Blackmagic Forum

Because the last debate topic was so much fun I have a new one for you guys.

How do you feel about handheld shaky camera work? Even tripod based shaky camera?

Think Paul Greengrass using it on The Bourne Ultimatum and Captain Phillips. This should be used to a certain style, but can at times be disruptive. For example in Bourne Greengrass uses it even during the quiet dialogue scenes. Such as lunch meeting between two CIA officers (you know the one I'm talking about if you've seen the movie). Now I thought back then, and still do, that that shaky camera work was unnecessary for that scene. But that's one example of it, and the rest of the movie it was fine because it worked for the kinetic energy of the story.

So now for you guys, and gals, to continue with your thoughts. Again, the rules are below, and this is a fun debate.

RULES:
1) A fun debate means that there is no insulting allowed.
2) Respect others' opinions.
3) You must present your ideas and thoughts in as well-written manner as possible.
4) HAVE FUN!

Okay, GO!

Great topic!

I think intentional shaky cam is a very overused trope in film, however it definitely has its place. An example of an area where I feel it has overstayed its welcome is using shaky cam to produce 'amateur' video. This often pulls me out of movies because the pros can't make amateur video look amateur. Now, I've seen DPs hand off cameras to actors and that tends to produce the right look, but DPs constantly think about framing and it's evident in their footage. Something like a war movie where you want to create tense action? Sure...it's going to help. The other issue I have with shaky cam today is many of the cameras used have rolling shutters. This is the End is my go-to example for this. Whip pans and shaky cam with jello everywhere. It looks like a College Humor production due to this.

Overall, I'm going to say the same thing about shaky cam that I said about slow mo. Ask yourself why. Then ask again. Then decide if you should use it. And if you do, do it right for your scene.

Shakey cam when it works and is done for a specific reason which is in keeping with the style of a film or is to subconsciously suggest something is fine by me,

unfortunately, what I am sick of seeing and see happening all the time, is the bourne series being used to justify absolute laziness from people who think "running and gunning" is always the solution or people who simply cannot be bothered to use a tripod or some other support.


When I see it being used, 9 times out of 10, it is being used without any apparent justification - leading me to the conclusion that the film makers were lazy or rushed.

When making a film, there are thousands of possible creative decisions, they should all be dealt with serious consideration and thought - especially if they might take up more production time to achieve.

Isnt it funny how the decisions which just happen to speed things up (shaky cam, not focus pulling properly, using nothing but natural/present light etc) are so in vogue with indie film makers?
Too few new and aspiring filmmakers dedicate real time to their films - sacrificing all the amazing, powerful visual tools and techniques which are available to add another layer of depth to your film - opting instead for the easy, fast and lazy way out.

Just like any other technique - if shaky cam is being used for a good justifiable reason - fine. But that reason should never be to save time.

Art should not be rushed or compromised in my opinion.

Take your time, plan, make something beautiful.



(for the record - I am very guilty of shaky cam, bad focus pulling, using natural/present light etc - my older work is littered with examples. I recognise that sometimes cinematographers are at the mercy of a budget or a directors choice - but now that I am where I am - I am determined to prevent it from happening any more in my own work)

May I chime in as a hardcore moviegoer?

I (respectfully) think that the shaky-cam is a plague in modern cinema and it makes a lot of people really uncomfortable in a dark theatre with a huge screen. I saw people walk away half way through Cloverfield (and some other movies).
I think it's used often for depiction of something that the director has no idea about, i.e extreme action. In real life our head is the perfect gimball and even under stress, we tend to maintain focus and stability even running (long live the steadycam)
Today it's used to create a documentary like experience, but it's hard to follow a 2.2 hours doco.
Moderate use is ok though.
All said with respect to the shaky-cam fans

I don't prefer it to what I call purposeful, swaying/push/pull Steadicam usage aimed at creating a sense of slow unsteadiness. I use it to create a source if tension.

There's another "advantage" -- for the lazy or non-existent filmmaker -- in taking a shaky-cam approach. No shot structure or continuity is required, because any shaky-cam shot can be cut with any other shaky-cam shot. The technique does away with any audience expectation of visual or situational coherence.

I feel the younger generation such as my self included are starting to get used t oand think shaky camera is normal now. When I grew up watching movies, there was rarely shaky cam unless its in a intense action scene but even at times they wouldnt even introduce shaky camera. I feel its cheaper to handheld production wise but more professional to go with tripods and dolly movements.

These are major hollywood epics with a $250,000,000 +budgets but I would definitely take smoother shots like this

rather than


In my humble op pinion .

