neptunebob
Well-known member
Well, I was asking if 3 cameras were expensive, hence Guiding light's "New Look"?
Were the first seasons of 'Bewitched' filmed in colour?
- Thread starter wilkinsservis
- Start date
Help Support :
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Neptunebob:
Three-camera is cheaper than conventional filming, where the camera setup is changed for every new position of the actors. In conventional filming, it costs a lot of money to move the camera, change the lighting, etc., because a lot of time and effort are involved. At its best (Lucy, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, etc.) three-camera can deliver results that are reasonably close to feature-film quality.
Three-camera requires three cameras (of course!) and it also requires three camera operators. It also requires a floor director who really knows his stuff, to keep everything under control. Three-camera also requires specially built sets, with an absolutely smooth floor surface, because the cameras are usually on what are called crab dollies - camera bases on rubber-tyred wheels that are supposed to move smoothly around the set. If the camera dolly rolls over an imperfection in the floor, the resulting film looks like an earthquake hit during filming (in fact, the way you simulate an earthquake in movies is usually to shake the camera). So a perfect floor is mandatory.
"Cheap" is relative, and filming costs for every method are so high that producers, studios and networks are always looking for ways to make them cost less. Since audiences have shown some willingness to accept hand-held camera work, it has become an option in recent years, where it was not before. I personally do not like it, because the viewer is conscious of the camera, and of the fact that whatever he's watching is a movie or TV show. With the old way, the story became "real" to you, because you forgot about the camera; there was no shaking, etc., to remind you that what you were seeing was film or videotape.
One of the things I find interesting about hand-held is that the higher the resolution of a TV, the more obnoxious the shakiness becomes. An HDTV picture is so detailled and realistic that the shakiness of hand-held almost makes me feel dizzy, like the shakiness is me instead of the camera.
Three-camera is cheaper than conventional filming, where the camera setup is changed for every new position of the actors. In conventional filming, it costs a lot of money to move the camera, change the lighting, etc., because a lot of time and effort are involved. At its best (Lucy, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, etc.) three-camera can deliver results that are reasonably close to feature-film quality.
Three-camera requires three cameras (of course!) and it also requires three camera operators. It also requires a floor director who really knows his stuff, to keep everything under control. Three-camera also requires specially built sets, with an absolutely smooth floor surface, because the cameras are usually on what are called crab dollies - camera bases on rubber-tyred wheels that are supposed to move smoothly around the set. If the camera dolly rolls over an imperfection in the floor, the resulting film looks like an earthquake hit during filming (in fact, the way you simulate an earthquake in movies is usually to shake the camera). So a perfect floor is mandatory.
"Cheap" is relative, and filming costs for every method are so high that producers, studios and networks are always looking for ways to make them cost less. Since audiences have shown some willingness to accept hand-held camera work, it has become an option in recent years, where it was not before. I personally do not like it, because the viewer is conscious of the camera, and of the fact that whatever he's watching is a movie or TV show. With the old way, the story became "real" to you, because you forgot about the camera; there was no shaking, etc., to remind you that what you were seeing was film or videotape.
One of the things I find interesting about hand-held is that the higher the resolution of a TV, the more obnoxious the shakiness becomes. An HDTV picture is so detailled and realistic that the shakiness of hand-held almost makes me feel dizzy, like the shakiness is me instead of the camera.
whirlcool
Well-known member
But doesn't the "steadycam" overcome this hand held feeling?
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Whirlcool:
Steadicams overcome the shakes when they're used, but there are some directors who like the shaky look, thinking it's "cool." And Steadicam footage never looks the same as footage from a camera on a mount; the rock-steady quality of a mounted camera isn't the same as the slightly "floaty" look you get with Steadicam. Steadicam does have its place, though, and in the right hands, it makes a lot of shots possible that weren't before. I just don't like to see it used to replace mounted cameras in shows that have been filmed with mounted cameras in the past, like the soap operas mentioned here previously.
Steadicams overcome the shakes when they're used, but there are some directors who like the shaky look, thinking it's "cool." And Steadicam footage never looks the same as footage from a camera on a mount; the rock-steady quality of a mounted camera isn't the same as the slightly "floaty" look you get with Steadicam. Steadicam does have its place, though, and in the right hands, it makes a lot of shots possible that weren't before. I just don't like to see it used to replace mounted cameras in shows that have been filmed with mounted cameras in the past, like the soap operas mentioned here previously.
