combatentropy
Veteran
Has anyone used the argument that a locked-down shot will compress better?
Too much of a good thing: camera movement
- Thread starter QuickHitRecord
- Start date
maranfilms
Veteran
Motivation! Motivation! Motivation! When the camera moves every shot, it's more difficult to use subtle movement to create emotion. If your story, acting, lighting, set design, framing, are proper, camera movement is only necessary when motivated.
I'm not saying every scene, it's obvious many need to be moving, take Saving private Ryan opening scene. If that were locked off, it wouldn't have any where near the impact it has with a moving camera. But keep in mind, it too is motivated. It's not moving just for the sake of moving it. Just my 2cents.
I'm not saying every scene, it's obvious many need to be moving, take Saving private Ryan opening scene. If that were locked off, it wouldn't have any where near the impact it has with a moving camera. But keep in mind, it too is motivated. It's not moving just for the sake of moving it. Just my 2cents.
First things first - what is a "motivated" camera movement? Traditionally, it meant that something (usually an actor) in the scene causes ("motivates") the camera to move, whether by getting up from a chair, or walking over somewhere, or looking at something and the camera follows his/her gaze etc. From that point of view, I disagree with the "rule" that ever camera movement ought to be thus "motivated", or else it's an artistic abuse of a tool/effect. Like someone said - what if you want to simply add "eye-candy" and a camera move supplies that - nothing wrong with that, assuming the sequence needs eye-candy.
A better rule would be "camera movement ought to be justified" or it ought to "add to the final effect". Let me give you an example that drove that point home for me, when I was on a feature film set for the first time, some 25 years ago. The director was shooting a scene where three people were sitting and talking. He filmed it from a certain vantage point. The scene appeared somewhat lifeless. Then he made a very small change. The camera was sitting on a dolly, and in the beginning of the scene he had the camera gently move by literally a few inches, and then stop - it was barely perceptible. And yet, suddenly the scene came alive. Almost nothing changed, it was basically the same angle, except there was a SMALL, SHORT movement at the start of the scene. And that's all it took for there to be a dramatic change in how the scene came across. Now, nothing "motivated" that move in the classical sense. It didn't push in on the face of an actor who is experiencing emotion, or is reacting, or any other sense of "motivation". And yet it was a tremendously important movement. It was "justified" and it "added to the final effect" (in fact, made the difference between failure and success), but it was not "motivated" in the classical sense... there was absolutely no reason within the scene to for the camera to make that small movement - except for the effect on the viewer.
And that, friends, is when I understood the importance of directing. The importance of a director understanding how to shoot a scene or indeed a film well. You could shoot the exact same scene, in almost the exact same way, and one director would shoot it with the result of failure, while another one with success. And there was nothing obvious about adding that small movement - it was pure instinct. You can't teach that. You either have it, or you don't.
You can shoot a whole movie without moving the camera within the shot once. The famous Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu would shoot a movie with a static camera, and rarely used non-diegetic music, and created masterpieces of style. Someone mentioned - negatively - how some shoot a whole movie with one lens - but f.ex. Polanski always shot with a very narrow mm lens range, sometimes the one-focal length lens for the whole movie. It can give the film a certain stylistic unity. So it's possible to never move a camera within a scene, and shoot a whole movie with one lens - and create a film of great style.
Now, if there really is no point at all to the camera movement - no motivation, no deeper psychological effect as in the example I gave - it may become tiresome, but I wonder if it can't also work as the flip side of the whole movie with NO camera movement - it's just a style. As long as you do it with some artistic integrity and unity - not just any movement. Just as in a static camera, it's not just pointing randomly.
In the end, there are no "rules" that you can follow for surefire artistic success. A "rule" is always a rule of thumb, subject to revision depending on final effect, which is why exceptions exist. Throw out the rulebook and use your eyes. If it works, don't worry about what the rules say or don't say - use that which works, even if it's against "the rules". Rules exist because they are a kind of shortcut, a faster way of getting work done, because they apply 95% of the time. But if you don't understand why the rule-of-thumb exists, you'll just end up with a mediocre product that follows all the rules - which beats the guy who doesn't know the rules and has no eye either, so ends up with utterly incompetent stuff. That's a miserable choice between mediocre and terrible. It's that last 5% that matters, and there are no rules for that, there is only talent... no rules only your eye, your artistic instinct, because if you don't have an eye, rules won't give you one, and if you do have an eye, you don't need any rules.
