Why the hate against handheld?

diego1235467

diego1235467

Well-known member
This board seems to be full of people who hate the handheld look. Why is this?
I understand that a tripod and other types of support are essential, but why is it that every time someone posts a video that was done handheld, people say they needed to use a tripod?

I honestly prefer the handheld look to stiff tripod shots.

One of my favorite films, Y tu Mama También, had that handheld look, and I think it looked fantastic.
 
Last edited:
Show me one of the videos you're talking about. My guess as to what's going on - handheld as a choice, and done well it's a very different thing from some guy swinging a camera around in his back yard. Especially if you are talking DSLR. With the exception of a few shooters you need some kind of shoulder support to get a cinema hand held look with a DSLR and not an earthquake look.

At leart three films have won first place in DVXuser fests with Hand Held cinematography.
02
6"45
SIMILO (would have won if not DQ'ed)
And I used it here, and no one said I should have used a tripod:

 
Well my tone might have been a little bad. I'm not bashing anyone, I'm just wondering who prefers the handheld look.

I don't have specific examples, but I've seen it quite a bit with videos shot an a dvx for example.

I understand there is a big difference between getting the handheld look, and going handycam style with a DSLR. Hell, I notice whenever I try to rack the focus, zoom, etc. it's almost impossible to not get a jump or shake in the video.

BTW, those last shots were EPIC :D
 
Thanks.

Yeah I see a lot of stuff posted here that is just test shots where people complain about motion sickness.

And I see some people do it in films and it's over done and there are complaints.

But then I see people do it around here in films and it fits the narrative and is well done and works for the piece.

People may be down on handheld as the default choice because it can be a bugaboo of low budget film - the cheapest easiest thing to do to move the camera and done for no other reason.

MY 2¢. I like hand held, just like I like steadicam, or dolly, or crane or sticks when they serve the story / mood. I go back and forth in my stuff. i have one film, UNAWAKENING where reality is in question. One version of reality is dolly and crane and locked down, and the other, the more out of control version that (spoiler) turns out to be really real, is all handheld to add to the chaotic feel and "realness" of it.

Another short of mine, A LITTLE MOUTH TO FEED, uses lock down for most of the non-supernatural world, dolly and other supported camera movement when there are greater forces at work, and handheld when the supernatural world spills into the real world and things get messy.

The simplest question I ask myself, is if the camer were a character here, how would it be behaving. If the audience were a camera, how would they be behaving. What serves the story and / or mood of the piece best. That's how I approach it and feel, most of the time, that that's how it works well in other people's work.
 
There can be good handheld AND bad handheld. It really depends on what is appropriate and what isn't. Some people know how to do it and do it well. Others simply make us want to stop watching.
 
Because 90% of indie filmmakers don't use tripods or dollies and just shoot handheld and it looks awful.
 
I believe everything serves its purpose, every tool is made for a certain shots, there is no comparison, everything is subject to the feeling you want to get out of the scene,some times hand held is very drastic for it and steadicam just wouldnt do it, sometimes the opposite.
Tripod and dolly or crane serve different style.
I have choosen to make a rig that is between steadicam and hand held to fill the gap in between very shaky hand held and very smooth steadicam or dolly.
And it works pretty well too.
Tools are there for every taste to use and we are lucky these days we have so many cheap options in with in budget , many years ago that was nearly impossible.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
The simplest question I ask myself, is if the camer were a character here, how would it be behaving. If the audience were a camera, how would they be behaving. What serves the story and / or mood of the piece best. That's how I approach it and feel, most of the time, that that's how it works well in other people's work.
Click to expand...

One technique I actually like to employ is to straight-up GIVE the camera a character to help the operator focus their intention and attention. for example, in Heart of Now, I told Matty G to follow the main character as though he were the embodied POV of the girl's dead mother watching the events of her daughter's life as they unfold. it often gave the handheld camera work more of a human personality rather than that of a "documentarian" feel, which much handheld tends to have.
 
I hate handheld where handheld doesn't belong to. For example, some tho guys sitting on the bench and talking about what to eat for dinner. Why handheld here?

In action scenes handheld (camera mostly shoulder mounted, NOT HAND HELDED) is great! :)

For the movie "Y tu Mama También" the handheld camera is an artistic choise. 99.99% of amateur handheld video doesn't look artistic. Thats why I hate it. When camera in on the tripot - amateur video looks and feels much better.
 
well if it's subtle, it can work great for two guys talking
It doesn't have to be about crazy born identity movement, motion, it can be about just a little float and movement, which to me, can make things feel sublty more life like, less polished in a good way.

In CITY OF MEN, if you notice, whenever they get to really far-fetched exposition, the hand held notches up a bit. I think we're used to seeing very slick supported camerawork in SciFi exposition scenes. But here I think it was done more raw to perhaps help sell the exposition - make it more slice of life-y.
 
