What do you think of my DPs approach?

[harmonica44]

I am planning on shooting my next project and got a new DP having seeing and liking his previous work.

He wants to use more than one camera, when I only have one in my budget. He wants to use one in all shots, saying that the editing will be ruined if I do not have all the shots with a camera going at the same time, and positioned perfectly, so they won't be seen in any of the shots, with crew members, ready to move them back and forth so the camera's won't get in each others frame. This wasn't in my budget either. My budget was too do one shot at a time, but all planned out on paper and storyboards of course.

He also says that if an actor makes a mistake on a line, I need to restart the whole scene, and shoot from the beginning from that specific shot where he is suppose to say the line, otherwise the performance will not come off as natural. I prefer to just have the camera in certain places, when actors are to deliver certain sections of the scene. That way those shots convey certain tones, for certain sections of the scene. But he says I must restart the whole scene, every different shot I have in the storyboards, just to make the performance more natural.

Some of the storyboards I have planned, with multiple shots, in a scene, would make his method take weeks to do a scene with just one camera, possibly.

I told him how it creates a lot more time in post, and more shooting time on set. It creates more time in post cause you're going through a bunch of footage you don't need that were not part of the original storyboards, since every shot had a camera rolling the whole shoot. He says that that's required to get the performance and continuity right, and that the single camera will ruin it, even though I've read that pros use single cameras a lot in Hollywood. Even though he has more cameras of different types, it would take me more time in post to color correct it to match, and possibly cost more to get it right, then it would to pay the actors to stick around more on set, for more shots with one camera.

But now he seems very pessimistic about doing it, and looks like he might just wants to get it over with. Is he right, am I being unprofessional, or he being unreasonable to the budget?

 

[rayw]

Get a different DP.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay so it's not me then.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

He's right on restarting the scene from the beginning. He's wrong on EVERYTHING else.

 

[knightly]

Unless the actors stop, keep them going... if they drop one line, but have all of the rest of the take EXACTLY the way you want it, starting over kills that take. finisht the take, get another, get another until you have all the pieces to edit together. A single scene in just about every movie you've ever seen is cobbled together from the best bits of all of the takes done. Every time the shot cuts, it's potentially a different take... even within that take, the dialog may not be from the same take as the visuals. I always have my actors go through a scene 4-5 times for each framing/side so I have footage to choose from to cut the best possible scene. I like to have small delivery changes each time as well so I can choose from a variety of intensities or pacings to fit into the rest of the edit.

Single camera is the norm, not the exception. Often in a multiple camera setup, the cameras are still on the same shot just with different lenses to get 2 different framings of the same shot. That way, the lighting will be able to be better in each shot as you have more room to hide them. My job as a DP is to make the shots look the best they can. You don't get that by splitting your focus (that's a play on words -- for the record) between 2 shots at the same time. You get that by having a single mindedness for each and every setup. My job is to make the lights, framing and focus LOOK good. Someone else worries about the set/makeup/costumes (unless they don't work with what I'm doing, then we discuss it -- before hand). Someone else worries about the dialog capture. I worry about the picture. End of statement.

Your DP serves you and your vision, not their own -- those sets SUCK to work on and the footage comes back half assed. If they produce good images, they can do so even better if they can worry about tweaking the lighting for one camera instead of two.

Don't ask, you're the producer/director (read: Boss/Foreman). You make the statement; "We'll be doing single camera setups." No reasons or excuses, just a factual statement. If they have a problem with that, hire someone else... My day rate is US$350 / 12hr day + travel & lodging. I'll even present you with references if you'd like.

 

[LasVegasIRA]

The DP's job is to assist the director in achieving his/her vision. So, is the two camera thing your vision, or is it the DP's? The answer to that question should tell you what to do.

 

[rayw]

He's right on restarting the scene from the beginning. He's wrong on EVERYTHING else.

Isn't it the director's job, not the DP's, to stop the shot?

Also, doesn't it depend upon how anal... "precise" the director/DP wants to be?
- Could be a David Fincher type and want thirty takes of every shot and let the editor piece together something.
- Could be an Eli Roth type and get two/three takes and move on.

Third, depending upon the severity of the transgression, can't a flubbed line or movement often be edited or fixed with a cutaway?

Fourth, at some point the actors are either going to straighten up and fly right and get their act together - or - constant interruption of their "flow", erroneous or not, going to have an adverse effect on their performance across a day?

Just wondering.
You've done this considerably more than I have.
And I would like to clarify that I do realize it's primarily the producer's money getting burned with the time it takes to do all this, so by no mean do I advocate letting the actors control the set and go hog-wild waaaaay off the reservation. I'm keen on keeping all the sheep going in the right direction.

TY!

Unless the actors stop, keep them going... if they drop one line, but have all of the rest of the take EXACTLY the way you want it, starting over kills that take. finisht the take, get another, get another until you have all the pieces to edit together. A single scene in just about every movie you've ever seen is cobbled together from the best bits of all of the takes done.

Yeah! Exactly.
I thought this was the norm and marathon four minute take were ABnormal.