Therefore, regarding camera movements, just as much as any other tool in film: use your eye. There are no rules.
A better rule would be "camera movement ought to be justified" or it ought to "add to the final effect". Let me give you an example that drove that point home for me, when I was on a feature film set for the first time, some 25 years ago. The director was shooting a scene where three people were sitting and talking. He filmed it from a certain vantage point. The scene appeared somewhat lifeless. Then he made a very small change. The camera was sitting on a dolly, and in the beginning of the scene he had the camera gently move by literally a few inches, and then stop - it was barely perceptible. And yet, suddenly the scene came alive. Almost nothing changed, it was basically the same angle, except there was a SMALL, SHORT movement at the start of the scene. And that's all it took for there to be a dramatic change in how the scene came across. Now, nothing "motivated" that move in the classical sense. It didn't push in on the face of an actor who is experiencing emotion, or is reacting, or any other sense of "motivation". And yet it was a tremendously important movement. It was "justified" and it "added to the final effect" (in fact, made the difference between failure and success), but it was not "motivated" in the classical sense... there was absolutely no reason within the scene to for the camera to make that small movement - except for the effect on the viewer.
And that, friends, is when I understood the importance of directing. The importance of a director understanding how to shoot a scene or indeed a film well. You could shoot the exact same scene, in almost the exact same way, and one director would shoot it with the result of failure, while another one with success. And there was nothing obvious about adding that small movement - it was pure instinct. You can't teach that. You either have it, or you don't.
You can shoot a whole movie without moving the camera within the shot once. The famous Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu would shoot a movie with a static camera, and rarely used non-diegetic music, and created masterpieces of style. Someone mentioned - negatively - how some shoot a whole movie with one lens - but f.ex. Polanski always shot with a very narrow mm lens range, sometimes the one-focal length lens for the whole movie. It can give the film a certain stylistic unity. So it's possible to never move a camera within a scene, and shoot a whole movie with one lens - and create a film of great style.
Now, if there really is no point at all to the camera movement - no motivation, no deeper psychological effect as in the example I gave - it may become tiresome, but I wonder if it can't also work as the flip side of the whole movie with NO camera movement - it's just a style. As long as you do it with some artistic integrity and unity - not just any movement. Just as in a static camera, it's not just pointing randomly.
In the end, there are no "rules" that you can follow for surefire artistic success. A "rule" is always a rule of thumb, subject to revision depending on final effect, which is why exceptions exist. Throw out the rulebook and use your eyes. If it works, don't worry about what the rules say or don't say - use that which works, even if it's against "the rules". Rules exist because they are a kind of shortcut, a faster way of getting work done, because they apply 95% of the time. But if you don't understand why the rule-of-thumb exists, you'll just end up with a mediocre product that follows all the rules - which beats the guy who doesn't know the rules and has no eye either, so ends up with utterly incompetent stuff. That's a miserable choice between mediocre and terrible. It's that last 5% that matters, and there are no rules for that, there is only talent... no rules only your eye, your artistic instinct, because if you don't have an eye, rules won't give you one, and if you do have an eye, you don't need any rules.