One could easily argue that all the shakycam in "Cloverfield" was fully motivated, but it was still literally nauseating. "Bourne Ultimatum"'s was chronically unmotivated, like in scenes with nothing but two people sitting at a table talking. It wasn't quite as nauseating as Cloverfield for me, but I was probably about 50 times more likely to throw whatever I could get my hands on at the screen. I managed to resist doing that. Barely...

I think JDS's description of his camera movement choices in "A Little Mouth To Feed" (post #4, above) was spot-on.
 
I like the " give the camera an identity" idea! I´ve seen it done in many ways and only rarely it was successful though ( IMO).
Well shot handheld is a delight! Same goes for Steadycam and I´ve seen a lot of terrible steadycam too!!!!
 
ZetKey said:
I hate handheld where handheld doesn't belong to. For example, some tho guys sitting on the bench and talking about what to eat for dinner. Why handheld here?
Click to expand...

Why not? :)

I LOVE shooting hand held. A good 90-95% of all my personal work has been hand held. Right now I'm shooting a film and as a challenge to myself I set out to do most of it on sticks. After shooting one scene I can tell you I'm not going to finish the movie like that. When I go hand held I feel like the camera is much more an extension of my body on not a piece of equipment on a support system. It's like I am watching the scene play out before me instead of playing a scene out for the camera, and it feels so much more natural.

But I also love the Bourne movies to death. To each their own I guess.
 
But doing something because you like shooting that way vs. because it serves the story, is kind of entry level filmmaking. I'd be concerned to or just wouldb't hire anyone as a DP, who chooses to shoot how they shoot because it's "cool", suits their personal taste, or is their "style". This is also the reason hand held gets bagged on - because a bunch of guys pick up the camera and shoot that way just because they think it's more interesting. Problem is, applying any preset method before you even read the script or talk to the director is not really filmmaking. Maybe it's some kind of videography, but it's not filmmaking, because filmmaking is the use of various technical elements and performance and set etc, everything - to tell a story. Not to make a shot look interesting for the sake of interesting. Until you've read the script, cracked the material, and decided what you want the camera to help you say, you can't pick a style.

A great sticks movie, btw, is Capote. So measured and deliberate and eloquent, and ballsy considering it was shot post MTV era.
 
Well, the way you shoot should serve the movie. Handheld, Steadicam, sticks, dolly and crane shots ALL have their place. I think JDS and Zak have both brought up good points. I enjoy handheld shots when they feel motivated.

I think too often it is done on low budget as a shortcut and just comes off looking amateurish.
 
Ted Spencer said:
One could easily argue that all the shakycam in "Cloverfield" was fully motivated, but it was still literally nauseating. "Bourne Ultimatum"'s was chronically unmotivated, like in scenes with nothing but two people sitting at a table talking. It wasn't quite as nauseating as Cloverfield for me, but I was probably about 50 times more likely to throw whatever I could get my hands on at the screen. I managed to resist doing that. Barely...

I think JDS's description of his camera movement choices in "A Little Mouth To Feed" (post #4, above) was spot-on.
Click to expand...

I've not seen "Cloverfield"(2008), nor "Blairwitch"(1999) even thought the VHS tape sat on my shelf for years...,

The worst in 'shakey Pizza' cam that I've seen in recent years, was a frightful movie titled "Domino"(2005) which had a totally miscast Keira Knightley, and cross processing, shakey cam (perhaps I'm on a pizza binge...)... to the point of it is one of the few movies I've actually stopped in the middle and not replayed it...

Howver, as for motion sickness and camera technique...

My first experience of in-theater-projectile-vomiting was when I saw "Grand Prix"(1966) in a local Cinerama (in the dark ages...). The film was sold out, except for seats in the front... "Grand Prix" was one of those 'new wave' inspired films that tried to get the viewer 'into the action'... by shots that were captured from a camera mounted on the formula-1 cars used... I had the same experience in the shuttle simulator at Disneyland... some venues should come with barf bags...

I've not seen "Grand Prix" since... even on TV at 20 paces, the motion and memories... well anyway... I flip the channel...
 
I think it simply goes back to an amatuer filmmaker not having a single clue as to what they are trying to visually.

Whether or not hand held or locked down, there needs to be motivation in the choices made.

I love both styles, but the overly abused hand held ala THE SHIELD with it's snap zooms and epileptic camera control is just abusive.

Or put another way, I wish amatuer filmmakers would take the time to learn the basics of cinematography, like any art form. Then, the choices made later have purpose.

Like most do (myself included) when first making films, the abused super close up that muddies the frame and leaves zero emotional resonance ? I almost can't deal with close ups anymore.
 
It reminds me of the often asked question on this forum:

"Hey ! How do UI get that Hand Held look?"

SHOOT HAND HELD.

As in, don't try so hard.
 
Well I always like to mix handheld with locked down shots, based on what's happening in each scene that I'm shooting. Then again, those are my only two options at the moment.

My absolute favorite example of a good mix in camera work is Anthony Dod Mantle (DP for 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire, etc.). He has an amazing mix of handheld, shaky cam, tripod, dolly, still photographs, etc., always benefitting the story of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top