What's up with this free hand camera shake/movement on most of TV Shows

D

Deer Film

Well-known member
It seems like a lot of shows I have watched on TV are filming free hand and want a camera shake/movement. /trying to get that live action type of feel.
I try to look for a pattern, or wonder if any of it is done in post production. I can get this effect by taking video shot on a tripod, and then put it in 3DSMax or After Effects. But I think they are doing it while they film.
So I guess this is the new style that many shows like CSI are going with. I just watched a show that the movement was way to much and almost made you motion sick.
Just wondered if their is a method or science to achieve this effect without getting your audience sick. And how they film it. Like with a steady cam, crane, tripod, or post production.

I gave my 4 year old daughter my camera once, and she seemed to get the same result. Ok ok, so there was a lot of feet and leg shots. Maybe it will go to that some day. haha
 
It's much quicker to get the coverage you need when hand held, there's no moving tripods around. Time is money, and the turn around is quick. It also gives a voyuristic feel to the footage, especially when doing closeups and over the shoulder shots. So I would say there's a few reasons why.
 
maranfilms said:
It also gives a voyuristic feel to the footage, especially when doing closeups and over the shoulder shots. So I would say there's a few reasons why.
Click to expand...

I think after all the years of TV audiences getting accustomed to Reality TV the scripted programs are trying to insert some of that voyeuristic feel also. Its very effective and I rather like it but I come from a reality tv background myself so I'm biased.
 
maranfilms said:
It's much quicker to get the coverage you need when hand held, there's no moving tripods around. Time is money, and the turn around is quick. It also gives a voyuristic feel to the footage, especially when doing closeups and over the shoulder shots. So I would say there's a few reasons why.
Click to expand...

This. In shooting my own films, it's INSANE how much longer it takes when using "traditional" cinematography, especially in my case with one or two man crews. Moving of dollies, tracks, tripods, cranes, let alone mounting the camera to all of those and making sure movements are fluid and solid. Sometimes it just makes more sense to go handheld. Also, I'd say the style is certainly becoming much more engrained.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Personally I don't like it. However, it seems I am in the minority.
Click to expand...

Me ain't ether - so we are at least two.

For me, there are only a handfull of reasons to use a shoulder/hand camera - and even than I do my best, to be as stable as possible.

1. There is no other way to get the shot - not even with a steadycam.
2. I want the audience to "see" through someones eyes
3. Action heavy close up scenes like fights.

for everything else, nope.

tommygdawg said:
.. it's INSANE how much longer it takes when using "traditional" cinematography, especially in my case with one or two man crews. Moving of dollies, tracks, tripods, cranes, let alone mounting the camera to all of those and making sure movements are fluid and solid. .
Click to expand...

I think it is insane wasting money by cutting corners, with expensive stuff (and staff) in front of the camera and not getting the best production value out of it.
As much as I hate to hulk around tripods and dollies andwhatnot - I'm always in to go that extra mile and work a bit harder for my images.



Frank
 
Last edited:
TBH it pisses me off a bit as sometimes shots are so unsteady it does feel almost deliberate.
 
Postmaster said:
Me ain't ether - so we are at least two.

For me, there are only a handfull of reasons to use a shoulder/hand camera - and even than I do my best, to be as stable as possible.

1. There is no other way to get the shot - not even with a steadycam.
2. I want the audience to "see" through someones eyes
3. Action heavy close up scenes like fights.

for everything else, nope.



I think it is insane wasting money by cutting corners, with expensive stuff (and staff) in front of the camera and not getting the best production value out of it.
As much as I hate to hulk around tripods and dollies andwhatnot - I'm always in to go that extra mile and work a bit harder for my images.



Frank
Click to expand...

+1 on all points
 
Postmaster said:
Me ain't ether - so we are at least two.

For me, there are only a handfull of reasons to use a shoulder/hand camera - and even than I do my best, to be as stable as possible.