Like everyone here, I can't stand shaky footage... I see it as pure laziness. I however, don't like super smooth footage that I am seeing with lots of gimbal footage either. Being on a tripod can also make you like a surveillance cam....

What is done with the camera needs to be very intentional. One of my fav movies of all time Saving Private Ryan.. has amazing shaky footage and does what it was meant to do.. Make you feel like you were a part of those first soldiers hitting the beach! Wow!

But gimbals that make footage look like you are floating through the air??? There needs to be a reason for that too..

I'm a huge fan of Saving the Private Ryan and watched it several times, never liked the shaky-cam in the Omaha scene. It was (IMO) one of those films that set the idea that action=shaky and narrow FOV.

I know that it's like comparing cats and elephants in terms of budget, success and story, but the action scenes in Act of Valor were awesome and pretty smooth

Justin Melson wrote:I feel the younger generation such as my self included are starting to get used t oand think shaky camera is normal now. When I grew up watching movies, there was rarely shaky cam unless its in a intense action scene but even at times they wouldnt even introduce shaky camera. I feel its cheaper to handheld production wise but more professional to go with tripods and dolly movements.

These are major hollywood epics with a $250,000,000 +budgets but I would definitely take smoother shots like this

rather than

In my humble op pinion .

Justin, I will argue in the defense of Man of Steel because it's using the Shaky-Cam effect during the fight to hide the CGI. When watched closely, it's so obvious that it's CGI. Remember The Matrix Reloaded? They're trying hard to avoid that. Although I do agree that The Dark Knight Rises smooth camera style is better for a fight, there's a huge difference between the films. Mainly because one relied heavily on CGI, while the other was more grounded in reality.

If I had to choose fights with shaky-cam as examples to compare to your first example I would use the Bourne movies and Taken.

Myself? I'd much rather see the fight. Like in The Princess Bride (sword fight between Inigo and Westley).

Shaky cam for some action is fine. Things like in Fast and the Furious films when they use a quick side on shot to demonstrate how fast the driving is it's intentionally shaky, that works.

Still shots like conversations and such should be steady. I don't mind minor sway from should mount etc but nothing actually shaky.

Also, handycam movies are a plague on cinema. Well sick of them.

Tom wrote:Just like any other technique - if shaky cam is being used for a good justifiable reason - fine. But that reason should never be to save time.

THIS - should be a mandatory sticker on any camera, sold to anybody under 40

And yeah, it's quite bizarre, now that we finally have affordable cranes, tripods, gimbals, sliders andwhatmot available, shaky handheld became suddenly acceptable.

Part of it, I think, is the independent filmmaker roots of many of the people using it. Pretentiousness abounds in festival judging. Words like 'guerrilla,' 'visceral,' 'human,' or 'real' tend to mean shaky, poorly composed footage. And this kind of thing gets rewarded at a lot of festivals. I see it a lot at SIFF for the local stuff.

Shaky cam is a tool in the toolbox. Just like slides and pushes and racks. But it's one of those specialized tools...a tri-wing screwdriver...that you only pull out when your problem is that weird ass screw.

This is the 'very' from Dead Poets Society for camera people.

Frank Glencairn wrote:

Tom wrote:Just like any other technique - if shaky cam is being used for a good justifiable reason - fine. But that reason should never be to save time.

THIS - should be a mandatory sticker on any camera, sold to anybody under 40

I agree with this entirely (FYI I'm 23 ).

I think Shaky-cam has been really overused in the recent years as the sort of "documentary style"/"Found Footage"/Handheld thing has become increasingly popular.

But when I see dialogue scenes or longer scenes done handheld with microshakes & shakeycam it just screams low budget/amateur to me, and it legitimately bothers me especially among my generation of film makers. I totally understand the use of it during action sequences or being used to illustrate something (say, being on a boat, explosions, chaos etc).

The problem on the technical end that because the cameras have gotten lighter and easier to run handheld that they feel obligated to do so - or feel that other methods of stabilization aren't necessary because handheld is easier/cheaper generally (handheld 90% of the time is shakeycam).

On the aesthetic end of things I think the problem is that newer Audiences and in turn Directors have become much more visually sophisticated, but are far less visually literate - they know a good cut or a good shot, but can't tell you why it's a good cut or a good shot.

I'd also say I feel the same way about Sliders - people know how to use them technically (as in using the equipment itself) but have very little idea how to use it aesthetically.

