Camera Shake

Marc Levy · July 6, 2004

So I've got a scene coming up where I need to simulate a mine cave-in. Production Design aside, how could I pull this effect off. I'm definitely thinking handheld, but wondering if I should shake the crap out of the camera, or if I should rely on a post program to do the trick. Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Josh Hill · July 6, 2004

I wouldn't shake the camera, what I would do is make it a POV type shot (not necessarily the POV of a character, but like in Full Metal Jacket where the camera moves with the characters and acts as they do, hiding and ducking and such). Also, though I've never been in a mine cave in, I would assume that the shake would not be perceivable to the human eye; mostly because it would happen so fast.

And if you're hand holding the camera and moving with it, I don't think the shake would be necessary anyway.

Thats just my two cents.

Michael Nash · July 7, 2004

It depends what you want the effect to look like. If you want a vibrating look like an earthquake, I wouldn't shoot handheld but instead mount the camera on sticks and shake it. Handheld shaking tends to look, well, handheld (you can't really shake it fast enough for a vibration effect). If you just want a more subjective POV with a chaotic feel as things collapse around the camera, then handheld may indeed be the way to go.

The longer the focal length the more pronounced the shaking will appear, whichever method you use. You should try some tests and see what looks right to you for your story.

oscar jimenez · July 8, 2004

HI, there is a plug in for After Effects called "Earthquake" I've used it several times and does a great job, the best of all, you can shoot normal withouth the worries of how it will look.

Best regards

Oscar

Marc Levy · July 9, 2004

Thanks for the great input. Shaking on sticks is a good idea. Oscar, for EarthQuake, do you have to frame wider than normal?

Markus Rave · July 11, 2004

I had this solved making the assistant shaking the camera on the tripod violently. If you let the subject hit the corners of your frame (means do not shoot wider as you would normally) it just adds to the illusion.

Markus

Luke Prendergast · July 11, 2004

Using a plugin for something as simple as a shaking clip seems unnecessary.. Some very simple motion math will do it quite convincingly.

Something like this:

value(1,position)=random(2)*10;

will move the layer '1' by a random number of pixels up to twenty each frame. You'd be better to use anchor point rather than position but the results are the same in the end.

Phil Rhodes · July 12, 2004

Hi,

That'll work, but it won't do motion blur, which is required for convincing movement - especially fast convincing movement.

Phil

Luke Prendergast · July 12, 2004

C'mon you know that's not at all hard.

Mitch Gross · July 12, 2004

I love this mentality of high tech solutions to low tech problems. Why not just shake the tripod? It's easy and very convincing. Have an assistant shake the sticks very hard whiule you struggle to maintain your frame, just like a real earthquake would simple and convincing.

oscar jimenez · July 12, 2004

The thing is that if you use earhtquake, is more "controllable" on the shake issue, and therefore you can precisely define how much shaking, intervals and tremor duration you want, you can add a little of motion blur to it, simplify your shoot, and the answer is no, no more wider or open than the framing that you exactly want to do

Regards

Oscar.

Michael Nash · July 12, 2004

I love this mentality of high tech solutions to low tech problems. Why not just shake the tripod?

I know, I'm sitting here reading this with my hands up and my mouth open. Huh?

Filmmaking doesn't have to be rocket science, folks! Shake the damn camera! Do a couple different takes with different amounts of shake if you like; cut, print, check the gate, move on...

Luke Prendergast · July 12, 2004

Given the expense of time on location, why don't you just shake the tape machine during dubbing?

Phil Rhodes · July 12, 2004

Hi,

If I was shooting video, I'd shake the camera. If I was shooting film, with the crippling costs of doing it again days later if wrong, I'd certainly do it afterwards.

Phil

Markus Rave · July 14, 2004

I shoot film and I would shake the camera. I have never seen a digital effect that could match the quality compared to the same effect done in-camera.

Markus

David Mullen ASC · July 14, 2004

I did an earthquake scene at the end of a really low-budget 35mm vampire flick I shot last year -- I just shook the camera handheld. Turned out fine. Was tiring though. Did do a 360 degree dolly move where the camera had to start shaking; I think in that case, I just loosened all the levelling bolts on the Fisher 11 head and shook the camera.

What helped was having crew people throw bits of ceiling ducts and Fuller's earth while I was shaking the camera -- plus the sound effect in post.

Anyone who wants to check out the film, it will premiere on the SciFi Channel on July 31 at 9PM. It's called "Out for Blood" and stars Kevin Dillon. Just warning you that it was a very small film; half my grip & electric crew were film students.

There's no need to save it for post because you're afraid it won't turn out. With a video assist, all you have to do is turn to the director and ask "did you buy that?" and make adjustments for the next take.

Brad Grimmett · July 15, 2004

I did an earthquake scene at the end of a really low-budget 35mm vampire flick I shot last year -- I just shook the camera handheld. Turned out fine. Was tiring though. Did do a 360 degree dolly move where the camera had to start shaking; I think in that case, I just loosened all the levelling bolts on the Fisher 11 head and shook the camera.

I did a little shaking on that film as well. Remember David? I had the camera on my steadicam and I just put the rig on the stand and shook it around real good for some stuff where David wanted to roll both cameras. It was actually David's idea. Worked pretty well too.