The artsy jerk

[Josh Bass]

No, I don't mean the guy that says "video sucks; film rules!", I mean the new-ish style of random camera movement I tend to see in a lot of commercials, and maybe in a few other places. Just imagine you're watching your STD medicine commercial, or your credit card debt commercial, or whatever. There's a CU, maybe a very tight CU, of some poor anguished soul talking straight into the camera, contrastily lit, color corrected music video-style, and as they talk, the camera sort of moves a little bit. A jerk up here, a jerk left there, a little zoom in/out here. Surely you guys know what I mean, no?

 

What are your thoughts on this style of camera movement? Any tips for achieving it? What is generally used in shots like this, tripod, handheld, steadicam, all three? Thoughts? Thanks.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Whenever I work with a director who wants the 'loose' camera thing, I usually have the camera with a long lens (100+mm) with the camera slightly front heavy on a head which is almost completely loosened up.

 

It's a bit trendy but like all techniques can be quite cool when implemented properly.

Edited November 14, 2004 by Eric Steelberg

[DavidSloan]

What Eric said: Long lens and loosened tripod. I really like the jerky zooms some people do. You see that in Mann's Ali, and on Man on Fire.

[Josh Bass]

Is there any method to the madness? Do you guys sort of devise a pattern of movement in your mind before you start rolling (first I'm going to jerk left, then up, then right, then down), or just do whatever the hell you feel? Do you jerk and hold for a given length of time, or just keep constantly moving the camera? I wouldn't want to do overdo it.

 

I realize this is all starting to sound awfully pornographic.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I once asked for this from a camera operator, and it came out all... well, rather too controlled and uncool, kind of like NYPD Blue. Keep a close eye and ensure you like what you get!

 

Phil

[DanStewart]

I think this works a treat in the new Battlestar Galactica. Really nice to see a new approach to sci fi.

Also using docu-style zooms for empahasis in drama is super effective - if you zoomed into someone's face for a reaction they really don't have to act much, since the zoom makes the moment work.

[Michael Nash]

Jeez, I though that look had been worn out and donated to Goodwill years ago! I mean, it was all the rage in commercials and music video ten years ago, and commercials being as "hip" and up-to-date as they are...

 

So yeah, years ago I perfected my own "loose" technique for camera operating. First question to the director is "how loose" or how crazy do you want it -- scale of 1-10, examples, whatever.

 

I also try to the think of the edit -- will the piece be "jump cut" together, or will a single take be used? That determines the pace, subtlety, and variety of the moves.

 

Regarding Man on Fire, the off-speed shots with camera moves and whatnot were used to create a very impressionistic POV (expressing what Denzel's character was going through). That's a completely different thing than the cinema-verite approach with an actor addressing the camera in a commercial. Similar movement, but to express something completely different, from a different POV.

[DavidSloan]

Michael Nash: I'm not talking about the off speed shots. For example in the opening of the film there is a jerky CU on Denzel, in the car, and suddenly a jerky zoom to his sun glasses. This style is all over the film. The off speed stuff is something else, and is obviously used in just a few scenes, the entire movie is not offspeed.

[Michael Nash]

Regarding the hardware, I read somewhere that one of these TV shows with a "docu" look (Maybe 24 ? Boomtown ?) would sometimes put the camera on a softball. That allowed the camera to easily "rock'n'roll" on all axes while still giving the operator some degree of control. But not as much finesse or precision as a fluid or geared head.

[David Mullen ASC]

This conversation started years ago when "NYPD Blue" was doing this jerky-cam movement on the geared-head for a pseudo handheld look.

[Annie Wengenroth]

Wow, who would have thought. I did that jerky camera movement by accident when one of the actors screwed up a line and then tripped over the table and I laughed....

 

Actually, I have noticed this trend and I have to say it forced me to move the camera around a lot more when I first started making films. So in that respect I guess it can be a good inspiration. It does seem rather overdone though.

 

Boy, I'll never forget watching The Blair Witch Project and realizing that I was getting carsick in a movie theatre.

[Josh Bass]

Well, I had an idea for a commercial parody, and I think it would fit, since the commercials I'd be making fun of sometimes use that style, so I just wanted to find out what you guys thought worked best. It will be cuts, not super quick, but not one long take either. . .if that helps determine the tempo of the jerkosity.

 

So, we all vote tripod, long lens, loose as it can be (I have a Sachtler w/a drag setting of either 1 or 0. 1's a little tension, 0's almost like being handheld, yet not. Very odd.)?

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

For the most part, IMO that technique always looks cheesy. Recently on that show "The Days" they were doing that and IMO it was completely laughable.

 

Why do you want to simulate a hand held look anyway? Just hand hold the camera. I could see not wanting to hold a Panaflex all day but it would still look better.

