Multi Camera Shoot. How Long on each Shot?

[greenidge]

We are using 2 cameras in our church service for the Internet broadcast. We would like to know if there is a rule of thumb or some guideline for how long to stay on a particular shot before moving to the other camera. The key time is when the band and choir are singing/playing as there are about 15 people on the platform. At what point should a composed shot be changed? One camera is fixed and the other is controllable.

[tdangelo]

Originally Posted by greenidge

We would like to know if there is a rule of thumb or some guideline for how long to stay on a particular shot before moving to the other camera.

Greenidge,

In thirty years of working in TV I can tell you that I have yet to find a formula for how long to stay on a shot. There are many variables:

(1) Content
(2) Intended Audience
(3) Medium which the intended audience will be viewing the program

Your question specifically mentioned “Internet Broadcast.” For Internet Broadcasts the tolerances tend to be greater than for some other mediums, so that would tend to broaden my answer even more.

Don Hewitt, famed executive producer for 60 Minutes repeatedly used a phrase when speaking with his reporters, cameramen, editors, etc. It became a mantra for which Don became famous. I think we in the church can learn from it as well. When questions would arise about content during a segment, camera blocking, an edit, etc., Don Hewitt would tell the 60 Minutes team,

“Tell me a story …”

In other words … how does the question at hand affect the telling of the story? What is the story? How will my audience understand it? The story must be more than simply a delivery of facts. But rather “the story” should be the factual, creative, compelling and engaging telling of truths.

Don would use the example of Bible stories handed down (in many cases verbally) from one generation to another. Jesus, more than any other communicator than I am aware of used stories to communicate truths.

I think if you judge your question regarding shot duration for a webcast under the Don Hewitt’s standard, the answer may surprise you. Although I did not answer your question in a direct fashion, I think the best answer to “how long should I stay on a shot?” is, “as long as you need to.”

[sinc747]

Great reply, Tom!

[cmchamp]

We don't multi-cam our services yet, however, for our Easter productions, we do shoot 3 and sometimes 4 cameras worth of footage. Because we have not the personnel for a producer, nor the $$ to add com sets to our com system, I just hope for the best and take the best shots I can. That said, during musical selections, I try to keep my edits in time with the music and at least a phrase long.
C.

[Ebroach]

Keep the shot long enough to know what or who they are seeing.. So many times even on live events on TV they are switching so fast you hardly know who it is they are looking at..

[tdangelo]

If you have a 1/2 hour, I can think of many worse ways to spend it than listening to Don Hewitt:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1512031861/

[greenidge]

Thanks everyone, the input is very much appreciated. The challenge we face is to get all three of us camera operators on the same page with regard to the consistency of the shots. One person tends to hold the shot shorter than the others, another person much longer so I am trying to see if we can all get ourselves to the place where we know it time to move off the shot. The band and choir are singing the "story". My thought was to try to get the Internet congregants to feel as if they are in the building with the rest of us, so our shots would tend to show them medium and tights of the singers and musicians. I try to stay off any one person for an entire verse as that is not what I would do if I were looking at them from the congregation. Let me know what you think.

[tdangelo]

Greenidge,

Originally Posted by greenidge

The challenge we face is to get all three of us camera operators on the same page with regard to the consistency of the shots. One person tends to hold the shot shorter than the others, another person much longer so I am trying to see if we can all get ourselves to the place where we know it time to move off the shot.

Based on your question it sounds like no one is directing. You are using two cameras simultaneously, no? Is there a Director calling camera shots?


Typically a Director would decide how long a camera operator sits on a shot. Either by overtly asking the camera operator to hold a shot until otherwise directed or by inference (by cutting away from a camera operators shot and therefore freeing him up to reset for a next shot).


So, I am not clear in your situation why the camera operators are deciding how long to sit on a shot.


I’ve seen some situations where a church TV director was passive and the camera operators did whatever they wanted. In this scenario it is important that (1) the camera operators know that when their camera is offline that they have the creative freedom to “sell” a shot to the director, and (2) sometimes church cameramen are stagnant because they are afraid to mix it up, or there is an assumption that because they shoot stagnant shots every week that this is what they are supposed to do.


Both of these scenarios are communication issues between the director and the camera operators.

Originally Posted by greenidge

My thought was to try to get the Internet congregants to feel as if they are in the building with the rest of us, so our shots would tend to show them medium and tights of the singers and musicians. I try to stay off any one person for an entire verse as that is not what I would do if I were looking at them from the congregation. Let me know what you think.

Yes. To engage the internet TV audience you may want to shoot the very things which your eye wanders to when seated with the congregation in a live service. That would include wide establishing shots, tighter shots of singers and musicians, shots of the congregation, facial expressions and body language from the preacher when delivering the message. Plus, you may want to give the internet TV audience shots that the live congregation would rarely see, like reversals of the singer & audience or Pastor & audience, etc.

All this in the context of “telling the story.”

The message is “compassion to suffering people” but the story was the good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-37).

The message was “worldly-mindedness” but the story is the rich fool (Lk 12:16-21).

The message was “God’s joy over the penitent” but the story was the lost sheep (Matt 18:11-14).

Viewers connect with the people in stories and it is this connection which we as story tellers drive or fail at.

When looking at a script, voice-over, camera blocking, lighting, an edit, etc. for a segment about compassion to suffering, Don Hewitt (60 Minutes) would ask, “How does this decision enhance the story of the Samaritan?” Do I feel connected to the Samaritan? Do I share in the feeling of being a social outcast? Do I know someone who is like the rich fool? I am I like the rich fool? How does the Sheppard feel when a sheep is lost? How does the Sheppard feel when a sheep is found? Am I a sheep in need of being found?

