shaky camera style?

M

Mark-P

Well-known member
First, I have no cinematography experience, I do editing. I have been noticing the style where video is shot with a shaky style when shooting movies when it could be clearly shot with a tripod. What is this style referred to and is there a type of mood or situation where this is appropriate? It seems to be used quite often.

Thanks.
 
Most people call it the hand-held look - even though these days the look is sometimes faked in post.

When is it appropriate? Let the fist fights and yelling begin... :)
 
clang said:
...even though these days the look is sometimes faked in post.
Click to expand...
I've seen this theory put forth several times recently, but I've never known this to be the case. It's never happened on any project I've worked on. Got any examples you can cite?

Why would somebody do that rather than just shooting with a handheld camera?
 
"Hand held" is a huge field. I shoot 99% of my stuff on a shoulder rig, so its nice and smooth, but has some natural organic motion in the footage. I really like that look. I hate the look one gets when they literally hold the camera in their hand and shoot, often while walking or following the talent. To me that style of footage looks like garbage. Always.
 
The Jason Bourne movies seem to be the ones that popularized the shaky cam effect in its current form. Looking at the behind-the-scenes in some of the Bourne movies you can see that the camera operators have shoulder mounted cameras, and they bring in most of the shakiness by moving their whole body (not the actual camera). The operators literally are making short sharp movements on their knees, and their hips. It mainly works in action movies, especially in fight scenes (the kinetic movement helps to mask any jump cuts), but as you say its used in everything these days....
 
It is sometimes used for entire films that want a documentary look (example: Friday Night Lights). Otherwise the appropriate time to use handheld is during moments of intensity or insecurity. Examples: flight scenes, moments of tension, someone in a place where they shouldn't be, POV shots, etc.
 
As noted the Bourne films have contributed to it's current popularity, as well the advent of "reality" TV and "found footage" style films.

Not a fan myself. We shoot maybe 15% handheld, trying to be as stable as possible and 85% on sticks, slider, dolly, etc...
 
nothing said:
I've seen this theory put forth several times recently, but I've never known this to be the case. It's never happened on any project I've worked on. Got any examples you can cite?

Why would somebody do that rather than just shooting with a handheld camera?
Click to expand...

I've done it.
 
Yep, I was in that thread as well.

Some of it is generational no doubt. I'm in my 40's. A lot of the films that have influenced me were shot with cameras that weighed as much as 60 or 80 pounds. Not a ton of shaky handheld going on with that beast.
 
I never got the shaky cam but I've recently gotten a shoulder rig going and have done some "hand held" that I really like. There were two movies that showed me how good handheld works in narratives; Hurt Locker and Winter's Bone. Now I see it all the time, all the way back to movies like the original Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3. I think some of the shakey cam we get now is a result of light cameras actually hand held and the action stuff from the Bourne movies, which you'll notice Tony Gilroy had tamped down considerably on the last one. In Hurt Locker they were working with barney'd 16 mm cameras, as they would have in the 70s. These things are heavy and operating hand held that way must be closer to what we get with digital cameras and shoulder mounts. You can pull focus with whip which is hugely valuable for this hand held. You know where I see a LOT of it that I like is in the TV show Blue Bloods. It's subtle, not the flailing around like Rachel Getting Married... that killed that movie for me, and such fine peformances too.

I like that subtle hand held where you have to actually look at the top of the frame "breathing" to get it. That works for me. I don't mind it a little shakier during fights or flights or uncertainty as mentioned, but for dialog I really like the smooth version. It is less self conscious but still intimate.

But if I can budget the time, I'll set up a dolly or and/or a jib. I also prefer stedicam but it's expensive, especially pulling focus.
 
Last edited:
Some reasons that hand held works these days:

1. Inexpensive
2. Quick
3. Organic
4. Less prep time

If you are working as a director of photography you will rarely find a director or producer who will criticize you for going hand held. It is the norm.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Not a fan myself. We shoot maybe 15% handheld, trying to be as stable as possible and 85% on sticks, slider, dolly, etc...
Click to expand...
I'm with you here. Despite the fact that it's easier when you're shooting without a crew, the result remain the same.
Chris Adler said:
There are times you need a stabilized shot for effects, etc. You'd then have to add artificial shake back in.
Click to expand...
Easier when you can avoid motion tracking that's for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top