1. There is no other way to get the shot - not even with a steadycam.
2. I want the audience to "see" through someones eyes
3. Action heavy close up scenes like fights.

for everything else, nope.

Frank
Click to expand...

Same here. I mean I have used it, when no other possible way to get the shot or for a few occasions when I wanted to give a shot a voyeuristic feel. Otherwise the camera is on sticks, dolly, crane, etc...
 
Postmaster said:
Me ain't ether - so we are at least two.
I think it is insane wasting money by cutting corners, with expensive stuff (and staff) in front of the camera and not getting the best production value out of it.
As much as I hate to hulk around tripods and dollies andwhatnot - I'm always in to go that extra mile and work a bit harder for my images.
Click to expand...

I think this is an unfair generalization and misnomer. Sometimes you simply don't have the time to get the shots with traditional cinematography (cranes, dollies, tripods), it's not about cutting corners. It's about having things you need to get done in a certain amount of time and getting them done. That aside, when done right I actually like the handheld aesthetic...so when using it I don't see it as cutting corners. I have all these tools in my cinematographers tool box, and I don't have time to break out certain ones, so I break out the other ones. Simple as that.
 
The question is, without the constraints of time and budget, would you still go with handheld? If you wouldn't, that's cutting corners. Even if it's necessary. May not be your fault, but it is what it is.
 
"you simply don't have the time"
In other words... cutting corners.

I mean we all do it, but people should at least be able to stand up and say. "I did it this way because it was easier and faster".

I mean, whatever, you like what you like. I can't stand it and think it has lowered the bar in a very destructive way in film making, so I'm biased. Not everyone sees it that way.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
"you simply don't have the time"
In other words... cutting corners.

I mean we all do it, but people should at least be able to stand up and say. "I did it this way because it was easier and faster".

I mean, whatever, you like what you like. I can't stand it and think it has lowered the bar in a very destructive way in film making, so I'm biased. Not everyone sees it that way.
Click to expand...

Cutting corners implies that you lose quality in your final product, and I don't believe quality is lost when shooting handheld.
 
Dave © said:
It is not cutting corners to work within a time budget. That is just good business.
Click to expand...

And there we are, the duality of film making: art/business. Sometimes we have to compromise art for business, nature of the beast, but personally, I never do it with a smile, always grudgingly.
 
It's pretty short sighted to completely write-off handheld camera work as strictly a time-saving device. There's a ton of artful, skilled handheld work out there that supports the overall story. Look at Black Swan or Children of Men for great handheld work that isn't unstable or excessively shaky. What about Tree of Life? There's a time and place for everything, but particularly on small budget indies I find that I can INCREASE production value by frequently shooting from the shoulder thanks to the additional (and unique) movement options that it opens up.
 
stefancolson said:
It's pretty short sighted to completely write-off handheld camera work as strictly a time-saving device. There's a ton of artful, skilled handheld work out there that supports the overall story. Look at Black Swan or Children of Men for great handheld work that isn't unstable or excessively shaky. What about Tree of Life? There's a time and place for everything, but particularly on small budget indies I find that I can INCREASE production value by frequently shooting from the shoulder thanks to the additional (and unique) movement options that it opens up.
Click to expand...

And movies such as Dancer in the Dark or shows such as Battlestar Galactica (That actually did a fine job combining both the handheld style along with traditional cinematography).
There is a time and place for everything, and those arguing against it are often wrong in their arguments. Much of the reason why handheld wasn't used as often on TV-shows and movies "back in the days" was because of the size and weight of the camera.
Also, this whining about how "Oh I get so motion sick when the camera is handheld" - Like who the :furious3: cares. I feel the same way when people with vision defect or glasses step out of 3d movies going "Oww 3D sucks I got the worst head ache!". Whether 1 out of 8 watching a movie gets sick or not shouldnt have an impact on your cinematography style. Sensitive people can watch James Cameron movies and 2 ½ Men on TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top