On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 08:13:33 GMT, Ted Langdell <ted@tedlangdell.com> wrote:

>> From: "David Mullen" <davidm2@earthlink.net>

[...]

>> Anyone who thinks that having two cameras is some cure-all for getting

>> coverage is going to be for a big disappointment - or end up with a lot of

>> lousy B-camera footage that they have to make excuses for.

>That's true.

>

>What kinds of projects or situations would you opt to do with two cameras?

>On a different tangent, what's your experience working with young kids?

>Does two camera coverage help you get coverage in less overall time... ie.

>before attention runs out or frustration sets in?

>Ted.

I agree with "DM" for staged video/film, but for

live events, multi-camera shooting can be useful...

See: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera2.htm

for a 6-camera shoot (with only one operator...;-)

of a wedding ceremony. On "The Learning Channel",

etc., you often see multi-camera coverage (and

sometimes the cameras...;-) on programs like

"Wedding", "Junkyard Wars", etc... The choice

depends on style and practicality - neither

"single-camera" nor "multi-camera" is *the*

answer for all types of work (or even for one

type of work...;-).