control (or aperture with an external ring) or really any settings on the camera since your hands aren't on it. A shoulder rig might be better, but you'll have a little more shake.

A big question too, how are you going to light it? not sure how the action flows, but if there's a lot of movement you'll need to hide a lot of light compensating for every angle and use practicals too.
 
I third the notion that your biggest issue is exposure. White balance can simply be solved by using blue gels. But that exposure is going to be tricky.

I agree with Paul, that you should keep a wide depth of field. Even so, focus will be a major issue.
 
The exposure issue is tricky but it shouldn't discourage you from being creative. Every revolutionary shot in a movie has "awed" critics for the very reason that they figured out a way to do it when everyone else thought of it as something problematic and to be avoided.
 
As to the exposure: Couldn't you take readings from inside and out. Then crank the aperture, on the fly, to whatever f-stop you need? You might get a little blown out moment when you cross the threshold of the window to outside but that could work in your favor by disguising any movement you make when cranking down the aperture?? Just a thought.
 
The exposure issue is tricky but it shouldn't discourage you from being creative. Every revolutionary shot in a movie has "awed" critics for the very reason that they figured out a way to do it when everyone else thought of it as something problematic and to be avoided.

Heck yeah, dude, I'm all for it. I plan on doing something similar, myself. I'm just want to make sure the OP considers what are truly their biggest concerns, so that the project will be a greater success. :)
 
I do it often. I love long shots. My longest was 21 minutes.

Steadiness is an issue. In most cases I have used a Stedicam - the
real thing. I am not a fan of the Glidecam either. I have gone
handheld a few times when the shot is around five/six minutes.
Longer than that and it’s really hard on the operator. I suppose if you
are going for the “reality” shakycam look, handheld would be just fine.

Regarding exposure and focus: the more shallow you DOF is the more
difficult focus will be. That’s one good thing about having a deep DOF
in these situations. With practice exposure can be changed on the fly.
This is where accessories come in.

Wireless control of both makes it so easy. But it can be done manually
if that’s your only option. Just rehearse, rehearse and rehearse. I have
never done it or seen it done manually with the DSLR cameras - only
using wireless - so I suspect it is quite a challenge.

But isn’t that why you’re doing this?
 
Thanks for the advice.. what about if I kept the interior shorts purposefully darker? And used pools of concentrated light to highlight certain blocked positions ie as the talent sits at a table. Also sparsely used bg light just to bump up the overall levels indoors?

Maybe LED's?
 
Last edited:
There's always the possibility of doing a "rope"/masked cut at a strategic location, so you can treat the two exposure scenarios separately. But in some cases pulling that off could wind up being more challenging than the one-take. Just a thought.

As mentioned, a wide lens is definitely the way to go here. The appearance of jitter is minimized and you'll get a wider depth-of-field.

I imagine you'd want a fair amount of light on the interior as you may find it necessary to stop the lens down a bit to allow more wiggle room for focusing. (Even on a wide, I'd still take it a couple stops down. Particularly on a "fast" wide.)

If you've got the budget for it, or have access to one... the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a great lens for this kind of stuff.
 
Last edited:
I'd been wondering how the pros did it, regarding exposure, moving from inside to out. After reading Gonzo's and Rik's posts, shall I assume that they're just pulling exposure?

I can't do that, not now. So, I've decided that my first long shot will be either all-inside or all-outside (probably all inside).

I suspect it is quite a challenge.

But isn’t that why you’re doing this?

Ain't that the truth! Last week, I was discussing music-video ideas with a musician friend, at work. On the short-list is a single-shot video; my friends like the idea (there's of course more details than the fact that it's one shot), and I'm excited about it, so I think it's what we'll go with.

We're still open to tossing out new ideas, though, and one of the ideas that was mentioned was also a single shot, except not the kind that a filmmaker would prefer to do. The idea mentioned was more along the lines of OK Go's breakout viral hit.

I told my friend, yeah, that's a really cool idea, but I have to be honest -- from a purely selfish perspective, I don't like it because it doesn't allow me to be a filmmaker. The video I had in mind would challenge the heck out of me, I'd surely make mistakes, I'd surely learn a lot, and I'd surely have a lot of fun.

Anyway, long story short, mrpeech I absolutely endorse your idea of making this video. I do feel the need to temper that encouragement with the harsh reality that it is going to be EXTREMELY difficult to make the exposure issue work, using the camera you've got. Us low-budget filmmakers have to make compromises -- is there any way for you to alter the concept to entirely take place inside, or entirely outside? If you do it inside/outside, you'll have to light the HECK out of the inside.

Either that, or rehearse from early morning until JUST the right moment, and shoot it at dusk. And nail it, in one take, or come back the next day and try it again. In that scenario, I'd think exposure and white-balance should be tested a day in advance.

Good luck!
 
Another idea occurred to me. This is something I've done a couple times before...

You can use a variable neutral density filter. It'll probably require a bit of practice, but it can be done. What you do is set the VND filter to open and expose for the inside. Then when the camera is outside, simply close down the filter until you reach proper exposure (leave camera settings as set for the interior). During the transition from outside to inside, adjust accordingly from closed to open. It can be done without looking like auto-exposure. Lead into it well ahead of time and gradually ease into the filter's open position.

I think of it sorta like riding audio... not hasty, where a sudden spike is noticed. Just ease into it.
 
Another idea occurred to me. This is something I've done a couple times before...

You can use a variable neutral density filter. It'll probably require a bit of practice, but it can be done. What you do is set the VND filter to open and expose for the inside. Then when the camera is outside, simply close down the filter until you reach proper exposure (leave camera settings as set for the interior). During the transition from outside to inside, adjust accordingly from closed to open. It can be done without looking like auto-exposure. Lead into it well ahead of time and gradually ease into the filter's open position.

I think of it sorta like riding audio... not hasty, where a sudden spike is noticed. Just ease into it.

Excellent suggestion. To be frank, though, I'm curious what it looks like, if you're forced to stop-down in set incriments.

Serious question -- if anyone knows the answer, or has a link to a behind-the-scenes something, I'd love to see it -- how the heck did they do it in "Children of Men"?! Was that just masterful lighting? Camera-tricks? Post-magic? All-of-the-above?
 
I think the BIGGEST challenge is getting a watchable 10 minute take.

I know the OP didn't bring this into the topic of discussion, but when we're talking about challenges, this is the biggest one of all. Most people can't make a watchable 10 minute film even with complete editing tools and hundreds of takes at their disposal.

Good luck!
 
If we're talking about the same movie, yeah, exactly. This appears to be the kind of movie that I'd be interested in watching but when I found out how this movie was made, I've steered clear of it.

Russian Ark was a 100 minute single shot. A masterpiece of pre-production and choreography as the camera moved down halls and from room to room in a huge palace where various scenes played out, BUT got pretty tiring after a while.
 
Excellent suggestion. To be frank, though, I'm curious what it looks like, if you're forced to stop-down in set incriments.

The nice thing about those variable neutral density filters is they rotate freely, very much like a circular polarizer.
(At least the ones I've used. Can't really comment on the more expensive Singh-Ray variety.)
 
Back
Top