What would you call this type of camera-work?

Eh, whatever. It's boiling down to aesthetic subjectivism. To tout it as a universal rule at this point would just be ignorant to individual tastes. Instead of 'never', it's more of a 'this works if...'--the conclusion of that statement depending on so many variables that any suggestion from someone who hasn't analyzed the script bears little meaning.
 
morgan_moore said:
There is nothing to analize or see in my clip because it has no story

S
Click to expand...

Of course if this is a 'skill building exercise' on how to manage the equipment... but once the mechanics are 'programed', the question becomes 'what is the purpose of the technique' if not to give addition information to the viewer 'about' the story.

Then shoot becomes a 'dance' between the camera person and the talent to guide the viewer to 'important' stuff', as opposed to a show of how well you can manage your equipment.
There is of course the communication of the 'emotion' of the moment.

As a camera operator, you are the one in control of this dance from the image capture side, and you are the one exhibiting the 'talent' to capture that information... unless of course the director just asked
for some 'snazzy' movement, without regard for what is important for scene, story, or talent...

To take your exercise for a moment, say the director did indicate to the actress that she should indicate some sense of 'not finding what she wants', a 'smirk', or the like... if you 'zooming around' looses that moment... then your 'talent' for manhandling the equipment, is worthless. So the 'talent' is to make the movements such that 'you capture that moment'... or have the director ask for another ten takes because you and the actress are not coordinated...
 
Indeed I think you can 'tell the story'

A Medium shot of a man and gun, is OK

A cut of to ECUs face and gun is often more power ful

A ECU Face, whip down to ECU of Gun, whip up is more powerful still becuase it relates the spacial relationship more strongly than a cut (typically)

And is our job to show (or hide) stuff and the relationship spacially between those bits of stuff?

On the dance
Absolutely that is my argument, that doing this look well, in time and space with 'the dance' is very bloody difficult,

The Mid shot lock off you are unlikely to mess up, use this style and 10 takes is a likely outcome unless you are a talented op

S
 
vcassel said:
Eh, whatever. It's boiling down to aesthetic subjectivism. To tout it as a universal rule at this point would just be ignorant to individual tastes. Instead of 'never', it's more of a 'this works if...'--the conclusion of that statement depending on so many variables that any suggestion from someone who hasn't analyzed the script bears little meaning.
Click to expand...

Don't know what this is in response to exactly, but other than never discussing any technique because it all rests on 'subjective aesthetic evaluations' doesn't seem to productive...

Saying that these days constellation of techniques that could be called 'shakey cam', or 'docucam' styles are being over used, just as the power zoom, and whip pan have been in the past, to almost extort an emotional response from the viewer, have been at this point 'overused', and by extension, frequently badly used by people who don't 'analyze their scripts', if they bother with a script at all... I don't think is counter productive.

And let's be clear, Hollywood fare is not what I'm typically talking about... there are a couple of films that come to mind, and one in particular where it was one of few films I've turned off in the middle and never rewatched, namely "Domino"(2005). What I'm talking about is people who post clips here and similar places, with these sorts of techniques that are totally unmotivated, except to 'throw in excitement' in otherwise dull or no story sequences.

Come to think of it... watch the "Austin Powers" series not for any major innovation... but frequent parody on various 'film techniques'...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Don't know what this is in response to exactly, but other than never discussing any technique because it all rests on 'subjective aesthetic evaluations' doesn't seem to productive...
Click to expand...

Neither does denying a technique that works, which was what my post was in response to.

Saying that these days constellation of techniques that could be called 'shakey cam', or 'docucam' styles are being over used, just as the power zoom, and whip pan have been in the past, to almost extort an emotional response from the viewer,...
Click to expand...

It's filmmaking; if you're not extorting an emotional response from the viewer, I don't think you're doing it right.

have been at this point 'overused',...
Click to expand...

What technique hasn't been 'overused', then?

and by extension, frequently badly used by people who don't 'analyze their scripts', if they bother with a script at all... I don't think is counter productive.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with you there, but, still, this applies to all techniques, no?

And let's be clear, Hollywood fare is not what I'm talking about... there are a couple of films that come to mind, and one in particular where it was one of few films I've turned off in the middle and never rewatched, namely "Domino"(2005). What I'm talking about is people who post clips here and similar places, with these sorts of techniques that are totally unmotivated, except to 'throw in excitement' in otherwise dull or no story sequences.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned a technique's, nay, a visual strategy's relation to a story, so I can't disagree with this at all. But to deny it outright to any and all who inquire about it is an ignorance of equal measure.
 
vcassel said:
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.
Click to expand...
This was the reason I stopped the player after 10 minutes of watching (good God I did not watch it in a movie theater), put the disc back in its sleeve and mailed back to Netflix. Physically unbearable.
 
