Camera movement

R

randomname

Well-known member
I generally consider myself someone who "gets" cinematography, I understand why DPs choose certain angles, focal lengths, distances from the subject, etc. but one thing thats always been a mystery to me is camera movements. I've been noticing a lot lately how it's fairly common for the camera to be moving in a scene but for no apparent reason, they arnt trying to show you anything new, just slightly change the angle of what you're watching. This is something that I really want to start incorporating into my shorts to make them look more professional, but I don't want to start doing it arbitrarily. So, when exactly should the camera be moving around and when should I just leave it on the tripod?
 
Ah,

One of the most arbitrary pieces of the craft. And one I am exploring as well. A still camera seems generally used when we are to key in on a specific bit of dialog or we are supposed to notice something on screen. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the camera movements are merely setups to provide counterpoint for when the camera is actually still.

It also serves to remind us we are watching a movie. As in moving pictures. The more still the subject, the more visual interest can be derived from a moving camera. A moving camera also adds enough visual interest so that we don't have to cut as often. And it can provide a VERY effective way to either change the 180 line, or to open the scene up for the introduction of new people or information in a scene.

There are numerous kinds of cinematic camera moves and each have their place. The crane up or down, the dolly in or out, the crab, etc. Each can increase or decrease intimacy in the scene. Each can increase or reduce our sense of "place". Very powerful tools when properly wielded.
 
Definitely get the Hollywood Camerawork DVD's. I think that's the best way to get your question really answered. There are very specific reasons to do any sort of move, and different moves convey different emotions.

A good place to start though, is just to know that people often times use dollys and jibs to connect shots. That idea alone can get you pretty far.
 
There is a HUGE trend in Hollywood that camera motion = exciting movie. What is the result to me? Snoozefest. I don't need a huge crane sweeping dolly shot of a castle, just let me see the castle, that's enough. For me camera motion has a couple of 'rules' that I abide by.

Using the camera motion to reframe in a scene can be immensely powerful. Look at some Spielberg movies. He has less cuts than you'd think, especially outside his action scenes. He moves and is constantly reframing.

Having said that, camera movement can minimize your cuts, so that when you do cut in rapid succession, the cuts have more dramatic effect.

Camera movement, handheld, can add a lot of drama to a scene if not overdone.

"When should you" move the camera, is really up to you. People like Ozu never move the camera. To me though, the times you shouldn't move the camera is when what is happening in your frame is interesting. If you have shitty actors, you have to do something to spice up the movie, or it'll turn the audience off immediately. Then again, if you have Daniel Day Lewis doing a monologue, turn it on and walk away, as seen in There Will Be Blood.

So for Indie cinema, unless you have a real riveting scene, I'd suggest a little bit of movement or something.
 
I am still exploring camera movement as well. I have been scolded by my mentor (who is an ASC) multiple times about unmotivated camera movement and how it cheapens the scene.

Unmotivated and big camera movements seem to be a rising trend in indie pictures, lots of action sports films, and on un experienced shoots because dollies and jibs are more readily available. I think there is a fine line between having the move enhance the scene and cheapen it. I personally like subtle handheld movement.

The camera work DVDs are worth checking out.
 
I like what PerroneFord said that movement helps remind us we are watching a motion picture. I also like to remember the reason we don't use zoom very often which is because our eyes can't zoom. A dolly in is more pleasing to the eye than a zoom because a person can physically move forward where as they can't zoom in with their eyes.

I like to think of the camera as the audience member. In high intensity scenes where there are explosions and gun fire, the camera should be moving somewhat erratically. In scenes of intense dialogue, a person would be still, glued to every word. I love Law & Order SVU, and anytime they are in the precinct going over the case, the camera moves from one character to the next as they give their dialogue as opposed to lots of cutting. I would imagine that's how someone would move around if they were in that situation. If you're in a living room and want to dolly through the room, that would be how someone would move to get from one point to the other.

In the end, I guess movement shouldn't be used just "to add production value" but rather portray an emotion. I worked with a director that didn't like movement, but on the last shot, I suggested a dolly out. She reluctantly agreed, and the shot made the edit.
 
Camera movement is like any other tool in filmmaking, it can be used properly and it can be used improperly. The best directors and cinematographers utilize camera movement to tell the story, and never move the camera arbitrarily. As some people brought up in earlier posts, there's a lot of people out there who move the camera unnecessarily (unmotivated is another word) and it feels unnatural, artificial, and worst, it doesn't help tell the story.

Visual language is a dying artform in Hollywood. Alfred Hitchcock said that in a good movie, the sound could suddenly go out and people would still know what's going on just by the image they see on the screen. One of the ways visual language operates is through camera movement, so its important to know how to use specific moves and what that move achieves. People who try to use those moves not knowing what they do usually end up making bad movies.
 
I guess the best thing for me would be if someone gave examples of good and bad camera movement. For instance, in "The house of the devil" there are quite a few very slow, deliberate camera moves that are not motivated by anything in the story, but I thought that they looked incredible and the movie would not be as visually interesting without them. So which category does this fall in? Also, how exactly do the director and cinematographer come to the conclusion that "I want the camera to move about 2 feet to the right over the course of this shot"?
 
Just to reiterate what everyone else is saying, most cases camera movement is story or script motivated, meaning that you move the camera to enhance the emotion or feeling of a scene.

