What would you call this type of camera-work?

static and timecodes said:
I take it this is a stupid question.
I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Click to expand...

I personally would call it 'hard to watch'... I've seen similar frequently enough in 'pro' shows, and the like, but that doesn't mean I personally like it.

If this was a technique to 'liven' up a otherwise dull studio session... well... it doesn't work for me...

While if in the case of the Nirvana clip, the camera person was not an 'official' cameraman, I can see the reason for being rooted at the same place. But that
still doesn't lead me to 'like' the attempt to jazz up the shots...

In the case of the Studio session... there no reason on earth that the camera has to be so stagnantly stationary, with a few moves here and there, and the
heavy use of 'zoom/shakey/whackness'.
 
I'm just having fun. Not a stupid question, but a question without a definitive answer which you seek.

It's simply a handheld, snap zoom look. Not as smooth (handheld) or as snap zoomy as say, the office, which is docu feel. But it is trying to give the impression of spontaneity and energy to an otherwise planned and less exciting moment.
 
It's shot several times with handheld cameras and then carefully edited together. The Office is documentary-style, shot with a shoulder-mount cam that the operator keeps as steady as possible. Very different styles. The first requires almost no camera skills the second requires beaucoup.

Talking about the original Office I never saw the US version
 
thanks j

@RPO - I always think of a snap zoom as a very deliberate fast zoom say from a medium shot of a person to a close-up of their hand or eyes. A very precise move.

The types of zooms used in The Office are reframing zooms - often subtle rather than dramatic and not even cleanly executed. So I guess you can call it a snap zoom in the sense that they don't speed ramp up and down. But it is a very different aesthetic. Almost opposite in many regards.

It's like calling a steadicam shot "hand-held".

I always think of them as "zooms to nowhere", because they break the basic rule that a zoom needs a start a middle and an end.
 
its not a stupid question, and it IS an intentional style. Its intentionally POORLY shot in order to look more "real", like home video or documentary footage.

if you want to imitate it its easy:

-Zoom alot, which is the first thing you learn NOT to do when your learning to use a camera.
-Let the camera shake in your hands alot, hold it real unsteady, which is the second thing you learn NOT to do when you learn to use a camera.
- let things go out of focus alot, the third thing you learn NOT to do when youre learning to use a camera.

viola, your footage is more -oh-so-real-life because it looks like someone untrained shot it., so the guy on the guitar feels oh-so-down-to-earth and not like the corporate product he likely is.

possible names for it:

" poorly handheld style"
'fake home video style"
"crappy video style"
"fake documentary style"
"early 80's MTV Real World style"
"someone untrained in video shot it, so oh its so realistic style"
"this is oh so real and funky like you hip kids so buy this album style"
"why in gods name am i trying to make my handheld footage look like POOR handheld footage style"
 
Last edited:
A lot of people like to associate The Office with the Cinema Verite style, though it's not because it incorporates sit down interviews among other things.
 
memento515 said:
its not a stupid question, and it IS an intentional style. Its intentionally POORLY shot in order to look more "real", like home video or documentary footage.

if you want to imitate it its easy:

-Zoom alot, which is the first thing you learn NOT to do when your learning to use a camera.
-Let the camera shake in your hands alot, hold it real unsteady, which is the second thing you learn NOT to do when you learn to use a camera.
- let things go out of focus alot, the third thing you learn NOT to do when youre learning to use a camera.

viola, your footage is more -oh-so-real-life because it looks like someone untrained shot it., so the guy on the guitar feels oh-so-down-to-earth and not like the corporate product he likely is.

possible names for it:

" poorly handheld style"
'fake home video style"
"crappy video style"
"fake documentary style"
"early 80's MTV Real World style"
"someone untrained in video shot it, so oh its so realistic style"
"this is oh so real and funky like you hip kids so buy this album style"
"why in gods name am i trying to make my handheld footage look like POOR handheld footage style"
Click to expand...

Hahahaha.

Nice post!
 
vcassel said:
I think the whole 'don't zoom' thing should be stricken from the newbie warning checklist. A lot of modern action films use zooming.
Click to expand...

Maybe audiences have learned to accept it, but zooms still suck for the same reasons they are not advised to beginners- they flatten space, and 90 percent of cinematography is about creating depth (now, a zoom OUT, where you reveal more information in the picture as the zoom progresses, that's a different story).

Mind you there's a place for zooms but I hardly think modern action films use them well.

