Stable But Slightly Wobbly Handheld Shots Vs Tripod Shots
- Thread starter seunosewa
- Start date
I think a closer approximation to how human attention moves from subject to subject would be to shoot a film in 70mm in one extreme wide shot and let the action unfold in one continuous shot. Then the viewer could shift his gaze depending on what was happening in a particular part of the frame.
Like the theatre, but on a screen.
Like the theatre, but on a screen.
emretufekci
Well-known member
You are right, steadicam would be too slow for what you described. In that manner pretty much any camera would be too slow as the human eye does not stay focused on a single place, it constantly roams. If you look at a certain point you will immediately will get tunnel vision. We are also not consciously aware of this as it happens all the time. This goes back to human evolution and being predators/prey.
The way I try to simulate "handheld" is not of the shoulder but again on a steadicam but have the Op grip the post and run the rig as "camera on a stick". This gives me a better flow and simulation of human perception. Again this is only my taste.
If you have posted work somewhere I would love to see what you were describing in more detail. That way I can maybe pick your brain and steal a few ideas from you.
Cheers
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
Oh, yeah, that would be a lot of fun...not...:evil:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
cuts are the "blinks" -- largely imperceptible when done right.
emretufekci
Well-known member
Are you refering to techniques mentioned in "in the blink of an eye" by Walter Murch?
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
i don't think i've been entirely successful at it yet. "IFHY" was an experiment in it. we intentionally monitored the cameras upside-down to increase the effect of not being able to anticipate what was coming. i wanted to match the spontaneity of the improvised (but guided) performances with spontaneous camerawork.You are right, steadicam would be too slow for what you described. In that manner pretty much any camera would be too slow as the human eye does not stay focused on a single place, it constantly roams. If you look at a certain point you will immediately will get tunnel vision. We are also not consciously aware of this as it happens all the time. This goes back to human evolution and being predators/prey.
The way I try to simulate "handheld" is not of the shoulder but again on a steadicam but have the Op grip the post and run the rig as "camera on a stick". This gives me a better flow and simulation of human perception. Again this is only my taste.
If you have posted work somewhere I would love to see what you were describing in more detail. That way I can maybe pick your brain and steal a few ideas from you.
Cheers
http://www.dvxfest.com/lovefest/loader.php?id=90036
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
probably. i imagine what he talks about is that we often blink when we change our attention to something else and that cuts are the cinematic equivalent of that? its a technique i try to follow, so that every cut is a progression of where the audience's attention is going. my editor, she is always asking herself, where would i be looking at this moment and it results in cuts that are more or less invisible -- like you actually have to go looking for the cuts because they are so in-line with your own attention toward the events of the scene. she's much better at it than I am.
thartley
Veteran
But the theatrical equivalent to a cinematic close up is the use of lighting, and spotlights in particular. The lighting script in theater productions is the nearest equivalent to camera work in film...theater isnt one long wide shot, but I do know what you meant to say.
Edit: sorry, I forgot the OP's question for a sec. For me, as long as the camerawork is consistent, I can remain in that suspension of disbelief. As others have said, some slight wobble of the camera would be acceptable if the motivation is there to warrant it. But if you have smooth steady locked down shots throughout your film, and then you suddenly throw in a (even slightly) wobbly shot, I'm out of your story for that moment. If the handheld or slightly wobbly steadicam shot is used consistently where motivation is appropriate from the beginning, then I know to expect it and everything is fine. But that's just me and my .00025%.
Last edited:
While reviewing some videos I shot, the wobbly ones had more of an unsettling psychological effect.
It seems as if the tripod wins this one: it can be panned to follow any action.
What if one is making a documentary or mockumentary? Is the slightly wobbly camera expected in this situation? Will a stable camera make it look unreal?
It seems as if the tripod wins this one: it can be panned to follow any action.
What if one is making a documentary or mockumentary? Is the slightly wobbly camera expected in this situation? Will a stable camera make it look unreal?
pmark23
Veteran
If the camera is being held well, the audience wouldn't (shouldn't?) notice the difference, but feel a subtle psychological effect.
As for documentaries -- usually they get the shots they can manage to get in the time allocated. I've worked on some big-budget docs with cranes and dollies, but when we were running out of time the operator just put the camera on his shoulder.
On recent documentary projects I've found my self stabilizing shots in post because I shot them handheld and they had more power looking "locked". I've also abused "The Wiggler" in AE a few times because a shot was too static.
As for documentaries -- usually they get the shots they can manage to get in the time allocated. I've worked on some big-budget docs with cranes and dollies, but when we were running out of time the operator just put the camera on his shoulder.
On recent documentary projects I've found my self stabilizing shots in post because I shot them handheld and they had more power looking "locked". I've also abused "The Wiggler" in AE a few times because a shot was too static.
Buck Forester
Well-known member
I think it's obviously dependent upon the movie or scene. Big wide sweeping landscapes, or watching a car leisurely drive towards you from a high perspective, wouldn't do so well handheld. You're recording a setting or getting a perspective that is not intimately involved. But emotional close-shot dialogue can certainly bring in the viewer with a little zoomed movement. As long as it's not 'noticeable' to the average viewer (of course cinematographers will notice) then it works.
If someone gets the feeling of camera movement and visibly notices "hey, the camera is moving all around", then it's too much, IMHO. It can be done without viewers even realizing it because it's so integrated into the emotion of the scene. I know, I'm being Captain Obvious but I just felt like typing stuff right now.