Same for the single camera approach, for like... 90% of films.

 

[harmonica44]

He thinks that if there is no multi-cameras, that the cutaways will be ruined by non-continuous acting. Like if I use a reaction shot, from shot 4, take 3, for example, he will think that it will ring false, if I am using that to cut away from shot 3, take 2. If that makes sense.

I could have actors play out the scene, every time I switch shots. But what about small insert shots, such as an actor giving a frightened look, when is is talking to someone, and then notices something on the desk. The point of view will then switch to a shot of the camera, pointed up from the desk, to his face. I don't need to have the actors react the whole scene, just for that shot, which I plan to only use for two seconds do I? But he says in order for the performance to ring true with the other shots, I need a camera on the desk, the whole time, as well, not able to be seen in the other shots. I also have to use all the same shots, from the same take. Like if I decide to use shot 4, take 4, I have to have every other cutaway I of the same take, while shooting multicam. I cannot mix takes, or the performances will come off as untrue. He says a pro would never mix takes, and the cutaways, back and forth, should all be off the same take.

 

[DeJager]

I could have actors play out the scene, every time I switch shots.

You should have the actors start the scene from the beginning each time (there are always exceptions) but really the coverage will help in post production. Start from the beginning!

Also... I am not sure what your "DP" thinks when he says nobody mixes takes... that is crazy talk. Absolutely crazy talk.

You can most certainly mix takes. Your job as a director is to make sure those actors deliver CONSISTENT that way you can take bits and pieces from various takes.

 

[TheArtist]

He thinks that if there is no multi-cameras, that the cutaways will be ruined by non-continuous acting. Like if I use a reaction shot, from shot 4, take 3, for example, he will think that it will ring false, if I am using that to cut away from shot 3, take 2. If that makes sense.

I could have actors play out the scene, every time I switch shots. But what about small insert shots, such as an actor giving a frightened look, when is is talking to someone, and then notices something on the desk. The point of view will then switch to a shot of the camera, pointed up from the desk, to his face. I don't need to have the actors react the whole scene, just for that shot, which I plan to only use for two seconds do I? But he says in order for the performance to ring true with the other shots, I need a camera on the desk, the whole time, as well, not able to be seen in the other shots. I also have to use all the same shots, from the same take. Like if I decide to use shot 4, take 4, I have to have every other cutaway I of the same take, while shooting multicam. I cannot mix takes, or the performances will come off as untrue. He says a pro would never mix takes, and the cutaways, back and forth, should all be off the same take.

You should give more air into your paragraphs.

Nolan works his movies with one camera (except for actions scenes I believe).

Start a scene all over or not depends on the scene. Rodriguez would retake just the failed part.

All in all, it's your movie. The DP is your employee. You tell him how you want it to be done. He does his best to do that or leaves if he disagrees with your vision.

Oh and the DP shouldn't talk about editing unless he plans on doing it.

 

[mus]

either way will achieve the same thing, and it won't create more time in post, as you should only be color-correcting after the rough cut is complete... why would you color correct unused footage?

 

[mus]

and honestly, the more footage you have available in editing, the better.

 

[harmonica44]

either way will achieve the same thing, and it won't create more time in post, as you should only be color-correcting after the rough cut is complete... why would you color correct unused footage?

What I mean is, is that he wants to use multiple cameras. All of his cameras are not of the same brand and model, so they will likely produce a somewhat different looking picture, which will have to be all color corrected to look like it's the same camera, in all the shots I do use. As oppose to using the same camera all the time, where it all matches.

 

[mus]

oh! okay, that's bad. don't do that. lol

 

[PaulGriffith]

I like to use as many cameras as we can. Even if there's only two shots from the shot list we can pull of at once, if there's a third camera I encourage the DP and camera department to go nuts while I focus on what's on the paper haha. Just like an actor gives a better performance when on the set and in costume, when on set and everything is lit well new shots will jump out to a good DP. I've used several of those shots in the final edit of various productions.

However, you already answered your question. You only have budget for one camera, you can make one work. Like other's have said, many, many movies have been shot with only one camera and it's a tried and true way of getting it done. In fact, with a newbie crew and directors/producers one camera might even be a better way to go. You focus 100% on the one shot and getting it just right instead of trying to balance another ball in the air.

Finally, you should trust the people you pick as department heads, especially the DP. You have final say if it's your movie, but hopefully the people you hire are more experienced in their field than you. If you can't trust your DP, find someone you can. If I was a DP and found out that my director was second guessing every single thing I said and asking a bunch of online random strangers if I picked the right color for my camera strap or not, I would politely back out of the project because that would drive me nuts.

Well, unless it paid really, really well

 

[knightly]

I'm going to use your questions and turn them into statements by removing theinterrogatives... start thinking this way rather than in the interrogatives... then you'll be a director:

I use a reaction shot, from shot 4, take 3, for example, I am using that to cut away from shot 3, take 2.

That's a decisive statement, sounds like you know your stuff.

