Too much of a good thing: camera movement

QuickHitRecord

QuickHitRecord

Veteran
Since the mass adoption of gimbal stabilizers, a lot of shooters are choosing to move the camera in every single shot. I've seen crews that have done away with dollies/jibs and even tripods in favor of gimbals and drones. For anything that isn't an interview, locked down static shots and pans/tilts seem to be on the way out. Personally, I find it kind of exhausting to watch a video or film in which the camera is constantly moving (often without motivation) and I give a little cheer whenever I see a well-composed tripod shot because with all of the options available to us these days, making the conscientious decision to put the camera on a tripod takes a certain degree of self-restraint.

I'm curious to hear what others think about this.
 
I agree.

A moving camera can work well. It does at least two things. First, in a fiction film, during an emotional moment, it can strengthen the emotion. For example, if you move the camera in on the character as he realizes something. Second, in fiction and nonfiction, it can better show a three-dimensional object. Moving the camera by a car or cake will deliver more information about how the thing is shaped.

But, like spice, it works really well in low doses and in really high doses it elicits nausea, or at least a kind of emotional fatigue.

I suppose the same could be said for other tools. Who could stand a neverending musical score, a constant stream of extreme close-ups, or non-stop rapid cutting?
 
There are many types of camera movement, and they all do different things to the experience of viewing that moment.
If one doesn't understand that, and understand the different effects different movements have - then one is just waving a stick around in a crowded room with the lights off.
"Movement for movement's sake" can and will make a shot worse....make a scene worse.

Just because you CAN so something, doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it.
 
Im not even aware of a cheap gimbal that can actually be pointed where you want which is surely camera op skill number one?

Personally im still struggling to operate with any precision on sticks (that is control my PT) or walk with a full steadicam+arm rig without showing footsteps (that is control my Z)

I think there are two issues..

Do gimbals work?

With the lack of ability to use easily with a good eyeline or focus with any non wide lens, and the lack of XYZ stabilisation, computerisation of PT, not to mention complex monitoring and battery issues many current gimbals could be described as 'not working'

Im pretty sure that 'Movi/Preston/Second op/Selection of XYZ stabilisers' gimbals are getting close to 'working' but that is a $100k rig.

Do gimbals add production value/tell story etc?

Well Id guess like all tools.. yep when appropriate selected for the shot.

----

Im currently in the pitching for a job that may be hotel shooting. The person spec requires 'gimbal skills' - I will be suggesting my small dolly instead - my dolly is stable in PTRoll and XYZ, works up to 80mm, can take a focus pull and I can see the monitor, operate from 10 inches to 5 foot and is fast to set up (on smooth level floors) and is therefore the more appropriate tool.

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Im not even aware of a cheap gimbal that can actually be pointed where you want which is surely camera op skill number one?

Personally im still struggling to operate with any precision on sticks (that is control my PT) or walk with a full steadicam+arm rig without showing footsteps (that is control my Z)

I think there are two issues..

Do gimbals work?

With the lack of ability to use easily with a good eyeline or focus with any non wide lens, and the lack of XYZ stabilisation, computerisation of PT, not to mention complex monitoring and battery issues many current gimbals could be described as 'not working'

Im pretty sure that 'Movi/Preston/Second op/Selection of XYZ stabilisers' gimbals are getting close to 'working' but that is a $100k rig.

Do gimbals add production value/tell story etc?

Well Id guess like all tools.. yep when appropriate selected for the shot.

----

Im currently in the pitching for a job that may be hotel shooting. The person spec requires 'gimbal skills' - I will be suggesting my small dolly instead - my dolly is stable in PTRoll and XYZ, works up to 80mm, can take a focus pull and I can see the monitor, operate from 10 inches to 5 foot and is fast to set up (on smooth level floors) and is therefore the more appropriate tool.

S
Click to expand...


Gimbals should FUNDAMENTALLY be thought of as "SteadyCam". Granted there are things that you can do with a Gimbal that you can't do with a SteadyCam, but much of that falls into the category of more advanced use. For which one needs learning, practice, and skill.

"Should I use a gimbal?" - sure, if you were hoping on using a SteadyCam for that particular shot.
"How many shots ARE SteadyCam shots typically in the kind of piece I'm doing?" should be your next question.

I agree with you about your "not working" definition. If you try to do all the things that a gimbal "could do"....yeah, you're going to be sorely disappointed. But JUST SteadyCam style shots are a reasonable expectation, and honestly, that doesn't push the limitations of typical gimbals. That's why it will usually work just fine.
BUT REMEMBER - If the SteadyCam shot you're thinking of would normally be done with a full vest-arm-stabilizer rig - then you're probably going to need a vest and arm for your gimbal too. THAT'S that part that too many folks with gimbals try to get around...and it usually doesn't work very well.
 
Steadicams, as well as stabilising in XYZ (the arm) , do not control pan and tilt by a computer guessing where you want to point the camera - that is a huge difference if you want to 'operate with any precision'

BTW Im all over buying myself a gimbal at some point. Mainly because Steadicams usually put the camera within arms reach of the operator.. im interested in gimbals on the end of ropes/cranes/digger buckets and other places it is hard to put an operator.

S
 
Camera movements is my weak point. And one of the reasons is that I don't really care for them. Or rather I don't like bad or unmotivated camera movements. It started with DSLRs (like so many other bad habits in filmmaking today) where people were whipping them around producing shaky unwatchable garbage.
But now everybody expects camera movement all the time it seems.
 
The majority of my work is commercials, and the majority of the time they want the camera moving. Whether it should be moving or not. Back in my angry youth days I would have said "Piss off" this shot needs to be... But now I just go with the flow and shoot it how they want it. But I will also do a take my way so I will have it. I get paid my day rate and I go home. Life is too short to worry about the latest trends making their way into video production. Every time I turn on TV I see some jackleg thing and say to myself "great, now they will be wanting me to put that into every commercial I do for the next 9 months. :happy:
 
You know what I miss....the tripod. I love a perfectly composed locked off shot.

Recently, in the field I work in, I see companies using steadicams with the same lens for the entire project. It kinda makes me sick and feels like a copout for real artistry. I definitely get the sense that "hey I know how to move the camera around, I must be good at what I do." When the reality is, a master cinematographer moves or stands still with intention....not because they own a glidecam and thats "fancy."
 
David W. Jones said:
The majority of my work is commercials, and the majority of the time they want the camera moving. Whether it should be moving or not. Back in my angry youth days I would have said "Piss off" this shot needs to be... But now I just go with the flow and shoot it how they want it. But I will also do a take my way so I will have it. I get paid my day rate and I go home.
Click to expand...
That's all nice and well.
For me as a one-man-band owner-operator with lower budget music videos, it's the fact I will have to buy some bloody gimbal or whatnot when I want to get more/better lenses instead. They unfortunately don't have the budget to rent it and they don't understand the cost of buying it all they see is other videos with DSLRs whipping around with shots going in and out of focus all the time. So then it's the pressure of trying to get some movement in there when I don't have the equipment to do it. And no one is willing to put the time in to do anything properly either. Gah.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
You know what I miss....the tripod. I love a perfectly composed locked off shot.

Recently, in the field I work in, I see companies using steadicams with the same lens for the entire project. It kinda makes me sick and feels like a copout for real artistry. I definitely get the sense that "hey I know how to move the camera around, I must be good at what I do." When the reality is, a master cinematographer moves or stands still with intention....not because they own a glidecam and thats "fancy."
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
One of the worst things I've seen was a music video entirely shot with a drone inside a church. It would have been fine as a test to see if they could operate the drone inside a church but as a video it was completely unwatchable. One unmotivated (extremely) moving shot after another...
 
dmitrizigany said:
For me as a one-man-band owner-operator with lower budget music videos, it's the fact I will have to buy some bloody gimbal or whatnot when I want to get more/better lenses instead..
Click to expand...


These are the classic business decisions we make all the time.

The way I look at it now is, which tool will pay itself off quicker for the investment and earn more money? You may want a new set of prime lenses, but if your current client base can't support the investment, and they are asking for camera movement, then I would invest in a tool which would support my current client base to provide the camera movement they are after.
 
I have so many thoughts on this subject (it's a good one), not even sure I know where to begin.

In my high school years I began an obsession with camera movement that led me to Steadicam, which at the time was very far from being a household term. I took the workshop at 19, bought my first rig at 23 and enjoyed a 20+ year career in it. Along the way I also got to ride Titan cranes, work with the Technocranes and the Russian arm and Skycam and the 100 foot Strada crane. When it wasn't that exotica, it was Chapman and Fischer dollies or handheld.