If someone gets the feeling of camera movement and visibly notices "hey, the camera is moving all around", then it's too much, IMHO. It can be done without viewers even realizing it because it's so integrated into the emotion of the scene. I know, I'm being Captain Obvious but I just felt like typing stuff right now.
I think it always depends on the kind of wobble. Is it an amateur holding a camera and just can't get it steady, or is it a good cameraman with a shoulder mount, maybe even intentionally moving around a bit to get some "breathing" ?
It also depends on the lens. With a wide-angle lens on a shoulder mount someone skilled can very well make pretty steady shots (that's the scenes where you can sometimes spot intentional wobble, which isn't an easy thing to do because it has to be the same soft wobble throughout all your shots).
If the concept of the moving camera is well-planned and it is also being well edited, then I think a shoulder-mount camera can be pretty exciting. For example I love the look and editing of "24"
I also love steadicam shots because I like the freedom of a moving camera. The steadicam allows the moving camera to fly almost like on a dolly track.
However, there is always a time and a place for a tripod. It always depends on your project, but there are definitely situations where a tripod is the only right way to go - and I think a good cameraman should always be able to realize that a certain shot needs a tripod and then use one.
It also depends on the lens. With a wide-angle lens on a shoulder mount someone skilled can very well make pretty steady shots (that's the scenes where you can sometimes spot intentional wobble, which isn't an easy thing to do because it has to be the same soft wobble throughout all your shots).
If the concept of the moving camera is well-planned and it is also being well edited, then I think a shoulder-mount camera can be pretty exciting. For example I love the look and editing of "24"
I also love steadicam shots because I like the freedom of a moving camera. The steadicam allows the moving camera to fly almost like on a dolly track.
However, there is always a time and a place for a tripod. It always depends on your project, but there are definitely situations where a tripod is the only right way to go - and I think a good cameraman should always be able to realize that a certain shot needs a tripod and then use one.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I appreciate what Zak said but can you imagine No Country shot in hand held ?
Blah
I think both are nice choices if it serves the story.
Blah
I think both are nice choices if it serves the story.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep interesting wee discussion!
I'm more of a producer / director indy than a cinematographer - but i sometimes find myself job sharing that role (on my low budget productions.)
Hand held camera work can be really effective - even in telling entire stories but i think they do have compromises that are sometimes unattractive.
I think cinematography that really seeks to recreate the human visual experience (us looking at things) falls almost into the experientialist stuff like Cloverfield etc, where it gets a lot more difficult to express in depth story and plot.
I also don't find think its a problem that people are cognisent of a shot or scene being filmed - just because the motion of the camera is not like how they would see it in person, ie. tracks etc.
I always find that the freedom of visual expression in film is the exact ability we have to tell our stories with any kind of visual language and inspiration.
I quite like the tripod - and i also quite like some neo-classical art, my films can have quite a theatrical and romantic quality in their expression (oh us europeans...)
Its just a choice like an artist has in how he wishes to visually tell the story - it shouldnt i think be anything based on the expectation that audiences are supposed to watch the story as a simulation of reality - its art...
Thats a lot of meaningless waffle but im sure something er semi intelligent is in there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO31n8sy0r0
meh
I'm more of a producer / director indy than a cinematographer - but i sometimes find myself job sharing that role (on my low budget productions.)
Hand held camera work can be really effective - even in telling entire stories but i think they do have compromises that are sometimes unattractive.
I think cinematography that really seeks to recreate the human visual experience (us looking at things) falls almost into the experientialist stuff like Cloverfield etc, where it gets a lot more difficult to express in depth story and plot.
I also don't find think its a problem that people are cognisent of a shot or scene being filmed - just because the motion of the camera is not like how they would see it in person, ie. tracks etc.
I always find that the freedom of visual expression in film is the exact ability we have to tell our stories with any kind of visual language and inspiration.
I quite like the tripod - and i also quite like some neo-classical art, my films can have quite a theatrical and romantic quality in their expression (oh us europeans...)
Its just a choice like an artist has in how he wishes to visually tell the story - it shouldnt i think be anything based on the expectation that audiences are supposed to watch the story as a simulation of reality - its art...
Thats a lot of meaningless waffle but im sure something er semi intelligent is in there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO31n8sy0r0
meh
mpalmer12345
Well-known member
From Benning to Brakhage. These are the two extremes, I would say.
James Benning almost exclusively uses a fixed tripod and long takes in his films. For him, it's about what happens when duration is allowed to come to the fore of the viewer's consciousness, wherein the minute particulars arising from stillness become a fascinating world all their own.
Stan Brakhage almost exclusively used wildly manic handheld shots, keeping in all of the jitters, errors and artifacts, and finding brilliant, wholly convincing aesthetic justifications for them.
Two extremes. Two glorious bodies of work.
James Benning almost exclusively uses a fixed tripod and long takes in his films. For him, it's about what happens when duration is allowed to come to the fore of the viewer's consciousness, wherein the minute particulars arising from stillness become a fascinating world all their own.
Stan Brakhage almost exclusively used wildly manic handheld shots, keeping in all of the jitters, errors and artifacts, and finding brilliant, wholly convincing aesthetic justifications for them.
Two extremes. Two glorious bodies of work.
Last edited: