Bruce Watson
Veteran
Was the sponsor Dramamine? If so, there's your answer. ;-)
What's up with this free hand camera shake/movement on most of TV Shows
- Thread starter Deer Film
- Start date
Was the sponsor Dramamine? If so, there's your answer. ;-)
kennedymax
Well-known member
What gonzo_entertainment said. It is a tool to be used when needed, as any effect, not to be rationalized as an economic tool.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Why are the handheld supporters backing up into their corner and baring their teeth over the term 'cutting corners'? It may imply reduced quality but that's a matter of opinion. Each side will no more convince the other than mac and pc users. But cutting corners also implies getting things done. In fact I would say that's the primary definition. No one has said there isn't a place for it. In fact Frank defined three uses that should be universally accepted. No one has said that it isn't necessary at times simply due to time constraints.
As for motion sickness or headaches watching 3D...who cares? Perhaps the people experiencing this unpleasantness care. I don't experience either and I still don't like unmotivated handheld. My pet peeve is the use of handheld during a standard conversation piece, a sequence of close ups. I find it extremely distracting watching eyebrows bounce in and out the frame. Why not lock it off unless this particular scene is trying to put the audience into the conversation or POV? I saw an excellent scene in a movie I can't remember that used low angle handheld shots during a parent argument scene. The child wasn't present but it was still very effective to see the argument from a child's perspective in that moment of the film. Any form of deliberate camera movement is far more tolerable. I might prefer a dolly movement but I can handle the camera operator running along beside the actors, I even expect it in a low budget piece.
As for motion sickness or headaches watching 3D...who cares? Perhaps the people experiencing this unpleasantness care. I don't experience either and I still don't like unmotivated handheld. My pet peeve is the use of handheld during a standard conversation piece, a sequence of close ups. I find it extremely distracting watching eyebrows bounce in and out the frame. Why not lock it off unless this particular scene is trying to put the audience into the conversation or POV? I saw an excellent scene in a movie I can't remember that used low angle handheld shots during a parent argument scene. The child wasn't present but it was still very effective to see the argument from a child's perspective in that moment of the film. Any form of deliberate camera movement is far more tolerable. I might prefer a dolly movement but I can handle the camera operator running along beside the actors, I even expect it in a low budget piece.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
How did the camera happen to be there and filming?
A big suspension of belief you need to make to enjoy any cinema!
In an 'everyone has a camera ', the 'found footage', 'doco crew that covered a really big story by a mistake', 'CCTV every where' world, one could say that the suspension of disbelief is less?
Cameras are part of life now for everyone.
Witness gopro - you could say it is 'wrong' to see other cameras in shot - id see it as a faux pa in anything I shot!
But now if you were a costumier dressing a snow boarder, it could be seen as a legit part of the costume, because all snow boarders do wear gopros!
A lot of urban cyclists roll a helmet cam - just for evidence if they get knocked off
'Camera World' is a cultural shift that may justify handheld becoming more 'normal' and maybe more 'legitimate'
S
A big suspension of belief you need to make to enjoy any cinema!
In an 'everyone has a camera ', the 'found footage', 'doco crew that covered a really big story by a mistake', 'CCTV every where' world, one could say that the suspension of disbelief is less?
Cameras are part of life now for everyone.
Witness gopro - you could say it is 'wrong' to see other cameras in shot - id see it as a faux pa in anything I shot!
But now if you were a costumier dressing a snow boarder, it could be seen as a legit part of the costume, because all snow boarders do wear gopros!
A lot of urban cyclists roll a helmet cam - just for evidence if they get knocked off
'Camera World' is a cultural shift that may justify handheld becoming more 'normal' and maybe more 'legitimate'
S
Last edited:
Egg Born Son
Veteran
You raise some good points but these are all things in my own opinion are related to the demise of cinema (allow me that turn of phrase, I'm getting old and the things that appeal to 'the kids' are starting to piss me off, or put another way I'm not moving with the times! :tongue
. I don't want to see captured reality at the cinema. I go there to escape. I want manufactured fantasy (even if it looks real), I don't want to be aware of the camera. That pulls me out of it. Tasteful use of handheld to contrast with a base of traditional shots can pull me in. But a total handheld movie doesn't make me feel like I'm in the middle of it, it feels like the production couldn't afford $500 for a cheap tripod. And that's the punter half of me talking, not the aspiring filmmaker.