I will have actors play out the scene, every time I switch shots. For small insert shots, such as an actor giving a frightened look, when is is talking to someone, and then notices something on the desk. The point of view will then switch to a shot of the camera, pointed up from the desk, to his face. I don't need to have the actors react the whole scene, just for that shot, which I plan to only use for two seconds. do I?

There, do you feel more confident yet. You know all the answers, you just don't have the faith in yourself yet... stop asking questions and start making statements -- you're teetering over the edge of the hill in your toboggan... it's time to put your feet up and lean forward!

But he says in order for the performance to ring true with the other shots, I need a camera on the desk, the whole time, as well, not able to be seen in the other shots. I also have to use all the same shots, from the same take. Like if I decide to use shot 4, take 4, I have to have every other cutaway I of the same take, while shooting multicam. I cannot mix takes, or the performances will come off as untrue. He says a pro would never mix takes, and the cutaways, back and forth, should all be off the same take.

He should put down the crack pipe and start using google to do some fact checking before telling me my job... I've been paid to do this work, I'm a working professional, and I'd never sleep at night if I had to get it all in one solid take. Tom Cruise said in an interview that he's not that good of an actor, the editor makes him look like it by choosing the right bits of the right takes and mixing and matching them. We're making a jigsaw puzzle by cutting out all the pieces, then drawing on them and making them fit back together afterwards... you want alot of different pieces that can fit to find the right / most convincing one.

Continuity is on the actor, the director and the continuity person (that position exists to make take after take consistent so they can be cut together)... if you have a continuity problem though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Gve37nWBo

We'll forgive quite a bit as an audience. There are some experiements I was trying to find where actors are changing shirts and scarves between takes, and it's less noticeable than you'd think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3vQQ3ntVY4

 

[knightly]

and these... obviously (according to your DP guy) not made by pros -- who would never use separate takes, and therefore never run into these issues: http://www.moviemistakes.com/best_continuity.php

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Isn't it the director's job, not the DP's, to stop the shot?

Also, doesn't it depend upon how anal... "precise" the director/DP wants to be?
- Could be a David Fincher type and want thirty takes of every shot and let the editor piece together something.
- Could be an Eli Roth type and get two/three takes and move on.

Third, depending upon the severity of the transgression, can't a flubbed line or movement often be edited or fixed with a cutaway?

Fourth, at some point the actors are either going to straighten up and fly right and get their act together - or - constant interruption of their "flow", erroneous or not, going to have an adverse effect on their performance across a day?

Just wondering.
You've done this considerably more than I have.
And I would like to clarify that I do realize it's primarily the producer's money getting burned with the time it takes to do all this, so by no mean do I advocate letting the actors control the set and go hog-wild waaaaay off the reservation. I'm keen on keeping all the sheep going in the right direction.

TY!



Yeah! Exactly.
I thought this was the norm and marathon four minute take were ABnormal.

Same for the single camera approach, for like... 90% of films.

A slight misstep, part of the line dropped, not delivered the way I want, etc..., I let them keep going. If the line is totally blown i'm yelling "cut". To me it's more a waste of time to keep rolling on a take that is almost certainly going to be unusable than to just start over.

Not mixing takes is about the dumbest damn thing I have ever heard.

Yes, a LONG scene is 3 or 4 minutes. Any longer than that I'd probably split it into a new scene in the shooting script.

 

[slapshot]

Following all the responses to your post I feel like I'm "piling on" at this point...but I can't help it. You should get a new DP. I have seen it often where a DP tries to override a newbie director and it is a bummer. The time to avoid these kinds of situations are during crew interviews. I'll never forget the first feature I shot, I interviewed a seasoned DP who was older and more experienced than me and chock full of himself. I didn't like the ideas he had, and I didn't like his attitude, but he came highly recommended. It suddenly dawned on me that if spending 10 minutes with this guy was this painful, imagine spending three weeks with him?

Looking back on it, I was actually fortunate that this DP showed his colors right off the bat. Better to realize that you are incompatible with someone in the first ten minutes than two days before the start of principal photography.

It's important to find someone who will carry out YOUR vision. I ended up hiring a DP that I made two features with so far. This was our modus operandi: We would go over shots in pre-pro and if he thought a shot suggestion I had could be done better, he would share it with me. I would take it into consideration and "yay" it or "nay" it. If I "nayed" it, that was the end of the discussion. But I also "yayed" a lot of suggestions he had.

When we were actually on-set and shooting, it was the same rule. If he had any suggestions to make, he could do so, but in a discreet manner that did not make me look like an chump in front of the crew and actors. Again, many of the suggestions he made were solid and we went with that. Bottom line is that this DP understood that film is a collaboration, but that at the end of the day it was my vision we were filming...not his.

And just to back-up the other responders to this post, yes, everyone mixes takes, and regarding flubs there is rarely the need to start a scene from the beginning again if you are working with good actors who can keep the energy going and just back up a few lines to pick it up again.

 

[harmonica44]

This is what I thought, and I don't know where he gets his info from. I am also co-directing someone else's project but decided to let him have all the final yays or nays, since it was his to begin with, and he's the writer, producer as well. I understand that, and do not want to take over the project.