Just because it's popular doesn't mean its good. Modern action films are often TERRIBLY shot:

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=10077
 
Last edited:
vcassel said:
I think the whole 'don't zoom' thing should be stricken from the newbie warning checklist. A lot of modern action films use zooming.
Click to expand...

Well... we could perhaps argue on that... what I see a lot of is burying a 'zoom' in a 'move', or a very slow zoom in/out, depending. It is typically a very subtle thing. Since I don't watch the TV channels, broadcast or cable, when I do see some of the shots, I'm struck on how much 'shakey cam', 'adjusting focus', and the 'zoom in/out' to get 'framing', is done. TV also uses a 'flatter' light setup, frequently, and uses multiple cameras to cheapen the process of coverage. Some films do this as well, but more often than not, don't. The point here being there are differences in styles between the two types of viewing distribution systems.

I personally find it distracting at best... and when confronted with such, usually switch channels.

It reminds me of the late 60's early 70's when 'zoom' lenses were up to the quality (reasonably so...) and everyone had a 'zoom' sequence... it got tiring after a few iconic shots... typically with Bruce Lee's face in the center... that or spaghetti westerns... (nothing like zoomed shots and dubbed voice...)... and fell out of favor.

I'm suspecting that the same is true for this current rage style.
 
They were used in a Bourne film (can't remember which) to great effect. It really served to enhance the scene as Bourne was spying so were we.
 
Steve Laramie said:
I think that style is an excuse for lack of operator talent.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree, if you see what they are doing in Bourne, HurtLocker, District 9 etc they can use the look to strenghten the story, and build spacial relationships with whip pans and tight framing, the dodgy zooms, emphasize timing and performance too

This is a 30s test shoot I did of my secetary, I can tell you (however bad an operator I am and however weak the 'story') that each move, showing the doorhandle, the face, the relationship between her and her files is 100% intentional even the little slide past her computer monitor, all done on purpose


waffle on
the initial door handle zoom out enable me to say -'this is a door.. and a person'
as she moves toward the desk I reveal the desk with a zoom out panning down to hide the zoom
each pan up down from her files to her face show the relations ship between face and object (it would be better if she had a gun not a file or was hacking the computer)
that the other shots are pushing in or sliding add 'movement and pace'
the zoom in is purely for comedy, but could work with an emotional scipt moment
waffle off

Im in awe of the operating and editing on the blockbusters that do this to a high level
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
I totally disagree, if you see what they are doing in Bourne, HurtLocker, District 9 etc they can use the look to strenghten the story, and build spacial relationships with whip pans and tight framing, the dodgy zooms, emphasize timing and performance too
...
Click to expand...

I'll have to look at the Bournes again.

But this may be a case of falling off a horse... people who have never ridden do it quite frequently. A stunt person does it quite skillfully, and emulates the 'novice' rider... but one would be hard pressed to believe that is how one is suppose to ride most of the time, or, anytime, except emulating a novice.

I might accept your clip given whatever emotional build up that led to that sequence, or that sequence could just trigger my motion sickness brain cells, easily triggered, and cause me to switch off the movie (or leave the theater, or just puke all over the people in front of me...).

The technique no matter how polished does not give me the 'you are there impression'. That's not how my eye works in a 'novel' situation... saccadic masking not withstanding.

If I were to analyze your clip, I would be asking, 'why am I directed to this or that feature', is it important for The Story... would I miss a quivering lip, and hence the pizzicato zooming in on the woman face and lips. As it is, I didn't see any such facial gesture that could suggest some internal state, that I would otherwise miss, if the camera work had not 'pointed it out'.
 
There is nothing to analize or see in my clip because it has no story Im just improving as an operator by practicing

if the director says 'give a little dip down to his gun when he cocks the weapon' im on the road to be able to do that for the director or DOP, by practicing such moves in my own time

anyone who finds such moves easy is a better op than me

=

Bournes the first looks so slow compared to 2 and three, where they went to town on this, Green Zone takes it a step further with mr greengrass directing

They are rammed with little pan downs to guns in a hand, a note in a hand, a little crash zoom onto an important bit of info on a screen

All telling the story not wasting a frame in the edit, and trying to keep the frame rammed with information relevant to the story

In terms of why is the camera here? or whatever one can think about that with any camera shot, unless you made a movie from 'lashed together CCTV' (which Bourne does use)

BTW, Im a pretty keen newb on a steadicam, learning to creep about with it trying to be invisible, so dont think I mean this is the only way, I just dont think the 'operators are lacking in talent'

Same operator, similar lack of story, totally differnt look .. again many things are intentional trying to centre through doors, hold verticals and speciifc locks offs..


S
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top