Therefore, regarding camera movements, just as much as any other tool in film: use your eye. There are no rules.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I totally agree Old Corpse. To me, I use terms like contrast. Without some static, locked off shots in contrast, all of the movement quickly loses any meaning or significance because it's all kinetic and higher energy than locked off shots. Same with editing, same with sound effects. A moving camera is an effect. A static camera is an effect. Knowing when, where and how to use those effects is what makes visual art. I am seeing a dearth of good handheld camera work. And by handheld, I mean that subtle, organic handheld movement, not running around making the viewer nauseous. It seems that all anyone wants are gimbal/Steadicam/drone types of grand movement. Which all looks great but for shooting people, dialog and interviews, I miss that subtle, tasteful handheld operating, it is definitely not in style as much. I have a gimbal and recently used it for a corporate video. It worked well for a few shots because the subject matter, (people writing on white boards while others sat at tables) looked pretty boring visually. I used lock off interview shots with two cameras, intercut with the gimbal stuff from the classroom and it all cut together pretty well. But that's a :90 promo. I did also cut in some longer lens shots of the facilitator. But as earlier posts alluded to, this was purely an informational video, not art. It will have a limited shelf life and the client wanted it to pop so people will actually watch it on-line. I found myself actually using the gimbal lately to get some subtle movement BTS shots as we roll with a locked off main camera during interviews and that seems to work nicely. I start behind the A camera, then slowly walk back to reveal the entire scene with lights, softboxes, interviewer from a 3/4 view from the side. Great for intros, outro or b-roll. I am barely moving the gimbal camera but those little subtle slides around the A camera are kind of fun to watch.
Last edited:
The new PilotFly H2 gimbal is 3rd or 4th generation and seems to be pretty cutting edge in terms of affordable tech. The H2 battery lasts 26 hours, and looking at Dave Dugdale's walking footage the dang thing looks very stable.
I agree with Charles that gimbal controls will likely improve in the future, so maybe some day we will have a gimbal with fine movement control, like a Stedicam has.
I agree
Not moving camera's because it can,
but moving camera's because it adds something.
But I think it is a matter of time until this hype will end (and be switched for another).
Sometimes a slightly moving camera gives some more depth (certainly if nothing else moves in the shot).
But not for me, bought a slider and never used it, I find smooth panning difficult enough. For me the subjects can move and the camera doesn't have to.
The same with drone images, pilot likes flying and makes 'active shots' most of the images that I use are almost always the stills.
Not moving camera's because it can,
but moving camera's because it adds something.
But I think it is a matter of time until this hype will end (and be switched for another).
Sometimes a slightly moving camera gives some more depth (certainly if nothing else moves in the shot).
But not for me, bought a slider and never used it, I find smooth panning difficult enough. For me the subjects can move and the camera doesn't have to.
The same with drone images, pilot likes flying and makes 'active shots' most of the images that I use are almost always the stills.
Last edited:
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
Im not too bothered by the trends. Infact, I am victim of it myself. Here is a video where I use all of the gimmicks mentioned on this thread. I totally respect all the opinions voiced here. And to a great extent, I agree. But i think the key is really to be connected with what it is your are shooting. Is it scripted? If so, be connected to the script and use the camera to further advance emotion, story, perspective, pace, rhythm...similar to editing. Of course, everyone already knows this, and I suppose it is the point of this thread.
https://vimeo.com/160564126
Password: boazamf
it was a "no budget" shoot with very little time. Shot on the FS700 and Nikkor primes. The subtitles are meant like a silent narrator, because there were some key shots we could not get, so we had to fill in the plot holes. No big deal for this, since it was a labor of love, if you will. Mostly just having fun with some friends. It is not perfect by any means. Many flaws in it. But hopefully it makes up for it somewhat in other ways. But fun times! And boy, is it fun moving the camera around! Haha.
. Gotta laugh at yourself sometimes
https://vimeo.com/160564126
Password: boazamf
it was a "no budget" shoot with very little time. Shot on the FS700 and Nikkor primes. The subtitles are meant like a silent narrator, because there were some key shots we could not get, so we had to fill in the plot holes. No big deal for this, since it was a labor of love, if you will. Mostly just having fun with some friends. It is not perfect by any means. Many flaws in it. But hopefully it makes up for it somewhat in other ways. But fun times! And boy, is it fun moving the camera around! Haha.
. Gotta laugh at yourself sometimes
Last edited:
doubledark
Well-known member
I wish my work was as "flawed" as this ��
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, that sodium vapor light in the stairwell went nuclear! Haha
It was all a bit of a compromise during production and we did not have a lot of time to color time and power window these things.