Not wanting to derail the thread to another topic but I saw a tv in the shop yesterday, I don't know if it was 48fps or what. But it was playing avatar and it took me almost 3 minutes to recognise the film and the blue things despite having seen it a number of times. It looked completely real. Like a window on the wall and the scene was just outside. It wasn't in the slightest bit cinematic and a part of me died inside. Reality is not cinema. That has long been the bigger distinction between tv and cinema than video and film. Which by my own logic probably brings me full circle and have to say in relation to the OP that handheld does have a role in tv (I've been approaching this forgetting that the OP was concerned with tv). TV routinely cuts corners to deliver on time, in all departments. But we expect this. Budgets are low and it is pulp for the masses. Argh, defeated by my own logic. That said, it has less of a place with tv that aspires to be cinema (AMC, HBO, Showtime etc) or shows that define themselves as quality tv.
. I don't want to see captured reality at the cinema. I go there to escape. I want manufactured fantasy (even if it looks real), I don't want to be aware of the camera. That pulls me out of it. Tasteful use of handheld to contrast with a base of traditional shots can pull me in. But a total handheld movie doesn't make me feel like I'm in the middle of it, it feels like the production couldn't afford $500 for a cheap tripod. And that's the punter half of me talking, not the aspiring filmmaker. Not wanting to derail the thread to another topic but I saw a tv in the shop yesterday, I don't know if it was 48fps or what. But it was playing avatar and it took me almost 3 minutes to recognise the film and the blue things despite having seen it a number of times. It looked completely real. Like a window on the wall and the scene was just outside. It wasn't in the slightest bit cinematic and a part of me died inside. Reality is not cinema. That has long been the bigger distinction between tv and cinema than video and film. Which by my own logic probably brings me full circle and have to say in relation to the OP that handheld does have a role in tv (I've been approaching this forgetting that the OP was concerned with tv). TV routinely cuts corners to deliver on time, in all departments. But we expect this. Budgets are low and it is pulp for the masses. Argh, defeated by my own logic. That said, it has less of a place with tv that aspires to be cinema (AMC, HBO, Showtime etc) or shows that define themselves as quality tv.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
For sure. Every story has its own appropriate tool. I just think the landscape changed a little in the youtube generation where everyone has a camera and is filming.
S
S
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I didn't start the time saving thing, just commented on it, cause folks keep telling me, that they are unable to get their jobs done, when using tripods.
IMHO if you don't get you jobs done without handheld, you may overthink your shooting plan, preparation and the way you organize your shots.-
For some reason, I get over 95% of my shots done without handheld - and I do a lot of solo work.
Frank
IMHO if you don't get you jobs done without handheld, you may overthink your shooting plan, preparation and the way you organize your shots.-
For some reason, I get over 95% of my shots done without handheld - and I do a lot of solo work.
Frank
It seems when they shoot handheld, that they try to move the camera around. I mean if I shot handheld, I could shoot a lot more steady. And watching footage like CSI type stuff, they seem to move the camera around more then expected. It looks good in some situations, I am just trying to figure out their method. Maybe it would help to drink a few beers and then shoot handheld, that is the type of shots I see lately.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
It just casts aside the skill, technique, planning involved in creating movement through the editing together of shots that are either static or have carefully controlled movement (jib, slider, dolly, etc...). To me that's the greatest part of film making. Anybody can point a camera at the action and follow it rather than creating the action through a carefully constructed series of shots.
kennedymax
Well-known member
Wow, just think of all the money MGM could have saved if the had only hand-held Gone With The Wind.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Aesthetics change.
Last edited:
If that thought enters the audiences mind, then you have already failed as a filmmaker.
On "real" movies (my definition of "real" being the ones that pay my rent) handheld is never used as a timesaving or cost cutting device - it is always a conscious aesthetic decision. Now whether that is a good decision or not is open to debate. But if you are using it because you don't have the time to do it any other way, then yes you are cutting corners and your production value will suffer as a result.