The point here is that if we concentrate on telling the story we will engage the audience and therefore have the opportunity and an open heart to convey the message. If we however concentrate solely on the message at the expense of story the audience will not be engaged and the message will become lost.

This is a hard truth for many in the church to accept who may believe that “telling the story” equals “watering down the message.” It shouldn’t. Again, I would point to Jesus as the example of how to tell stories to convey the message in a more powerful way than just relaying the message in a dry and bland manner.

Don Hewitt was also famous for saying that 60 Minutes did not compete with the other shows that were on TV Sunday night. In most respects he did not concern himself with the programming on other networks. Don was adamant however that he competed every week against the remote control. The ability of the viewer at any time, without even leaving their couch to push a handy little button and switch away from the show was the toughest competition.

Television (and I would add internet streaming, VOD, mobile) are unlike any other medium in that they require no commitment from the audience. If you want to read a book, you need to go to the library, or bookstore or find and pay for the book on-line, then wait for it to arrive, etc. Even if the book is not great, most people will finish reading it because they are invested.

Or, if someone wants to hear a sermon in church, they typically will need to get up on time, get the kids dressed, endure fighting in the car, get cut off in traffic, find a parking spot, find a seat in church (and hopefully no one is sitting in “their” seat).

Or, if a couple wants to see a feature film at a theater they may need to get a baby sitter. Drive to the theater. Wait in line. Buy tickets. Buy snacks. Wait through the coming attractions. Even if the movie is not great, most people will finish watching it because they are invested.

How many movies have you seen in your lifetime? Now, how many have you walked out on? 1%? Less? How many mediocre sermons have you heard? How many sermons have you walked out on?

On the other hand how many times have you changed channels before finishing a TV show? Or changed web pages before finishing reading a blog? How many times have you cut a You Tube or Vimeo video short, etc?

Don Hewitt would argue that you, like all viewers do this because television (internet, mobile, etc.) viewing requires no viewer commitment, no viewer investment and the lack of investment makes it all to easy to dissengage.

What can we learn from this?

Well, for one: Producing engaging and compelling video, webcast, VOD, etc., of a sermon, which will capture a viewers attention through to the end is far more difficult that holding a viewers attention when a viewer in invested (as in church). The content may be identical … but the video, webcast, VOD has a much tougher requirement due to the remote control (or mouse).

Two: Just because content works live (as in church) does not mean that it works on TV (or the silver screen, or computer or iPad).

[greenidge]

Thanks Tom, some very thought provoking comments for us to consider. To answer the earlier question we do not have a director it is just 3 of us running the audio, video switching, and cameras so the decision on the shots are entirely up to us. I will relay your comments to them and hopefully it will get us started on some discussions regarding how to best keep the Internet viewers engaged in the church service.

[Arlin]

We use a centrally controlled robotic camera system (Vaddio), so we have one person operating 3 cameras & doing the switching/directing.

In my experience, our camera people hold most shots way too long and use wide shots too much. This makes operating a robotic system easier (pan & tilt are not very smooth), but makes the video really boring and does not draw people in. I find our operators' minds tend to wander too, so pastor can walk off of the screen, even with the wide shots.

I try to encourage our camera people to be creative, stay busy, pay attention, and be prepared (think about what is next). Always have one of the cameras set-up as a fall-back shot (like an audience shot) that can quickly go live when something happens on the current live shot.
Just for emphasis, I tell them to keep each shot under 1 or 2 minutes.
Watch any 'professional' TV production like American Idol or even a nationally televised religious program. They keep viewers engaged through lots of different shots, switching quite frequently.

Of course, we don't want to confuse with too many shots to quickly, but in my experience, that does not happen with our volunteers.

[tdangelo]

Originally Posted by greenidge

To answer the earlier question we do not have a director it is just 3 of us running the audio, video switching, and cameras so the decision on the shots are entirely up to us.

If you do not have the capability currently I have found it very helpful in your situation if each camera operator can also see program in addition to his own camera. Even better ... if each camera operator can see what every camera is shooting even off-line. This may mean adding video monitors, or viewfinders, or using return video on some cameras.

If the camera operators can see what is currently on program they should be always thinking about how they can compliment the current shot. For example:

Is the current shot a head-on waist shot of the pastor? If I am at a angle I will shoot the pastor at a bust shot or head-to-toe. That way I am avoiding jump cuts.

Is the current shot a single of the pastor but there is a second person on-stage? I will shoot the pastor and the second person as a cover, or if someone else has that shot I will shoot a single of the other person.

Is the current shot a single of the pastor but there is a second person entering the stage? I will shoot a cover-wide or a closer single of the entrance.

Is the current shot an angle bust shot of the pastor framed right? If I am at the opposite angle I will shoot the pastor at a head, waist shot or head-to-toe framed left. That way I am avoiding transitioning (especially dissolving) over the subject.


Is the current shot a single tight shot of the pastor feeding I-mag but there is a seperate webcast feed as well? I will shoot cut-aways, audience shots, reaction, etc. for the webcast.

The only way a camera operator can really make these creative decisions is if they have a high "situational awareness" about what is going on around them. Adding monitors can help alot to do that.

[greenidge]

I hear what you all are saying. We use a software based video switcher which gives us previews of the cameras so it helps the camera operator a view of both cameras at a glance. But based on what's been said so far I think we need to get another person to select the shot as it does free up the camera operator to focus on their primary objective which is to get a great shot with the camera they are operating. The other option is to get a multicamera controller (PTZ) type if we can't get the additional volunteers.