Sorry if I took the thread off topic, though.
But to go back to camera movement, during production (if you can even really call what we did a "Production") I was wishing we had more time to shoot precisely for the sake of framing and coverage. There was a moment when I didn't know how to cover the scene, and if we had more time to experiment, move the camera around, try different routes through a space or cover in multiple static shots, perhaps we could have come up with something better. I ended up resorting to movement as a way of giving the talent some "business". Walking was the business. Pretty cliché when you think about it. But in our haste it felt right because there is a theme of motion and going places, yet, in a controlled way that doesn't make the camera a character in the world as much as handheld tends to do. So in this way I hoped the controlled movement added a layer of distance (or something) between the world on screen and the viewer. Now, this isn't a rule or the only thing you can achieve with it either...which makes it hard to be objective about it. In fact, it was just a hunch in my part, in our rush to get something quick. Ultimately whether it is successful or not is the viewer.
Of course, we rarely have enough time experiment so I'm not complaining. And at the risk of potentially contradicting myself, I also think it is important to try things without knowing why...take chances and risks that may yield results we are not familiar with. We don't always have to know "why" in the moment, but if it feels right for some reason, than that can be a good place to start. But in experimenting and thinking something feels "right", how do we know we are not just appealing to the gimmics and trends we already familiar with? That type of objectivity is the stuff of mastery...which evades me
It was all a bit of a compromise during production and we did not have a lot of time to color time and power window these things.
Sorry if I took the thread off topic, though.
But to go back to camera movement, during production (if you can even really call what we did a "Production") I was wishing we had more time to shoot precisely for the sake of framing and coverage. There was a moment when I didn't know how to cover the scene, and if we had more time to experiment, move the camera around, try different routes through a space or cover in multiple static shots, perhaps we could have come up with something better. I ended up resorting to movement as a way of giving the talent some "business". Walking was the business. Pretty cliché when you think about it. But in our haste it felt right because there is a theme of motion and going places, yet, in a controlled way that doesn't make the camera a character in the world as much as handheld tends to do. So in this way I hoped the controlled movement added a layer of distance (or something) between the world on screen and the viewer. Now, this isn't a rule or the only thing you can achieve with it either...which makes it hard to be objective about it. In fact, it was just a hunch in my part, in our rush to get something quick. Ultimately whether it is successful or not is the viewer.
Of course, we rarely have enough time experiment so I'm not complaining. And at the risk of potentially contradicting myself, I also think it is important to try things without knowing why...take chances and risks that may yield results we are not familiar with. We don't always have to know "why" in the moment, but if it feels right for some reason, than that can be a good place to start. But in experimenting and thinking something feels "right", how do we know we are not just appealing to the gimmics and trends we already familiar with? That type of objectivity is the stuff of mastery...which evades me
charliemcdanger
Well-known member
Yesterday I saw mention of a politician butchering a "Hoosiers" reference, with a link to the original scene. I was struck at how still the camera is in that scene--almost locked down, with slight and deft movement as OldCorpse mentions. Holds up nicely I'd say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cdc13CU9Fc
p.s. sorry for posting the 4x3 crop...I think the point still stands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cdc13CU9Fc
p.s. sorry for posting the 4x3 crop...I think the point still stands.
Last edited:
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUSFqK2Ebo
What do you guys think? Seems like it speaks to the point of the OP and others. Perhaps at this point it is redundant info, though
What do you guys think? Seems like it speaks to the point of the OP and others. Perhaps at this point it is redundant info, though
Greg Smith
Veteran
Ironically, when I played that clip, it was preceded by an ad for Stihl chainsaws in which every shot was in dizzying motion.
- Greg
combatentropy
Veteran
Hey, he says one of my favorite quotes ("Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler") and quotes one of my favorite books, The Elements of Style by Strunk and White.
Einstein's "as simple as possible" quote starts off my 2008 plea to camera makers, A Cam for All Seasons. And this thread echos another of my web pages, Rules for Making Movies. (The rules are rather strict, but bear in mind they're just rules, which can be broken.)