Why the hate against handheld?

The beauty of it all is that hand held can convey chaos and intimacy.

But that will depend on how you are shooting the rest of the pic and the quieter softer moments.
 
Absolutely. I used Y Tu Mama Tambien as an example, but maybe it wasn't the best since the DP (Lubezki) is one of the greatest out there, and easily the best from Mexico.
 
One thing to keep in mind is if using HVX/HPX/DVX and no 35mm adapter...try handheld shooting wide (no zoom) as a lot of the sea-sickness is held at bay. If you zoom in at all or to 100 you are going to get not only fast blurry motion but also what appears to be high frequency vibrational unsteadiness of being zoomed all the way in and not supported with a tripod. I think a HVX zoomed in all the way is equivalent to 350/400mm film lens and good luck trying to control that hand held without inducing vomiting. just my thought after shooting a feature with 2 HPX's and shooting everything wide or zoomed all the way in only. Would have used the cinemek g35 I bought in April of this year but it never showed up. Sheesh.
 
diego1235467 said:
Well this video I shot was done 100% handheld, no adapters, with the zoom at about 75%, and I don't think it looks too bad.

http://vimeo.com/7279397
Click to expand...

It isn't, but landscapes are different than people's faces and bodies. When we're watching someone speak on film, we as the audience look into their eyes just like we tend to do when we're speaking with someone in real life. To have their eyes dip in and out of frame, or to have their chin dip in and out of frame can be very distracting at times.
 
Remember - hand held doesn't necessarily equal all over the place camera work and gratuitous movement. THE FRENCH CONNECTION was shot doc style with handheld cameras. To further enhance the doc feel, scenes were often staged without the camera operator in the room and then he was brought in to shoot the scene cold as if it were really happening. Even given all of that together, never once do you want to reach for your bottle of Dramamine when watching it.
 
Two things

A lot of the time when I shoot handheld it's for convenience/flexibility/speed so I'm not necessarily looking for a particular aesthetic. In those instances any shot that draws attention to "handheld" may be unwelcome.

On the flip side shooting handheld requires a different skillset to shooting on a tripod. A lot of camera ops simply cannot shoot handheld very well.
 
I use both Hand Held and Locked Down shots. It really just depends on the scene. After watching Hancock I realized that Overly done Hand Handheld for no apparent reason is just distracting.

NCIS uses a lot of it as well. The camera NEVER stops moving in NCIS. They break every line rule there is but I don't mind it, It works for that show IMO.
 
Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Lars Von Trier .... Hand held. Brilliant. Learn how to use it, and you'll be fine. Tripod work in student or amateur films is a travesty for the most part. Filmmakers who do not know what they are doing will make a mess out of any technique
 
The Director aside, here are a few cinematographers who's hand held work is exceptional: Ellen Kuras, Robby Muller, Lance Acord
 
Last edited:
Richard J. Johnson said:
NCIS uses a lot of it as well. The camera NEVER stops moving in NCIS.
Click to expand...

I just caught an episode of this within the last couple of weeks (I hadn't seen it in a few years). I noticed that the camera was in constant movement, no matter what was going on. Not a single shot had a motionless camera. Annoyed the heck out of me. I had a problem getting into the story. I just wanted to shout "KEEP THE G*DD**N CAMERA STILL!!!"
 
Handheld usually sucks. I watched some "No reservations" episodes shot with the couple of V1 HDV cameras, it is as close to run and gun as it can be, some shots are way too shaky and I would prefer them using shoulder adapters for their cams. they also use very fast cutting, which I also hate. Shoulder-mount shots are much better, but sadly they are overused in modern reality-like TV. It is funny, they shoot reality-style yet use 24p, so the whole thing causes headache. And long-GOP encoding like HDV and you have a great vomit inducer. In other cases this is not a style, but a sheer saving on time and equipment, just get the cameraman there and he will follow the action. It is docu-style shooting, and I accept some of such films, but I still would prefer everything but POV shots to be stabilized. In general, I hate shakycam and can accept it only when the camera impersonates a character or when additional shake is added for an action scene.

Recently I watched a documentary, and there were talking heads there, a classic setup, but they were shot shakycam, not from a tripod. Why, oh why??? It looked horrible. I understand an intent of producers to add drama and action to "boring" documentaries, but there should b e some limits, because at some point everything starts to look like a cheap reality show, totally devoid of content.
 
Last edited:
Understand when to use handheld and when not to. The audience doesn't want to notice the camera. It's not part of the story...simply helping to tell the story. If the audience notices the camera then it takes them out of the story. The same with lighting or art direction or make-up or.....any other element used to enhance the story. For each shot you should ask yourself what type of shot is required? Why you put the camera in a particular spot. Know where it should go and how it shoud be shot....angles, lenses, lighting, movement of subject and/or camera or not. Every shot choice has a purpose behind it.
 
I also find the use of hand held to be a lazy way of shooting. I am not speaking of when it is used to great effect. In general terms only. It takes much more discipline and planning to shoot locked down, framing the shot, blocking the talent and moving the camera via dolly, panning, tilt, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top