Talk:Single-camera setup

message: I wonder if it's worth mentioning that situations in movie production where multiple cameras are necessary.  The most frequent one that comes to mind would be a stunt that's too expensive to be repeated, such as the destruction of a building (Lethal Weapon 3 or Terminator 2 where 11 cameras were used to film the destruction of Cyberdyne HQ) or an elaborate chase scene (True Lies).  A rather unique example is the Bullet Time scenes from The Matrix, which were captured by an array of still cameras triggered sequentially.
Perhaps this might be more appropriate content for the multicamera setup page, but the statement on this page ("...unlike film producers who almost always opt for single-camera shooting"), though it does allow for exceptions, seems just a bit too absolute in my opinion.
--Ktakki 02:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Cameras in Movie Production 

message: Is it really a single camera show?  I thought I remembered them using multiple cameras especially during the conversations the 4 women have at meals. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's possible, but the bulk of the show is definitely single-camera. Perhaps you could track down an account of the conversation scenes that clarifies how they were shot? --Jeremy Butler 12:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex and the City 

message: I didn't really understand the difference between single-camera setup and multi-camera setup by reading this article, whereas I did understand it better by reading the multi-camera page and this article (http://web.archive.org/web/20060426215507/http://www.dailynews.com/entertainment/ci_3195096 [archived April 26, 2006]) where it described the family dinner table.
I think the main distinction between the two is that multi-camera is really more like watching a play where the cameras are like viewers looking through one of the "walls" of the room (because the cameras are there and you have to avoid having the cameras shoot each other), but in single-camera you can shoot things in real settings and have a complete 360-degree set. The diagram on the multi-camera wiki article shows that really well. I think it's really difficult to understand why one is better over the other in certain situations until you understand this point. Actually much of this article was difficult to understand until I finally got the distinction, so I think it needs to be made earlier on more clearly.
That's a really good point.  Why not merge the two articles into one main article on camera-setup, with much more focus on comparing and contrasting the two options --Robb0995 00:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles should not be merged, they should merely link to one another, which they do. Format 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote against merging. For one thing, what would the merged article be titled, "Camera set-up" or "Single-camera and multiple-camera set-up"?  The former is too generic and the latter is too cumbersome. I can't think of a good, descriptive title for a merged article. In contrast, the two original titles ("Single-camera set-up" and "Multiple-camera set-up") are commonly used and their meaning is widely understood. The articles properly refer to each other so the reader can bounce from one to the other with minimal hassle. --Jeremy Butler 12:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I did a little research and see that we could use transclusion to acheive what I described above.  It sounds like there's some debate on whether or not transclusion is an appropriate choice, so I'll still ask here before charging ahead with any changes. --Robb0995 06:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal / "Don't get it" just by reading this article alone... 

message: This entry could use a picture/diagram or two.Tehw1k1 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture they added, presumably after this post, is kind of pointless.  At least there should be a more detailed caption...CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures/diagrams 

message: Too many references to "slick" and "sophisticated" giving the idea that single-camera TV work is more artistic than multi-camera work.  129.128.67.23 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-check tag 

message: I'm pretty sure all genres of TV have used this setup before. THe article only seems to detail sitcoms. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we find any sources on the issue to validate it? I'm not really sure where to begin looking.Millertime246 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Sitcoms? 

message: Reading Single-camera setup for the first time, I am surprised to learn that this is the traditional standard deluxe way of filming, by shooting one scene over and over again from different angles -- it has nothing to do with Hand-held camera technique! I might not be the only reader who comes with this confusion. Right now these articles are not cross-linked and do not address these two separate subjects in a way that lets readers of one article know about the other. Please help improve these articles by pointing readers also to the other topic.-71.174.185.30 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-camera vs. Hand-held 

message: The section on the late 90s to 21st century resurgence of single camera sitcoms starts with "such as" and then launches into a giant list.
I'd like to pare that down to just some of the early examples, followed by a link to the list of single camera sitcoms page.  Any objections?
--ToastyKen (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the list of 21st century sitcom examples