Dave ©
Well-known member
I get what you are saying. You don't like the handheld look. Fine. But it is not simply cutting corners. Working within a time budget is sound business. It is also a fundamental element of art, for we are all moving through time, have a limited amount of it in our lifetimes (pun intended) and don't know how much we have left. News flash! Time impacts every single one of us (artists, businessmen, and artist/businessmen) and every single thing we do, whether art, business or art/business.
Remember that not too long ago people said -- and some still do say -- the same thing about steadicams; they are the demise of cinematography! Nonsense.
I agree with Bern. Aesthetics change.
Dave ©
Well-known member
That's a nice hypothetical situation but it's not realistic. Time and budget are always constraints. Nobody has infinite money and infinite time.
Dave ©
Well-known member
Exactly! It's not that a shot is handheld, it's that it is unnecessarily jerky! It doesn't have to be that way. Sticks, shoulder mount, monopod, jib, slider, steadicam, car mount, bean bag, handheld, etc. They are all viable options.
If handheld is equal to cutting corners, one could just as easily argue that using a jib is cutting corners too. I mean, why not use a helicopter? Or mount a camera to a satellite flying by to get a real birds eye view. It's inside? Ah, just take the roof off the building. Who cares. Time and money don't matter!
BTW, ever tried using a tripod under water?
starcentral
Veteran
I hate locked off shots, but I think I might hate purposely "shaken" shots more.
Anyway all camera work has its place in cinematography so here are some "hollywood" tips:
• If you're going after a "loose mount" look in-camera I suggest using the longest lens you have possible. It will look a lot more pleasent than a moving "wide" shot.
• If you can not use a long lens and do it in-camera, or you just don't want to do it in-camera then frame your shot slightly wider than normal and in post you can do a 5-15% blow-up and use something like After Effects and 'expressions' to automatically shake your camera around.
• To use After Effects to automatically move around your image in a random pattern you can use the 'wiggle' command by entering it into the expressions area for the position of your image. There are tons of tutorials for how to do this online. The best way to do it is have a slider effect control the amount of the wiggle so you can keyframe the slider and have full control of the random shake. If you don't do it this way, your entire clip will shake without much variance in frequency.
Wave of Light
Carbonite Member
That "Traditional Cinematography" your talking is more "Standard Cinematography" than actually something form the past that we are holding on to because of nostalgia. Shakie cam is just a fad. You don’t have the money to make a production properly so you must cut corners, and that may show up in your end product. You may invent something new that is widely accepted but chances are it will look kind of poor. There is an old saying “Quick, Cheep, and Good pick 2”.
I’m with you on this Frank. We have a job to do, and we need to do it right. I don’t have a problem working hard.
I do have a problem with attempting the impossible though. Planning, needs to be done in order to achieve the end result. I have worked on enough sets where planning was not taken into consideration enough and many tails were chased attempting to get it right. I understand that things change and they change a lot but being prepared makes a world of difference.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
That's a good point, Wave. Are those chiming in on the side of handheld being the new paradigm planning their handheld shots? Or using the freedom to find them on the day?
What's hypothetical about it? Many productions, including indie, manage to use a tripod in their time and budget.
What's hypothetical about it? Many productions, including indie, manage to use a tripod in their time and budget.
Frankly, if the decision to use a tripod starts running into time/money constraints, then your movie is in trouble already.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
The younger generations have grown up on slick media, & Photoshopped reality. They're increasingly over it, & hunger for anything "real".
Lighting has changed, & camera movement too. I doubt most serious productions are regularly relying on handheld just to skimp on budget, rather it's a stylistic decision.
I'd never argue that handheld is right for every project, but any SOC operator worth their salt is well practiced in rocking the wheels of a gear head to simulate a bit of the look, & one of the factors holding Sony's F65 back is it's too bulky for efficient handheld.
But styles are often cyclical, & one day the classicist may get there wishes fulfilled.
Lighting has changed, & camera movement too. I doubt most serious productions are regularly relying on handheld just to skimp on budget, rather it's a stylistic decision.
I'd never argue that handheld is right for every project, but any SOC operator worth their salt is well practiced in rocking the wheels of a gear head to simulate a bit of the look, & one of the factors holding Sony's F65 back is it's too bulky for efficient handheld.
But styles are often cyclical, & one day the classicist may get there wishes fulfilled.
Last edited: