Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Why do many videographers now use a continually moving hand held camera that glides to the side during the shot or even side to side? Is it because this is how the POV player's perspective in a video game glides around? I ask because younger people I meet tell me that this camera style is contemporary and professional and this is the look to go for in filmmaking. I don't like the style and find it hackneyed and I can't believe people are impressed by it. Do others find a lot of modern camera style sort of ... I don't know. Boring?

 

 

Posted (edited)

In a wedding video for instance, to take one of the baseline pro standards in cinematography as an example, I'd much prefer a locked off camera on a tripod, totally static, or with a few subtle pans, and a bit of true hand held in honest cinema verite style -- in other words just simply and honestly hand held without any contrived gliding from side to side. I'd rather let the action tell the story. Not the camera.

Pick that heavy tripod up and move it around. Do some work.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
  • Premium Member
Posted

I honestly prefer camera movement. The "slider" shot adds some movement to a static scene. It really does help you run longer takes and retain the audience's interest. To me, the best is a jib arm on a dolly, where you are free to go wherever you want. I'd say Fisher 11 would be 2nd on my list of favorite tools. If I could shoot everything on a Fisher 11, I would, it kinda becomes the "tripod". I love doing Push in's, pull out's, rises, lowers, side to side, Russian arm, etc. Very versatile. I love camera movement, but not every shot needs it of course. Subtle movement however, is awesome. You may not even notice it in bigger projects because it's so subtle and the "slider" has kinda replaced the dolly on many lower budget shows. Over used? Perhaps, but so is the gimbal. I can't stand gimbal shots when you can see the operator walking. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Cameras have become smaller and lighter and we often use monitors instead of viewfinders—in this way the camera has become more a bodily extension. moving the camera around creates paralax in the background so can be more exciting and lively. obviously depends on the project and its use if it is actually helping or hurting the storytelling. The video game influence I see is more in the use of POV as taken from first person shooter games

  • Like 1
  • Premium Member
Posted

I know it's not what you meant but my first thought when reading the post title was about how frequently my wife and I remark to each other, "Huh...it looks like a video game" when watching a preview of whatever new fantasy action movie is coming out. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Could you please link a couple video examples of these shots you have a gripe with? I'm trying not to conflate all drone, slider, and jib shots with "video game" stuff by mistake.

Posted

Steven Spielberg always likes to keep the camera moving. Of course, he understands nuance, and honest overly dramatise every shot. He just keeps a flow going.

Of course, we are dealing with a lot of camera-driven creators who think that T1.2 is some kind of gold standard for cinematic shots. So of course you are going to get the mediocrity we see today, including unnecessary colour grading (which really burns my biscuits).

FWIW, some shots in Tenet reminded me of the PS game, Syphon Filter. In a good way.

  • Like 1
Posted

I'm talking about an overuse of a continually mobile, almost alway hand held, camera. It's an overdone look. The camera operator is almost never seen with a tripod unless it's some sort of more permanent studio set up where the filming's being done.

Let's say there's a short film being filmed. The cinematographer who gets the gig turns out to be a director or games graphic artist/vfx digital graphics person or stills photographer who decided to also get into cinematography. It's always a hand held camera with a monitor on top and the operator is always walking around with the camera and when filming B roll shots in slow mo is often swinging it to the side, by hand. There's never a tripod. It doesn't matter if it's a big cinema camera or mirrorless.

Apparently it's a popular look. Okay, that's fine. I will keep doing things my way. I like a less mobile camera. To me the camera should only move unless it has to, to follow the action, or if a camera move is needed for a rare 'effect' for a special shot (let's say a tracking shot needed to add a feeling of drama to the scene).

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
On 7/27/2024 at 3:03 PM, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Steven Spielberg always likes to keep the camera moving. Of course, he understands nuance, and honest overly dramatise every shot. He just keeps a flow going.

Of course, we are dealing with a lot of camera-driven creators who think that T1.2 is some kind of gold standard for cinematic shots. So of course you are going to get the mediocrity we see today, including unnecessary colour grading (which really burns my biscuits).

FWIW, some shots in Tenet reminded me of the PS game, Syphon Filter. In a good way.

Yes there's that great shot in Jaws, when Brodie and the local Mayor or whatever he is get on to a ferry and go across the stretch of water. The camera follows them down the pier and onto the ferry and across. Great shot!!

Trouble is, yes, a lot of mediocrity around in camera work I feel. Not much good taste but I guess what's new. Far too many sweeping mobile shots and it takes away the great power of a rare and special moving shot. I find a lot of videography way too hip and cool as if the camera operator is some kind of ballet star. The operator should not be noticeable. It's about the action and the story.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Posted (edited)

Drone shots are now so overused, in nearly every little video that's shot outdoors, that I will not complain if I never see another one ever again.

A very rare helicopter or drone shot in a movie is good, where it's powerful and magical. Like the opening title shot of We of the Never Never (1982).

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Posted

For TV and internet commercials a drone shot can make a lot of sense in some contexts. But I'm not talking about shots that make sense. I'm talking about the senseless use of a moving camera. There resteth my case.

Posted
11 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I'm talking about an overuse of a continually mobile, almost alway hand held, camera. It's an overdone look. The camera operator is almost never seen with a tripod unless it's some sort of more permanent studio set up where the filming's being done.

Yeah I'll be honest, a still shot really only works if you have some thoughtful set design or blocking. For a lot of music videos without great set design still stuff feels boring. Interviews look like they're from 20 years ago if you don't have the camera breathing in some way. Of course motion can be overused but if someone just needs to hand-hold the rig and stand there with minimal set-up plus their shot has the essence of more action/life there is incentive to do things that way.

I'm not so sure it is video game influence as it is video productions are proportionally given less and less money as the years go by and convenience ends up ruling. You'll need to call a hit on AI developers and nephews with DSLR cameras who will shoot for $50 if you want this trend to change.

Posted
On 7/29/2024 at 2:31 AM, Max Field said:

Yeah I'll be honest, a still shot really only works if you have some thoughtful set design or blocking. For a lot of music videos without great set design still stuff feels boring. Interviews look like they're from 20 years ago if you don't have the camera breathing in some way. Of course motion can be overused but if someone just needs to hand-hold the rig and stand there with minimal set-up plus their shot has the essence of more action/life there is incentive to do things that way.

I'm not so sure it is video game influence as it is video productions are proportionally given less and less money as the years go by and convenience ends up ruling. You'll need to call a hit on AI developers and nephews with DSLR cameras who will shoot for $50 if you want this trend to change.

I agree. Good points! Okay, so it's not really a video game thing.

You make a great point about the set and blocking.

As many others must, I get shown videos on other people's phones when they find out I do filming myself. A sort of boredom envelops me when being shown videos by this "so cool" (or whatever terminology they use), "incredibly talented" videographer. I politely watch the videos, out of genuine interest, hoping for something good, and am told how amazingly good the cinematography is and how professional the videographer is.

I think I sometimes annoy whoever is showing me these videos as I usually just nod and don't say anything. Or maybe say "Hmm, yes." I always see the continually mobile hand held or gimbal held DSLR style, the super slow-motion shots with the confetti sort of gliding around in the air at what seems like 50 times slower than normal speed, the maching gun editing of 'impressions' in conference videos, the almost non-stop tracking style shots and pull-ins etc, the absolutely inevitable drone shot (I actually now wait for it to come), of the church, the conference hall and grounds, the beach where the musicians are standing pretending to play .... A potpourri of video impressions that always is exactly the same. "Great, great shots" I'm told. "He has such an amazing talent."

I think perhaps they might be gently hinting, "Your videos need to look like this."

What would impress me is a documentary style film of an event. Like was once common. Something that dwells on the people and who they are. I want to see and hear real people and what they do and what they are. Not glib impressions and a slowed down overly sentimental microcosm of life that's only there because it's super easy to film and it fills out the video because what only took seconds in real life is now stretched out much longer. And a continually hand held style because it's also super quick and ... you guessed it. "All too easy" (as Darth Vader once said).

