multi camera essay

Multi Camera production formats TASK ONE


Multi camera productions are live performed shows which record within a studio using 3-4 cameras to capture the actors. Some of the first shows ever recorded used the multi camera technique and it is still frequently used today. Multi camera shows are mainly used for TV shows that contain a significant amount of episodes within a series, this is because multi camera productions are a much quicker and more efficient way of recording compared to single camera. They are more useful if a show has a tight deadline or has a higher demand. Examples are shows like Eastenders and Coronation Street which are soap operas and have 4 shows broadcast every week therefore they extremely high demand for shows. Attempting to produce this using single camera would take at least twice as long and therefore the schedule of 4 shows a week most probably wouldn’t be met.

Examples of shows that are famous for using the multi camera formats are
Mork&Mindy which was the first show to use 4 cameras on set instead of the usual 3, this was because of actor Robin Williams dramatic fast moving performance in which 3 cameras weren’t enough to capture him in shot. The second is The Tonight show with Jay Lenno- this is an ongoing chat show in which presenter Jay Lenno interviews famous people it is one of the most tuned into shows in America.

The difference between single and multi camera are quite evident. single camera shows are used mainly on more high budget projects and have a very in depth post production stage as all shots taken in single camera are require to be fully edited once filmed this makes the process a lot more time consuming and therefore requires a larger group of filmmakers at different stages of products. The end result is usually more of a professional standard than multi camera as more time and detail will have been added. Multi camera shows are used when a show requires a speedier production and performs a lot of aspects of post production during filming which speeds up the production extensively. During filming a multi camera there is a vision mixer who cuts between shots as the performance is taking place, compared to doing so once the shots have been recorded. This saves going through footage and choosing which to use in a scene as you would in a single camera production. the end result means shows are produced more quickly and the acting seems more fluid as it is filmed live.

Chat shows are known for using the multi camera setup and for good reason, they follow a similar set of codes and conventions. Chat shows follow a simple yet affective plan for each show mainly filmed in front of a studio audience who are filmed clapping and laughing as the show progresses, the presenter will walk to a center camera and address the audience about what they will expect to see through the show. for example the Jonathan Ross show will begin with this format but will include clips for new bulletins or other popular media happens and use it as a jumping off point to start a small discussion as part of a comedy act. When a guest is brought out there is a transition between cameras which usual have one facing the presenter, one on the guest who could walk in and sit down and one on the audience to capture their reaction.








Multi camera productions are also used frequently to film quiz shows, the multiple camera setup acts much like it would in a chat show with one camera primarily faced at the quests and two more on the presenter and audience. Two shows that are known for slightly changing this format are Never Mind the Buzzcocks which is a comedy panel quiz show and the weakest link which is a general knowledge quiz show. Never mind the Buzzcocks has one guest presenter along with 4 guest comedians or musicians there are two regular panelists. The camera work is very dynamic as there are people on both sides of the set which must be captured, furthermore there are in show games which bring out more guests to stand before the panels this requires a camera to move position completely in order to capture all the guests as well as the panels.
the show is known for bringing on celebrity guests who move around a lot during the show and get out of their seats this means the cameramen have a harder job capturing the whole show and keeping it seeming intentional because sometimes they have to improvise shots. 



The weakest link on the other hand is much more static show with a very different layout to most other quiz shows, there is a presenter in the center of the stage and a number of guests surrounding them. This means the cameras have to almost film the stage 360 degrees around. The lighting is very specific and is used effectively to hid camera peering into shot. There for the weakest link is a much more complicated technical achievement than Never Mind The Buzzcocks. The show also begins with all the guests in place there is no introduction in which guests arrive onto the set this is similar to Never Mind The Buzzcocks. The Weakest Link has a regular presenter whereas never mind the Buzzcocks has a guest presenter every show.







The weakest link starts with all of its contestants in a common room talking whilst music is played over. This is presumably made to seem as if it is back stage. The cameras cut between the contestants as they prepare to take part in the show. The title sequence then starts to roll which will be pre made for the show. once the title sequence is over there is a static mid shot of the presenter Anne Robinson who appears on the screen explaining the premise of the show, the camera then zooms out to reveal a dark set which is lit in the center where the presenter is stood with all contestants in place the camera zooms even further back and looks down on the set. Then the vision mixer cuts too another camera on the floor which crabs from the left to the right as Anne Robinson further explains the show she follows the camera as it goes. There is a light facing towards the ceiling behind each contestant, who can be seen behind the presenter as the camera crabs. There is then a cut to the camera looking down on the set as the lights all dip and go out momentarily. There is then a mid shot of the first contestant who is dramatically and suddenly lit from behind, the camera sharply pans to the left to reveal each contestant in the same ways who all introduce themselves. There is then a quick change to another camera which is on a close up of the presenter, then a swift change to another camera which is crabbing around the set to capture everything

Andrew Sharp

fmp task 1

Documentaries are designed to give an audience a hands on look at a specific subject, question, conspiracy or anything that has enough potential to be debated about. It is important that once an idea has reached the point where it has enough interest to make a documentary about it that the facts are correct. there's nothing worse than reporting on a massive topic and getting all the facts wrong, if a viewer with enough of a back catalogue of knowledge on the subject hears a false piece of information then they will be switched off and pick further holes in the documentaries also as most documentaries are mainly aiming to get across one point of view it is important not to be too bias towards your point. There should be a balance of information towards and for a point of view or the documentaries becomes too one sided. I chose three documentaries to explore these points:

Super size me
Super size me is a documentary were veteran documenter Morgan Spurlock embarks on a 30 day experiment in which he must eat nothing but McDonald's for breakfast lunch and dinner. This is a test in response to an enquiry by the MacDonald head office that there is no proof that if someone were to eat a McDonald's meal everyday that they will have increased health issues. the primary objective of the documentary is too see whether or not someone would suffer from increased health issues if they ate nothing but McDonald’s every day. The documentary starts off with a brief overview on the current situation of obese Americans. They explain that 1 in 4 Americans is obese which is equal to half the adult population of the USA. points are discussed in a voice over as to whether or not this is caused by the fact McDonald's in vast supply across America or that people are not properly looking after themselves and eating food which they should know is bad for them. While there is a balance between the two points of views there is still an overall feeling that the documentary is against the fast food restaurants. this is too be expected as the main objective of the documentary is too clearly see if fast food is ultimately bad for you in long term.

The documentary follows Morgan as he records his health during his experiment. He begins by going to a number of specialist doctors (cardio vascular, dietician e.t.c) to record his health before starting his 30 day binge. the reason to use Morgan is a fair choice because the doctors all agree he is in 'perfect health' for someone his age which means any changes will become clear and will more clearly allow people to see the damage that can be done. In cutaways when the voice-over explains more about the back story to the matter of McDonalds being unhealthy there are several shots of obese people synced in time with the voice over. This makes the impact of what is being said even greater, it gives the viewer visual evidence to help sway towards the side that the documenter is on. this method also can exsadurate the point so that you are even more convinced by what you are hearing, though as far can be told there is no false information given during these scenes. The documentary stays true to its fair test as the results are given at the end of the experiment and the host gives his own opinion as to what he feels about the subject. He tries hard to recognise both sides of the argument but ultimately he wins over one side by proving that McDonalds does in fact increase health issues which tips off the documentary as a success to proving a point.



Loose change (2^nd edition)
This is a critically acclaimed documentary which attempts to piece together the events of September 11 2001 (911) and argues that the attacks that took place on 911 were planned by the American government. It was made by Dylan Avery who is an American filmmaker that has long been questioning the events of September 11 2001 he spent 2 years collecting the evidence he needed to make his documentary.
The documentary explores its point of view with archive footage from news reports, phone camera videos and interviews. Dylan Avery acts as director and also provides a constant voice over with the help of his footage to explain his points. With the voice over pointing out certain things you are obligated to believe what you see, for example if there is a video of a man being interviewed the voice over might mention that they are lying because of their expressions, you may feel forced to believe this because the voice over is the only guide you have. Though the evidence is thorough and correct, there is not a fair balance between the two points of the argument, the documentary is solely intent on their side of the argument. The information is thrown at you with hard research to back it up however there is not much mention to how people who disagree feel on the subject. There are quotes and interviews of people disagreeing but they are made to look foolish as if they are lying or hiding something through what they are saying. This represents anyone who disagrees as either foolish or a liar, it is not a fair way of represent the other side of your argument because both points of view are not equally explored. There is however a good balance of objective and subjective information throughout the documentary.

The documentary has small animations which show typed quotes from people, a variation of both people in government and the public. There are several interviews of people giving their opinions and thoughts on different aspects such as whether or not the towers collapsed from the damage of the planes or from controlled explosion from within the building. This is a very subjective aspect of the documentary which gives it a sense that the information is not just based on what the documenter feel but how a number of people are also involved. Though there are several versions of this film and many recut versions the primary subjectivity that the 911 attacks were emitted from the US government stay the same.


Punks not dead
This documentary is about the argument that true punk is not as popular in modern culture as it was in the late 80s and early 90s. It explores the history of how punk came to be with the small rebellious cults to worldwide trends in music fashion and mainly attitude and representation. It was directed by Susan Dynner and includes archive footage from bands and interviews it also has interviews recorded especially for the documentary with some of punks biggest stars. The documentary really gives you a firsthand look on how the influences of punk feel about the genre. The use of such a-list stars of punk such as Billie Joe Armstrong from green day makes you feel like you are hearing a genuine opinion from a professional it really helps you trust the documentary to report on the right things. The interviewees speak about how the phenomenon grew by going into depth about how the media reacted. There are interviews from bands that started punk such as the Ramones and also bands who are considered to be ‘carrying the torch’ of punk into the modern world such as green day, sum 41 and my chemical romance. This gives a certain balance to the documentary as you are hearing two points of view from two different types of sources who will bring the argument forward and get more of a debate going.

The documentary also argues that the real threads of punk thrive off the American retrospective and that punk should be embraced and even savoured because it has become a blueprint to the world we live in today. This is explored through both public and media attention with on the street interviews with members of the public on how they feel about punk in modern culture. The documentary tries hard not to be bias and identifies that there is a very two sided argument to what they are disusing for it is widely known that punk is disliked by a lot of people just as much as it is liked. The objectivity is clear that punk should be seen as more of a ‘way of life’ rather than a rebellion but it is such a two sided argument which brings in a large subjective aspect to the matter. All people are represented as normal people who are simply stating a point, this is deliberate as the documentary is trying to play on the fact that punk is indeed a way of life. Though the documentary also balances things out by showing the ugly side to punk which is primary the statement that it is a rebellion against the government. There are shots of riots and children swearing which is the stereotypical way that punks are portrayed in the media. There is a huge presence of representation through the media with people slating that the government turn people against punks. The other side is that punk should be seen as a violent rebellion because of the way it changes people. These are all matters which are explored within the documentary and they are all represented with respect for both sides.


















By Andrew Sharp