That being said, I don't use shakey cam (I prefer to use a dolly) but I understand why you'd use it for aesthetic reasons, but I would say to never use it for technical reasons.

I am anti-shaky camera for one reason.

To me, the camera is not and should not be a character.
It makes no sense to me to make the camera shake because the camera should be a invisible fly on the wall and not physically exist within the universe of the film. If shaking the camera is ok, why not have glass cracks show up anytime a gun is fired at the screen or rain on the lens or characters run into the camera? It's the same idea.
If you're switching to a perspective of the character, ok, that's fine.

An example from saving private ryan.

They approach the beach - normal camera
They storm the beach - shaky camera
They cut to that one private watching the chaos - sound drops out, signifying we're watching from his eyes - shaky camera

How can you do both?
Makes no sense to me.

Shaky camera is ok when;
-you're looking at the world through the character's eyes and he is running or doing something that would make your perspective shake.
-you're in a found footage film and it's obviously an amateur cameraman who is supposedly operating the camera.

All other times are unacceptable.
The camera is not a character and is not in the scene with the characters.
It is the eye of God or an invisible fly and attention should not be brought to it.

Just my opinion.

Dave, curious what you think about Gravity's FPV clips? Seeing through the eyes of that character Sandra played.. to me, it felt like a gimmick..

Blaine Russom wrote:Dave, curious what you think about Gravity's FPV clips? Seeing through the eyes of that character Sandra played.. to me, it felt like a gimmick..

I haven't seen Gravity.*
But under my conditions, if it's supposed to be from her perspective, it's ok, HOWEVER, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to use first-person perspective in that situation, I'm just saying if they did it, it would justify the use of the effects pertaining to the FPV.

Personally, I'm not a fan of FPV in film. (outside of found footage in the vein of Blair Witch Project) I think it's a bit gimmicky. But if you do use it, it justifies usage of the shaky cam.

*I haven't seen Gravity because I don't like Sandra Bullock or George Clooney.
I can't imagine sitting though 2 hours of them.
Also, I'm a space nut, and I wouldn't be able to suspend my disbelief long enough to enjoy the film.
I've only seen trailers, but Astronauts don't talk like they do, and they certainly wouldn't send up someone as clueless sounding as bullock's character was.

Speaking of Gravity, the shaky-cam in the Uprising scene was amazing and very well used.

A movie, where it worked well for me, is District 9. The shaky camera is part of the docu style fiction but they managed to back out to normal footage each time before it gets annoying.

I definitely hate shaky pov in fighting action, especially when combined with narrow fov for minutes. I know it is supposed to put the audience into the battle. But that shaky orientation would never be the perception of a trained fighter – only the last second before he/she goes down
As Nicolas pointed out: our brain is doing an amazing good job in keeping focus and balance of our vision even in action.

I go to the cinema to enjoy well crafted images. A shaking image destroys itself (and breaks the story if not used for very good reason and only very short)

Johannes

I've seen a few old short films shot on Super8 which had the occasional handheld shot. These added to the aesthetic and story. The shots were shaky, but weren't of the "microjitter" kind.

I think it has to do with tendencies, nowadays is a tendency in films to use handheld footage, I think part of it is because there are a lot of directors with no visual talent which just want to make their films "cool" and "modern" and go for the shaky cam. However, I am a lover of shaky cam, I feel like it is the way the camera should be used always. I hate the camera being still on a tripod, and it doesn't mean that is amateur or something, it's just a style. Do you guys see european movies? I think here it is very more often used... There was a german movie I saw recently, called "West", which was beautifully shot and it was all handheld. Also " La Herida", a spanish movie, or "Shame", or any Lars von Trier film, is handheld. It is a question of style, not only cheap or expensive, amateur or professional.

The other issue here is, the huge number of well-funded productions which, while avoiding the excesses of "shaky-cam", are nonetheless choosing to shoot from the shoulder rather than on sticks.

For what the speculation is worth, I'm convinced that controlled shoulder-mount shooting is a substitute for the sense-stimulating random artifacts of the photochemical process and film projection, which keep viewers alert. So-called "squiggle" animation is done for a reason....

I hate Shaky cam. When I watch a movie on TV and a shaky cam scene comes, I have to look away or fall off my seat! It's very annoying because I then miss the action! So what's the point if you can't see who's doing what to whom?
That's one reason I do not go to the cinema anymore, because I would just get up and walk out in disgust!
At least on my home cinema I can change channel and watch something I can see.
Captain Phillips is a good film apparently, pity then I shall never see it! Unless I can get a copy and run a smoothcam filter through it.