Stable But Slightly Wobbly Handheld Shots Vs Tripod Shots

S

seunosewa

Well-known member
Hello,

What are your thoughts on the aesthetic qualities of steady handheld or steadycam shots where there's no intentional camera movement at all but there's an occasional unintentional wobble here and there because no arm is perfect?

Would you say those are superior to tripod shots that are perfectly static, because they make the material more "dynamic"? Or would you say they are nothing but a poor imitation of perfectly static tripod shots?

Are they better or worse? What's their subliminal impact?

I want us to come up with a definitive and somewhat scientific answer to that fascinating question.

Thanks!
 
I like 'em. Makes me feel like I am standing right there in the scene with the actors.
 
tripods can eat me.

handheld camerawork evokes a more organic feeling in me because the frame isn't so tightly controlled or rigid. the freedom of movement conveys a sense of there being a human perspective viewing the events as they unfold. and the movements, much like our attention (the camera's point of view), is free to go where it needs to.

i was talking with a friend the other day about handheld camerawork and how (as the camera operator) you really need to be the audience and "forget" where the scene is supposed to go, and try to tune into or share the frequency the actors are on. i slip into it pretty easily now, but i remember the first time it happened while shooting Blue in Green -- in the middle of an emotional take, i forgot everything around me, forgot a movie was being made, forgot these were actors and got lost in the moment. the emotions were a conduit for opening up my attention and the camera became like an extension of my own "attentiveness".

after this experience, i felt like i'd had an epiphany of sorts. and i was exhausted by it. it was the beginning of this "camera as a human spectator" aesthetic i'm developing.
 
Last edited:
All camera work is motivated and executed in such a way that it fulfills that motivation. The motivation is there to help tell the story. The story is what it's all about, not cool camera movement.

I can't stand poorly executed handheld work that is being handheld for no apparent reason other than operator convenience or laziness; which happens to be the majority of the time. Most beginners do this. They start out thinking they can shoot hand held and get all these exciting shots, blah blah blah, ... only to find out how bad it looks when projected on a large screen.

It becomes apparent that they wanted a static shot but were too lazy to actually do the work of setting up the sticks and framing. These shots fake being static but then bump around, which takes the viewer away from the story -amateurs!

The hand held you describe = amateur: no motivated shots, no thinking , no planning, a sign of a pre-beginner, ..... just adolescent laziness caught up dreaming of being a film maker.
 
Interesting. I've caught myself thinking about this sort of thing too. I didn't have a name for it yet. "Camera as a human spectator" is nice. I've been picturing this scene I want to do in my next film where the actor is driving along the highway, talking on his cellphone, while the camera is totally doing it's own thing. For instance, stopping to focus on the actor, veering out the passenger side window to look at scenery, veering back to the actor, etc... All from the back seat. "Camera as human spectator" definitely.

That said, I think the wider you are, the more you have to rely on a tripod. I love the sorts of shots where you can see a room that is somehow divided and you can see action going on on both sides of the line. Hitchcock does this. There's also one in the washroom scene in La Pianiste, if you've seen that. I don't think this could be done without a tripod. Any shakes or bumps would look funny and be distracting to me in this case. But if I had to choose between all tripod and all handheld, I would definitely go handheld.
 
I guess Cassavetes=amateur :)

And where's it written that the story's all it's about. I categorically disagree. Overreliance on story is what makes most films uninteresting. Life is inherently interesting. I like films that show that and don't need to beat me over the head with some recycled story.
 
I'm with markyf - 10s is being too broad. Seunosewa clearly set up the question of camera movement as "nothing intentional." I have also had Zak's epiphany and it is truly the most amazing thing in film - after the moment passes, you actually have to look around to figure out where you are and what you were doing.
 
I think I can safely say that Zak will tell you there "is no such thing as a good tripod shot." :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Blaine said:
I think I can safely say that Zak will tell you there "is no such thing as a good tripod shot." :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...

haha, as long as its moving, i'm okay. for me, a still and rigid frame is so controlled and lifeless, it should he used to make a point, not as a default.
 
I used to **HATE** hand-held, but have come around since seeing it done sensibly. I think the key is to hold it as steady as humanly possible, and not shake it around like an epileptic monkey (a la '90's-style).

Chris Doyle does some excellent hand-held work. His locked-off tripod shots aren't too bad either. :) "Chungking Express" is one of the best examples of hand-held (I think). The last few years Gondry has been using almost exclusively hand-held with great effect (check out "Science of Sleep".)
 
Hand held certainly has it's place. For the most part, I liked it in Children of Men, though they may have overused it a touch. In the Bourne Ultimatum...too much. Cloverfield, while it was integral to the type of movie it was, it was incredibly distracting...to me.

Now, in the types of movies Zak is talking about, it's hard to argue with the success he's had in getting what he's going for...:thumbsup:
 
Human sight does not work as a camera can capture it with a handheld. The vibration and movement is compensated with your eyes and brain creating a much more stable image. The human brain is amazing; if you were to wear an optical device that flipped the image upside down your brain would eventually compensate and flip the image right side up.