Fast paced car scene = lots of camera movement and wild sweeps and pans, ect.

Two people sitting at a table talking = locked off shots.

Of course none of this are "rules." I would say camera movement (or lack of) is one of the best tools you have for telling your story uniquely. Generally use it to enhance the intended emotion you audience is supposed to feel during a particular scene. Here are a few of my favorite examples:

All still shots, gives feeling of tenseness, notice how the people are very stiff moving and proper, matching the camera movements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDupoFh5Op0

Interesting way to cover a table scene with a lot of people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyR4RK0LA_E

Best shootout ever (thats what gunfire really sounds like) lots of interesting shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9fnVtz_lc&feature=related
 
Camera movement doesn't always have to add to or support the story. Take a dolly move which tracks parallel with/behind a character as he enters and crosses a room. The movement could be covered with a simple pan. But the perspective change during the movement, especially if there are foreground elements that "slide" by as the camera dollies, is sooo sexy.

There is nothing wrong with adding production value.
 
Hollywood Camera Work DVDs will more than clear up this subject. Camera work for a director is like syntax for a writer and needs to be understood.

To give an example of something from HCW, the "close push" is when the camera inches straight on to a character on a dolly. Pay attention to when these are used in films. It's typically when characters are coming to a realization about something. The camera pushing slowly in toward a character tells the audience that they're deep in thought.

Some camera moves can just look cool or give a scene some style, but the best ones have the ability to tell the audience new information and help the actors convey emotion.
 
sublimesnfu said:
I will give an example of way to much camera movement - mine - http://vimeo.com/11121571

Feel free to bash away :-D

I am currently reediting it to use less movement.
Click to expand...


First off you don't have to much camera movement. What you have is too much camera movement in the same direction. Switch it up. But I thought the piece was pretty well done. Could take more time lighting but at least you used a tripod, which I find is becoming a thing of the past lately.

As far as movement goes, just watch any of the Lord of the Rings movies or any Peter Jackson movie for that matter and you'll be surprised how much movement are in his films. Even when it is just a conversation between two people.
 
There should always be reasons why you are moving the camera. Sure filmmakers think it adds to the film, but it may also take the audience out of the film, because they are paying attention to the movement instead of the reason the scene is in the film. Don't think like a filmmaker, think like the audience. Understand how the audience reacts to the shots you shoot. So why do you use movement? You use movement to reveal additional information and create depth. Do you need movement? No. You also need to know why you are putting the camera in the exact place you are putting it...in regards to how it manipulates your audience. Your job is to manipulate the audience...to get them to see and feel what you want for every single shot. Often times people shoot a complex shot with movement of the camera and subject and it takes them hours to get it lit and shot correctly. Then if you don't shoot coverage you are stuck with that shot. It better work. Don't force yourself into a corner by thinking you have to have camera movement. You should always be able to answer a few questions about your shot. What lens do you need? How far will you place the camera from the subject? What vertical and horzontal angles do you want? What lighting setup? Will the subject be moving? Will the camera be moving? What do you want in focus? And what not in focus? What exposure do you want? What shots will preceed and follow the shot you are shooting and how will it edit together? Progressive/standard shooting and editing or regressive, or contrasting or repetitive? All these are simple questions. Know why you are shooting the way you are shooting.

Keep shooting

Curtis Kessinger
"Just Shoot It!" A complete guide to filmmaking
 
randomname said:
I guess the best thing for me would be if someone gave examples of good and bad camera movement. For instance, in "The house of the devil" there are quite a few very slow, deliberate camera moves that are not motivated by anything in the story, but I thought that they looked incredible and the movie would not be as visually interesting without them. So which category does this fall in? Also, how exactly do the director and cinematographer come to the conclusion that "I want the camera to move about 2 feet to the right over the course of this shot"?
Click to expand...

Long, slow zooms can be a mark of psychological movies, as well as a method of revelation. Think of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, which obviously has a tremendous amount of influence on House of the Devil (director's words, not mine). When the audience sees a slow zoom in, our attention is hyper focused on what we're zooming in on. Conversely, as we're zooming out, we place ourselves as far as geography of location, and notice more information as the frame gets wider. The zooms in House of the Devil are not unmotivated - they are cleverly disguising information, or forcing it upon the viewer for a psychological effect.
 
As you move in on a CU or Extreme CU then tension is increased...the climax of the shot is upon you. You move into the eys of the subject or an object and it is the punch of the scene. If you move out your tension decreases. All of it has a motivation behind it. Watch Bonnie and Clyde. You will notice they start out with the CU and then pull back. It's an instant impact...bam...like the shooting...it's a shot fired to open almost every scene. It hits your senses differently than most films. Then they pull back and let you relax...until they hit you again. It keeps you on edge like a roller coaster...you know it's coming. Most films do just the opposite. They usually shoot the standard technique...moving in closer as the scene progresses...so the drama and tension increase. You are focusing the audience's attention...they get more intimate as you move in on the eyes of the subject or the object. The more in line you ae with the subject's eyes...the more connection for the audience. So you want to start out above or below then as you move in you also move more in line with the subject's eyes.
 
Pushing in tight can create tension. But it can also create intimacy in a tender moment. We can see the nuances in a characters expressions and feel their emotion.
 
Good catch Jim. I meant to say that it increases the moment...whatever that moment is intended to do to the audience. It increases that focus of the scene as you move in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top