We're blending two things that are totally different:

Good handheld footage is fine. Not a thing wrong with going mostly or all handheld. Emulating intentionally bad handheld footage is retarded and backwards- your time is better spent learning to get good at handheld (are you using foreground objects to frame the subject? Panning between story elements? Hmmm.....practice time... the clip below actually has some good examples). I have nothing against the overall style of the Bourne films, its just often poorly executed and way overdone.

When I can't tell which good guy hit which bad guy you've overdone it. Can I please see the choreography?

oh yeah every camera move in a movie doesnt need o create a grand story statement, often its just about creating depth and a sense of being in the 3-d space of the movie, which is a goal of cinematography too.
 
static and timecodes said:
Regarding The Office, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. And now I know why it's done. Thanks!
Click to expand...

The only similarity that the camera work from the first music video shares with The Office is that they're both handheld. The former comes off as lazy and tacky in my opinion...but I come from a much more disciplined style of camera movement. I love zooms, but only when they're used right and for me, three snap zooms from ECU to CU to MCU in the space of one second on the same subject doing the same thing is way too much. Add in the fact that it's not even the type of music that would benefit from such an artistic choice (if it can be called that in the first place).

I don't mean to sound too critical, just my too sense :D

*EDIT*
Yes I meant two cents, and yes it was on purpose.
 
Momento has it right...the first video is a stylistic joke, or very stylistically self conscious, like the musicians themselves. Very "art school". Someone who thinks they are being creative when they are just being imitative. The second is what I think is simply a free pass to the concert for the ability to shoot some video for them. I've been caught in this before myself. The one camera nightmare. Best way to exit it is to bring your Zoom recorder, and don't worry about being in sync. Be sure to get the cutaways. No harm, as there likely was no budget.
 
An example from The Bourne Ultimatum. The use of zooms and handheld camera technique here works to heighten the scene and tension based on the essential aspects of this particular story--surveillance, quickly scanning through a crowd for a target, etc. It heightens the psychological sense of audience voyeurism in relation to the voyeurism of being a 'spy' or covert agent. In other words, it causes the viewer to relate strongly with the scene's kinetics.
 
vcassel said:
An example from The Bourne Ultimatum. The use of zooms and handheld camera technique here works to heighten the scene and tension based on the essential aspects of this particular story--surveillance, quickly scanning through a crowd for a target, etc. It heightens the psychological sense of audience voyeurism in relation to the voyeurism of being a 'spy' or covert agent. In other words, it causes the viewer to relate strongly with the scene's kinetics.
Click to expand...

And 90% of the shots included 'story details', such as 'syringe', 'gun', 'head/eye movement', etc... in the two kick off clips of this thread, name any such 'elements' in the camera work.
 
if I may so bold as to judge..

Took a closer look at the exercise posted here- there's some good matchcuts (too many actually), a nice pan too/from the book (but once is enuf). Take that with a grain of salt im still practicing my handheld camerawork too.


The posted Bourne scene is passable I guess, tho it doenst make me do backflips-there's nothing in there even remotely like the sick-mega-awesome-descent-from-the-air-that-ends-in-an-earthquake-like rumble when Wolverine sinks his claws into Deathstrike in X2.

THIS is masterful action filmmaking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mxxvhulr6Q
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
And 90% of the shots included 'story details', such as 'syringe', 'gun', 'head/eye movement', etc... in the two kick off clips of this thread, name any such 'elements' in the camera work.
Click to expand...

There isn't any to name, and I've very clearly been defending the technique, not those clips. So I'm not sure why you're leaving it up to me to 'name' anything in their defense. This thread is more about the technique than the sample clips the OP provided.
 
Last edited:
memento515 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mxxvhulr6Q

if it doesn't work, search for "wolverine deathstrike" on youtube, should be there. It's their fight from X2.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's good fight scene. Not that I remember much from those films other than the cheesy way most of the character's eyes changed colors whenever they exhibited a superpower; I thought they were mostly awful. Not sure how it relates, though. Of course this called for a more straight forward technique for multiple reasons. Action in such a limited, enclosed space is reason enough not to zoom and scan. Sometimes our goal for the audience is clarity; other times our audience is meant to be a bit disoriented. This isn't anything new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top