Thus I find handheld camera work only appropriate when called for story telling purposes, like opening scene of saving private ryan. Constant handheld in my opinion is very distasteful, I hated the last bourne movie as well as hancock because of that.

Markfy was mentioning filming scenes as a POV, you will find proper POV's are achieved with a steadicam (strange days) because thats how we perceive our reality.

I try to limit handheld use to minimum and use my steadicam op as a tripod when possible. You would be surprised how often that is. It helps with quick set ups and changes, moving a camera 6" on a tripod over is a lot harder on a tripod. Especially if it weighs 85lbs.

If I can get away from it, I will try not to do too much handheld. Thats just my taste.
 
I say handheld only if it's smooth enough to not seem handheld. Like it's happening on a dolly or steadicam. Anything else breaks the suspension of disbelief. Oh yeah, we're watching through a camera some guy is holding.

It's not some other human being watching the scene unfold, it's a freaking guy with a camera making a movie. Oh yeah, this isn't real.

I've seen more and more handheld stuff permeating the art. And I think it's mostly a way to shoot something quickly without having to really think about a shot. And I've seen younger filmmakers who shoot everything handheld being lost when it comes to using a pair of sticks. They're no longer searching for a shot handheld. When it comes to composition and choreography they're lost. They're used to just waving the camera around.

And I don't care what famous director uses it. Nobody is above reproach.

Handheld in quick action sequences where some shots last just seconds or even frames is okay. A smooth pan on sticks can be just as dynamic as the same pan handheld.
 
i have the exact opposite reaction. I get lost in handheld, i find it more natural and immersive. but when shown a story or scene in a very controlled frame with precise composition and deliberate camera moves such as dollies or zooms, i become very aware of the filmmaking and it takes me right out of the story.
 
emretufekci said:
Human sight does not work as a camera can capture it with a handheld. The vibration and movement is compensated with your eyes and brain creating a much more stable image. The human brain is amazing; if you were to wear an optical device that flipped the image upside down your brain would eventually compensate and flip the image right side up.

Thus I find handheld camera work only appropriate when called for story telling purposes, like opening scene of saving private ryan. Constant handheld in my opinion is very distasteful, I hated the last bourne movie as well as hancock because of that.

Markfy was mentioning filming scenes as a POV, you will find proper POV's are achieved with a steadicam (strange days) because thats how we perceive our reality.

I try to limit handheld use to minimum and use my steadicam op as a tripod when possible. You would be surprised how often that is. It helps with quick set ups and changes, moving a camera 6" on a tripod over is a lot harder on a tripod. Especially if it weighs 85lbs.

If I can get away from it, I will try not to do too much handheld. Thats just my taste.
Click to expand...
it's not a duplication of human sight i'm talking about, it's a representation of the way human attention works, with a freedom to move wherever the attention takes you, with "blinks" substituted and represented by cuts. what i was talking about is not an attempt to imitate the mechanics of how we see, rather to create a cinematic representation of how and why our attention moves from subject to subject. a steadicam is to slow for that.
 
Blaine said:
Hand held certainly has it's place. For the most part, I liked it in Children of Men, though they may have overused it a touch. In the Bourne Ultimatum...too much. Cloverfield, while it was integral to the type of movie it was, it was incredibly distracting...to me.

Now, in the types of movies Zak is talking about, it's hard to argue with the success he's had in getting what he's going for...:thumbsup:
Click to expand...


I agree, Bourne Ultimatum was trying to be edgy all the time with its HH and in doing so it lessened the times it should have been used to add energy.
 
Zak Forsman said:
it's not a duplication of human sight i'm talking about, it's a representation of the way human attention works, with a freedom to move wherever the attention takes you, with "blinks" substituted and represented by cuts. what i was talking about is not an attempt to imitate the mechanics of how we see, rather to create a cinematic representation of how and why our attention moves from subject to subject. a steadicam is to slow for that.
Click to expand...


Since everything in cinema was done before 1920 and repeated since then in various shades, what example can you point to about this human attention you speak of that is readily available for us to see?
 
That was about the most annoying handheld I have ever seen! In the dialogue scenes, just two people talking, c'mon! Greengrass really dropped the ball on that one. I heard the moans in the audience. What the heck was he thinking?
 
jimpatro said:
I say handheld only if it's smooth enough to not seem handheld. Like it's happening on a dolly or steadicam. Anything else breaks the suspension of disbelief. Oh yeah, we're watching through a camera some guy is holding.

It's not some other human being watching the scene unfold, it's a freaking guy with a camera making a movie. Oh yeah, this isn't real.

I've seen more and more handheld stuff permeating the art. And I think it's mostly a way to shoot something quickly without having to really think about a shot. And I've seen younger filmmakers who shoot everything handheld being lost when it comes to using a pair of sticks. They're no longer searching for a shot handheld. When it comes to composition and choreography they're lost. They're used to just waving the camera around.

And I don't care what famous director uses it. Nobody is above reproach.

Handheld in quick action sequences where some shots last just seconds or even frames is okay. A smooth pan on sticks can be just as dynamic as the same pan handheld.
Click to expand...


Yes, I use to teach college cinematography and each year a new group arrived that needed to relearn so they could become functionable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top