Once I started calling the shots versus just executing them, I found that my sensibilities had refined to where I was highly judicious and specific about when and how to move the lens. If anything, I'm on the conservative side with all of that now. However; I have to always consider the intended audience, and how they will respond to "eye candy" and sometimes that means moving for moving's sake.

One of the more unfortunate trends that is has stubbornly refused to wear out is handheld for "energy". Thanks to "The Office", comedy has had a love affair with the restless camera and we dutifully follow.

Steadicams vs gimbals. It's my contention that the two are not mutually exclusive, the ultimate rig will borrow bits and pieces from both technologies (nothing beats a good Steadicam arm for vertical stability, while a dead-on horizon is far easier to achieve with a gimbal). I have yet to be asked to make a shot that requires a gimbal over Steadicam, but the day will come. For now, I'd much rather hire a skilled Steadicam operator. Once mastered, the Steadicam is capable of incredibly subtle and instaneous adjustments that a gimbal is unlikely to achieve (whether in one-person follow mode or with dual operators). Again: the future will be interesting and many problems solved in this space, I'm sure.
 
CharlesPapert said:
However; I have to always consider the intended audience, and how they will respond to "eye candy" and sometimes that means moving for moving's sake.
Click to expand...

This.

I shot an admissions video last year for a private school. When I had the pre-pro meeting with their communications director, she showed me samples of admissions videos from other schools as a guide for the style she wanted. It was ALL dynamic movement on sliders, gimbals, jibs, and drones. It goes against my sense of taste, but it's what the client wanted.

CharlesPapert said:
One of the more unfortunate trends that is has stubbornly refused to wear out is handheld for "energy". Thanks to "The Office", comedy has had a love affair with the restless camera and we dutifully follow.
Click to expand...

It was "Law & Order" before that.
 
Alex H. said:
It was "Law & Order" before that.
Click to expand...

The look has been around for a good long while, but it was more of a one-hour drama thing. It's easier to understand how that look can communicate tension/excitement/intrigue than the attributes of comedy but, here we are.
 
As a relative newbie to video production and a hobbyist I don't have the issue of client demands & pressures to conform. There are times when I like the effect of camera movement when it adds something to the scene. However, the constant movement with no motivation makes no sense. Is this possibly another fad that will calm down soon? I'm thinking of other things like light leaks that were the rage a few years ago or shallow depth of field just because it was available. FCPX (and probably some other NLEs) even offer a camera shake plug in so your tripod shots can be made to look handheld. Combine these with too many pointless drone and slider shots & to me it all starts to look gimmicky.
 
Majority of stuff we do (we, as in all of us here on this board) is meaningless so whether camera moves or not is really not that relevant. If it can be done fast and cheaply and the client is happy - then whatever. This cynicism comes from practicality as so little of what we do has any profound meaning, worrying about whether it's appropriate or not is a good intellectual exercise but pointless for majority of the work we do.

Of course, it has very specific implications. For instance the shallow DOF fad gave us many decent looking shots where the cameraman didn't have to worry about irrelevant background but at the same time destroyed our mind's ability to wonder around the frame and see the environment of the person being interviewed. Likewise, by over-moving the camera, those b-level operators destroy public's ability to appreciate meaningful camera move and so those few times when you do work on something with meaning you have to work that much extra hard to induce the intended meaning with your camera work.
 
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Majority of stuff we do (we, as in all of us here on this board) is meaningless so whether camera moves or not is really not that relevant. If it can be done fast and cheaply and the client is happy - then whatever. This cynicism comes from practicality as so little of what we do has any profound meaning, worrying about whether it's appropriate or not is a good intellectual exercise but pointless for majority of the work we do.

Of course, it has very specific implications. For instance the shallow DOF fad gave us many decent looking shots where the cameraman didn't have to worry about irrelevant background but at the same time destroyed our mind's ability to wonder around the frame and see the environment of the person being interviewed. Likewise, by over-moving the camera, those b-level operators destroy public's ability to appreciate meaningful camera move and so those few times when you do work on something with meaning you have to work that much extra hard to induce the intended meaning with your camera work.
Click to expand...


Indeed.
Very well stated.

And before people go hollering that the work isn't meaningless - yeah, if it's product shots or commercials and internal corporate communications, training videos, etc,... there's no meaning in these SHOTS. No meaning in these MOMENTS. It's all just a matter of 'get the information across'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top