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

Dave © said:
You should always use sticks when taking photos. Otherwise, you are cutting corners.
Click to expand...

Nope, because a high enough shutter speed stabilizes the shot making it indistinguishable from a tripod shot. If you find me an operator who can make handheld look like a dolly shot I'll gladly use handheld. It's the end result that matters.
 
Nobody is saying that handheld replaces a dolly, just that handheld is a viable option. I don't know how to say it any more clearly; handheld does not = cutting corners any more or less than using any other tool. One can cut corners with any and every tool in the box.

To be sure, I was being completely sarcastic about always using sticks to take photos.
 
It is cutting corners because in those situations it's often unmotivated and not done with any skill. And I realize you were being sarcastic, but it was still not very clever.
 
Dave © said:
Nobody is saying that handheld replaces a dolly, just that handheld is a viable option. I don't know how to say it any more clearly; handheld does not = cutting corners any more or less than using any other tool. One can cut corners with any and every tool in the box.

To be sure, I was being completely sarcastic about always using sticks to take photos.
Click to expand...

And as we are saying, right, as long as the decision to use handheld is 100% motivated by the aesthetics of the visual look you want for that shot and 0% by the fact it's faster/easier, then you are correct.
 
Bern Caughey;1986226535 Lighting has changed said:
I have rarely been on a show where handheld was done for budgetary reasons alone. It's almost always a choice and usually not much of a timesaver (it's a lot more efficient to remain on the dolly with a 12-1 than swap out short zooms or primes for handheld, for instance). Many shows are shot handheld entirely as an aesthetic choice. A lot that may appear to be handheld are just "loose head" as Bern described, although generally done on a fluid head, with the camera resting on a sandbag or deflated basketball etc.

I personally have grown tired of the look more often than not. Especially in indie films where it is, to me, now a shopworn cliche. Luckily most of the directors I work with aren't hung up on it.
Click to expand...
 
This past Wednesday, I was filming a typical dialogue between two people. Two OTS shots, one for each character. Based on the framing we wanted from both angles on-set (in somone's house), we shot one angle on sticks and one hand held. To get the handheld shot, I sat on stairs, braced the camera on my left knee (leg firmly grounded), braced my right elbow on a stair and used a lens with IS.

Was I cutting corners to get that shot? According to your argument, apparently I was. Because, technically, I could have setup a tripod on the stairs to get a locked-off shot. It would have been a serious pain based on the setup but it was possible.

If the end result is all that matters, why does handheld = cutting corners?
 
The answer is pretty simple, Dave. If the end result is that the two angles are all but indistinguishable from each other, that your handheld setup has the same look and feel as the setup on sticks, then you haven't cut any corners. If, however, the handheld footage is detectable, you have imbued that angle with a different visual vocabulary but not by design. It may be too subtle for some to notice, but by that same token, why bother fretting about your choice of camera or lens or codec either?

Ours is a game of pick-your-battle. If the tradeoff of doing it "right" means losing a setup somewhere down the line due to time constraints, then it may well be worth cutting a corner.

One of the problems with relying on handheld is consistency issues. If you are shooting with two cameras, the operators may have widely varying abilities to hold a camera steady, or to induce just the right amount of extra "hand-heldiness" to the frame if desired. And there is the phenomenon of shooting long takes, where the end of the scene has a lot more, uh, personality to it than the beginning as fatigue sets in.
 
It all comes down to practice. Camera operating is as much of an artistic skill as playing an instrument, and an inability to properly execute handheld work is no different than an inability to play an instrument in a particular key. If you want to get good at it, then you need to practice A LOT! With the new handheld vocabulary taking hold, shooting off of the shoulder actually opens up a whole new world of unconventional movement and dynamism in the same way that the steadicam did. If you can get really good at pulling your own focus while shooting handheld then your vocabulary will increase dramatically as an operator/DP. Not to mention the ability to execute classic dolly/jib/steadicam moves in a whole new way.

It's also possible to shoot handheld all day with consistency, including frequent long takes if you dedicate yourself to mastering the skill and increasing your endurance. I have a mental log of cool handheld moves for different situations (just as for steadicam, dolly, jib, etc), and I love the flexibility to react and improvise with the camera (which is only effective when you have a very solid plan and previsualized understanding of the look of your final product). I won't do multicam handheld stuff for exactly the reason Charles pointed out, but it's a frequently used tool in my arsenal on single camera shoots.

For the record, I can't remember the last time (outside of chases/fight scenes) where I've purposefully added any shake to my handheld camera work. 99% of the time it's all about trying to keep as steady as possible and eliminate shake altogether.
 
...Remember that many of the pseudo-shaky cam shots from big budget shows are NOT shot hand-held, but often incorporate custom-made camera mounts that enable a small amount of camera movement.

I remember reading about a custom camera mount that incorporated a large rubber ball that was compressed between two 150mm camera mounts, with a very expensive cine-head attached on top. This "rubber ball" mount was designed so that small pseudo hand-held movements could be manually introduced as they shot footage, so that the final shots look like smooth-ish hand-held shots, when they were actually locked off on sticks the whole time.
 
It's a stylistic choice. There is a drastically different feel to things shot handheld as opposed to "traditional" cinematography. It feels more voyeur, more natural, more gritty and "real". It definitely does not suit all stories, but there have been plenty of amazing movies shot handheld. I find that it works very well for intimate stories with very few characters. But it does not work very well with larger stories as it does tend to make a movie feel "small".
 
Of course the purpose of shooting a show is for presentation. If a hand held shot, or series of shots, compliments the telling of your story then go to it. If, on the other hand, you are hand-holding for budget purposes then you are not honest to the art, or should wait until you have sufficient budget to do it right.
Interesting enough, though, there is no rule that says one has to mount the camera on a tripod. . . it's only a three legged support device and the purpose of it is to stabilize the camera. It can be 4-legged, five-legged or set on the ground and be steady. If you can hand hold the camera stabilly for the shot you need, more conveniently, then go to that, too. Just don't try to pack off the rationale of hand holding the camera for budget purposes.
 
Egg Born Son said:
If. I've never seen a stable close up in a handheld movie. Eyebrow in, eyebrow out, eyebrow in...hangonaminute, what was the character saying?...
Click to expand...

It's really not all that hard to keep a shot steady and in focus with an 85mm lens on a shoulder rig with a super 35 sensor. It just takes a lot of practice, concentration, and conditioning.
 
Reasonably steady but not still. Focus isn't the problem. Case in point, Valhalla Rising, a film that had a lot of long close ups. I love that film and make allowances in view of the budget but it really needed a tripod badly. The camera was reasonably still but given the lack of stimulus in most the composed closeups, the minor movement was incredibly distracting. Had those shots been locked off it would have reinforced the intended stillness of those moments and served what Refn was trying to do so much better.
 
Tolin said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll39CAovGrg
Man of Steel (2013) - Official Teaser Trailer

Idk about you, but this looks hawt to me. Maybe I'm just one of those rare people that don't find a moving camera distracting or nauseating.
Click to expand...

Not feeling it in about half of those shots. I don't like the intentional shake, I can't stop envisioning the operator randomly waggling the camera around during every take. About half of the shots are nice and controlled though. I'm excited to see what they do with a grittier Superman movie, even if my expectations are reasonably low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top