shooting handheld and/or tripod

videoshark

videoshark

Well-known member
well, i'm shooting a short film soon and i want to get some DVXuser's thoughts regarding shooting handheld along with tripod shots. I've seen film and TV where they cut handheld with tripod(steady) shots. and it comes out looking alright. then there's movies where the entire thing is shot handheld...and that can be good too, when done right. personally i like some life to the camera.

not sure if i should just shoot the whole thing handheld or use the tripod for shots that require it (for example, like a shot of a car pulling up and 3 guys opening a garage door - that wide shot should be static..no shake..right?)
well let me know what YOU think.

our short film is dialogue driven and has a great sense of urgency..hence handheld will work well, just not sure how it will mix with steady shots..you dig?
by the way, 90% of the short is shot in a garage.

(also handheld will save a lot of time as opposed to getting the tripod set up for every shot).

thanks in advance....

e
 
Personally I like to use handheld and shoot documentary style. Unlike people seem to think now days, this means holding the camera as still as possible - not deliberately shaking it around!!! It is normally unnoticeable, but you take it on board sub-consciously when watching the film.
 
Yeah, the handheld will definetly add a rushed feeling if that's what you're going for. Also, think about quick handheld pans between characters in dialogue instead of cuts. It makes the camera more subjective which will help the audience be drawn in more and take the focus off the shakiness; making it more subconscious.
 
I think that close action shots are great on hand held. I guess there are many ways to use it.. u can shoot entirely on tripod then handheld only when one particular character is on scene to highight him... his personality... bad guy whatever.
 
"(also handheld will save a lot of time as opposed to getting the tripod set up for every shot)."

My philosophy on hand held video is if you do it, there should be a good reason for it. It's distracting and unprofessional otherwise. Good reasons do not include laziness.

If your movie is worth making, it's worth putting some time and energy into it. Your comment just makes me believe that your heart is not in the right place when it comes to your current project. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Why not make it the absolute best that it can be?

A hand held camera takes me right out of the story. I believe it calls attention to the camera, and it has nothing to do with anything lifelike (unless you're trying to show a camera's POV). The camera just doesn't see things the way a person does. A person can focus on an object across the room, move their head all over the place, and yet still maintain a steady image of the object across the room. Your eyes can track whatever you want to see. It just doesn't work that way with a camera lens.

Hand held camera work does have its place, and I shoot hand held occasionally, but there has to be a good reason for it. If it's not motivated by the story, it just looks unprofessional. I just don't buy into the whole "Handheld is edgy, lifelike, and realistic" school of thought, especially if you're trying to make it seem like the audience is experiencing the scene through the eyes of one of the characters.
 
i know i know..i was just saying....
and it went well by the way. we shot handheld in the garage and the exterior was static - tripod and apple boxes. i am happy with the way it came out. we evoked our sense of energy (handheld) between the characters in the garage (90% of film) and set up the movie smooth/steady.

now we must edit..

e
 
KHendrix2 said:
"(also handheld will save a lot of time as opposed to getting the tripod set up for every shot)."

My philosophy on hand held video is if you do it, there should be a good reason for it. It's distracting and unprofessional otherwise. Good reasons do not include laziness.
Click to expand...

I agree KHendrix2, but there is a flip side too.

Personally, I always try to shoot as quickly as possible. This seems to keep everyone on their toes - actors stay in character between takes, the sun doesn't set, and the crew doesn't get bored and pissed off. I often find that scenes that I shoot very quickly are often the best. Handheld allows you to achieve a shooting style not possible with tripods.

I love the freedom handheld gives, BUT I would not recomend using it as an easy option, although I am probably guilty of having done so myself. I prefer to look at it as a free style of shooting rather than a lazy style. However, be aware that in some situations handheld is completely unsuitable.
 
Most hand held shooting tend to make me nauseous.

I watched ten minutes of Open Water and started to get seasick, and couldn't finish. At the start of the movie, when the family is getting ready to go to the beach, the shakey cam made the situation tense than it should be. Perhaps it was the intention of the director.

My three arguments against shakey cams are:

(1) If you like to composite special effects, backgrounds and use mattes, shakey cams make it impossible or difficult.

(2) 24 fps Judder is more apparent.

(3) Mpeg 2 formats with long GOP's don't suit movement, especially if the camera is moving. Resolution probably goes down and artifacting goes up. I had a Sony FX1 for a while. Picture looks great and high def when the camera is locked down. When you pan... might as well be using a VHS-C camera.

Mebbe it's only me, though.
 
Yeah, and it's not like EVERYONE else is going handheld and shooting that 24/ NYPD Blue/ Friday Night Lights/ Devil's Rejects/ Open Water/ The Office etc etc etc style, so you'll have something TOTALLY original. :thumbsup:
 
I agree mostly with Ken that it introduces the camera to the film which is supposed to be a no-no, but actually, if you pan a room with your eyes (as his example), especially if you turn your head, you do not do it smoothly. Your eyes lock/focus on different things and actually jump like slight camera movement. A blink is almost a camera shake (or cut if you're John Huston). You have to try and keep it as still as possible.

I definately agree with MMM that handheld keeps actors in the character and on their toes and does not require them to be such professionals to wait 30 minutes for lighting and carmera set up for a 12 second take.

But as Backlot said, everybody's doing it and so naturally it has become more acceptable to viewers, kind of like bad hollywood acting.
 
A large part of "Jaws" was shot handheld. Didn't look unprofessional at all. It wasn't "shaking" all over, but had an energy to it that a dolly or tripod pan cannot achieve.

If it works for the story, do it. Otherwise, it's just gratuitous.
 
Some people can shoot handheld, and some can't. Nearly the entire series "24" is shot handheld (or so it seems) but it never looks "shaky" or distracting.
 
check out the robert rodriguez 10 minute film school - he talks about that. its on the El Mariachi/Desperado DVD. He advocates handheld as the camera, he feels, gets too static in a tripod. But I'm sure if the Tarkovsky 10 minute film school we're available, he might say the opposite.

I imagine none of this helps. sorry.
 
Barry_Green said:
Some people can shoot handheld, and some can't. Nearly the entire series "24" is shot handheld (or so it seems) but it never looks "shaky" or distracting.
Click to expand...

Really? I find the handheld in 24 terribly distracting...all those silly zooms - Argh! Obviously it is a matter of taste though. I agree the Spielberg seems to use it most effectively. Schindler's List is superb, SPR made me sweat in the cinema!
 
jamestmather said:
Our job is to elicit emotion in our audience - and isn't vomiting a kind of emotion? I think I've said enough.
Click to expand...

Ever watched "Spooks" on BBC... I can't stand it, I literally can't watch, just because of the camerawork.
 
One point that I think is being ignored here is that as camera owners, operators, and/or professionals/enthusiasts we are hyper sensitive to the camera, albeit regarding movement, panning, or dollying.

For the vast majority of audiences who have been inundated with images from NYPD, 24, and various Hollywood releases, handheld does convey either a sense of perspective, urgency, or chaos. That is the desired effect to the manic like nature. I do not feel that someone who has never shot something before feels that this brings attention to the camera as an entity unto itself, but rather as their eye telling the story. In this situation you need to look at who your audience is.

If I am doing a project that is for a mass audience handheld becomes more of an option as does crash zooms. If I am producing something specifically for a festival audience (which I consider identical to the membership here) then those are things I would rather not rely upon.

Ultimately, in my opinion, I think that if your story is strong enough that it doesn't matter how you shoot it.
 
Has anyone considered monkeycam?...I think it doesn't matter how strong your story is - using monkeycam will effect it. just a thought.:laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top