Talk:Single-camera setup

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Multiple Cameras in Movie Production[edit]

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)[reply]

Sex and the City[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merger Proposal / "Don't get it" just by reading this article alone...[edit]

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)[reply]

The two articles should not be merged, they should merely link to one another, which they do. Format 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let me ask this of more experienced Wikipedians. Is there a way to create an article called "Single-Camera vs. Multiple Camera Set-Up", move all of the compare and contrast content of these two articles into it, and then embed the new article as a section in each of these articles. I have no idea if this is possible, but I'd envision a single-camera set-up page that would then display single-camera specific content, followed by (or preceeded by) the new article shown on the same page. In that way, the compare and contrast content would be maintained in only one place, but the concerns above would be addressed. --Robb0995 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removed merger proposal as all votes were against merger. --Robb0995 08:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information[edit]

The shows "Malcolm in the Middle" and "Scrubs" are listend in both the "single-camera setup" and "multi-camera setup" pages, which is obviously contradictory. I would think "Malcolm" is a single-camera show and Scrubs a multiple camera show. Anyone know for sure?

While I don't have any first-hand information, Scrubs is almost certainly a single-camera show given its visual style. Taken in combination with the fact that it is filmed in an actual hospital building (no missing "fourth wall"), I have no doubt that it's single-camera. --Robb0995 08:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the reference on multi-camera, and if you'll look closely Malcolm and Scrubs are identified as Single-camera shows on both pages. --Robb0995 08:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know articles are not supposed to take any editoral positions, but I think it is worth pointing out in there that Malcolm in Middle revived and totally reinvented the Single Camera comedy idea after a long absence. As written, it sounds like it was just one of the shows caught up in a trend. This is clearly wrong, all the others listed in the sitcom list started at least a year after it debuted with good ratings. It was controversial at first and the networks almost didnt want to run it. The only exception I think is Freeks and Geeks which was unsuccesful in 1999 and cancelled. I slightly changed that paragraph in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.164.168 (talk • contribs)

I'd agree that Malcolm is important, but it's not the only comedy program that initiated this trend. Equally important are Sports Night (1998-200) and the HBO shows, Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-) and, perhaps most significantly, The Larry Sanders Show (1992-98). The latter mixed single-camera shooting (backstage) with multiple-camera (the show within the show) and established the basic principles of modern single-camera shooting (e.g., no laugh track). Please note also that director Ken Kwapis worked on Larry Sanders and then was one of the principal director/producers of Malcolm. And Judd Apatow's work on Freaks and Geeks definitely had an impact on his other TV work in sitcoms.

Thus, as I said in my 9 September reverting: "rv suggestion that all single-camera sitcoms derive their style from Malcolm, which is not entirely accurate." If you can provide a source establishing that Malcolm totally reinvented the single-camera comedy, please do. --Jeremy Butler 12:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"I think it is worth pointing out" is not an acceptable reason to add unreferenced conjecture to wikipedia. Everything needs a credible external source, and we can't make up our own ideas - no matter how apt they may be -and write them here, as that is original research. These are fundamental guidelines of wikipedia. Format 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pictures/diagrams[edit]

This entry could use a picture/diagram or two.Tehw1k1 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

POV-check tag[edit]

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)[reply]

Just Sitcoms?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Single-camera vs. Hand-held[edit]

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)[reply]

Shortening the list of 21st century sitcom examples[edit]

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)[reply]