I'd like to see filmmakers sweat a bit more maybe.

 

Posted

Many of these reasons are why I decided to focus my time on production. People who are more concerned with making connections at parties over developing their craft end up getting the mid-range jobs.

  • 1 month later...
Posted
On 8/1/2024 at 1:22 PM, Max Field said:

Many of these reasons are why I decided to focus my time on production. People who are more concerned with making connections at parties over developing their craft end up getting the mid-range jobs.

Max, I haven't been here in a few years but I remembered your name. My crazy teenager was obsessing about this thing called CLASS OF '09 and turns out that was your thing! Small world!

  • Like 1
Posted

Hi!

Yes, the shaking, never on a tripod „pov“-camera is overused in many productions these days. But this trend isn’t caused by video games (as they don’t shake their virtual cameras). Instead, everyone is telling me that this is mimicking the „war reporter style“ (see footage shot in WWII, Vietnam-War,…).And it isn’t a new style in Hollywood, too, e.g. try to watch „Speed II: Cruise Control“ from 1997.

IMHO in today’s productions, this is just a cost-saving thing: no need to buy/rent tripods/dollies/steadycams, no time (=money) spend on setting up tripods, laying out tracks, … (and later removing them). 

  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

For me, any camera movement is motivated by the drama of the scene - some scenes call for a dolly in, or some other move, others benefit form no movement at all (and those are usually very strong), but I never move cameras around just because I can.

 

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Frank Glencairn said:

For me, any camera movement is motivated by the drama of the scene - some scenes call for a dolly in, or some other move, others benefit form no movement at all (and those are usually very strong), but I never move cameras around just because I can.

 

Watching your shows might  be quite calming then. A lot of stuff these days makes my eyeballs bleed. I want to shout at the screen "IT'S CALLED A TRIPOD!"

Unmotivated camera movement really gets my goat.

Edited by Mark Dunn
  • Like 1
  • Premium Member
Posted

To a great extent it's likely a learned response to the zeitgeist. That said, any sort of moving camera inherently encodes three-dimensional information into a fundamentally two-dimensional medium, so there's possibly some argument for the general use of camera motion.

Posted
On 9/6/2024 at 4:33 PM, Joerg Polzfusz said:

...IMHO in today’s productions, this is just a cost-saving thing: no need to buy/rent tripods/dollies/steadycams, no time (=money) spend on setting up tripods, laying out tracks, … (and later removing them). 

I really think this is the main reason. It's minimalism and that's currently the thing. Plus at weddings and gigs like that it's probably felt that there isn't time to move a camera on a tripod around. But, there is time. And if the camera misses a shot then too bad, it missed the shot. Don't worry about it. If necessary just quickly take the camera off the tripod and do some hand held then.

The problem is when this style crosses over into narrative filmmaking. It's either lazy or not in the best taste or both most of the time when a hand held camera is used all the time. All hand held is a stills camera thing in my opinion. Using a tripod is a necessary part of the kit in the cine tradition.

I understand why many videographers move the camera so much, because a lot of the things they shoot are inherently pretty uninteresting and moving the camera adds some life to the shot.

To look good on video or movie film something really has got to move, for most shots. A lot of things we film don't move much. But the problem is it's shot after shot. You end up with a film made up of a continually moving camera, even if the movement is subtle.

If most videographers like that style, fine. It's the thing of the day as Phil says. Hold that camera in your hands all the time. It's hip. It's cool! Yeah! You'll probably get the gig because that's how it's done now.

I will go back to watching classic old movies on Blu-Ray.

Posted
21 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

To a great extent it's likely a learned response to the zeitgeist. That said, any sort of moving camera inherently encodes three-dimensional information into a fundamentally two-dimensional medium, so there's possibly some argument for the general use of camera motion.

Nothing wrong with motion per se - it just needs to be motivated by the scene. 

Regarding the "zeitgeist" - those unmotivated MTV moves look rather outdated to me - waving the camera around for no reason also screams early 2000s to me like nothing else. 

just my ct 2 - your mileage may vary.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...