 

I have seen some really crazy snap zooms lately that look more like a Shift & Tilt lens or something similar was used to do it. Looks more like a lens element was shifted in order to pop the image in close or something. Looks weird but kinda cool. I think that glass warping thingy that goes in front of the lens can do that. Can't remember what it's called

[Bill Totolo]

I have seen some really crazy snap zooms lately that look more like a Shift & Tilt lens or something similar was used to do it.  Looks more like a lens element was shifted in order to pop the image in close or something.  Looks weird but kinda cool.  I think that glass warping thingy that goes in front of the lens can do that.  Can't remember what it's called

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you thinking about a 'mesmerizer'?

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Hi Bill,

 

I thought it could be a mesmerizer creating that effect. Just they only do that one move and avoid the angular stretching effect.

 

The other thing I'm thinking about is the Squishy Lens. I think you can shoot normal then compress the lens from all sides at once and get this instant focal change. I don't know if that is how they are doing the effect I'm thinking of though.

 

If you happen to have a copy of the video "Redneck Wonderland" by Midnight Oil you'll see it. I've seen it other places too.

[DavidSloan]

Are you thinking about a 'mesmerizer'?

Okay. This is new to me. What the heck is a mesmerizer? :huh:

[Josh Bass]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that I wanted a "simulated handheld" look. It's more than that. . .it's like, these little "mini-moves", that don't really change the framing in a significant way (usually). If you think it's been thrown out, then we must not watch the same stuff, 'cause I see it a lot. As I said, seems to be very popular with high budget commercials. Usually goes with super artsy color correction (very contrasty, a definite tint to the footage, be it blue, yellow, green, etc). Also, seems to happen a lot with CUs of people talking to the camera, though I see it on all sorts of different focal length shots. Wish I could think of a specific example, but I can't off the top of my head.

[Brad Grimmett]

Why do you want to simulate a hand held look anyway?  Just hand hold the camera.  I could see not wanting to hold a Panaflex all day but it would still look better.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I operated on a movie at the beginning of the year where we simulated bad handheld off of a dolly. The reason for doing it was that the handheld was suppossed to be VERY bad and myself and the other operator knew we could do it on a head with no problem. It wasn't that stylistic thing like NYPD Blue....it was suppossed to be a bad operator. We did all the stuff that was suppossed to be even worse handheld. We did silly things like stand on one leg and bounce around to make it work. There were degrees of bad operating that we were doing. The worst stuff we did handheld, and the other stuff we did off the dolly if it was practical. It was actually quite fun. I wish we had more behind the scenes video of us doing it, because it would be very funny. But when you can do something off the dolly it makes it easier on both the operator and the focus puller.

By the way, this film is in the vein of the Christopher Guest movies. It's a Kung Fu mockumentary called 18 Fingers of Death. It was a real challenge and lots of fun to do different kinds of handheld, whether it be horrible, bad, or good.

[Matt Pacini]

Oh God, this is my pet peeve.

I am simply unable to watch NYPD Blue or anything else I see this camera technique used in.

As if cop shows aren't cliche' enough as it is, they all have to copy each other with this "let's just randomly roam around the room like we can't make up our mind what's important" camera technique.

It's not "cool" (I didn't think it was cool 10-15 years ago, I REALLY don't see how anyone thinks it's cool now), it doesn't serve the story in any way, that I can see, unless you somehow think it's desirable to have your footage look like you hired a camera op from the local high school.

It's just totally distracting.

It's simply bad framing, bad composition, and it draws attention to the camera technique (or lack thereof), which is supposed to be NOT what to do.

I probably wouldn't even mind that much if they didn't constantly do it.

Drives me insane.

Will everyone please stop doing it!

 

Matt Pacini

[John Sprung]

For the most part, IMO that technique always looks cheesy.

 

Just hand hold the camera.  I could see not wanting to hold a Panaflex all day but it would still look better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, I don't like it. It's a fad that lasted way too long.

 

Now as for a way of doing it, how about using two C-stands to set up a solid horizontal bar, then hang the camera from that on sash cord? It saves you holding the weight, all you have to do is shake and rattle while you roll. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Josh Bass]

Are you, gasp, saying that, gasp, "The Shield" and "NYPD Blue" are plagued with bad camerawork?

 

Kinda sorta what I'm talking about, but to a much lesser degree.

[Elhanan Matos]

I always thought those shots looked like the camera operator was suffering from muscular dystrophy or Parkinsons.

 

It's a fad that I hope will go away soon, just like those horrible MTV camera movements, the ones where the camera is swooping from one direction to the other, like in Cribs.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that I wanted a "simulated handheld" look.  It's more than that. . .it's like, these little "mini-moves", that don't really change the framing in a significant way (usually). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well you could be talking about something different. If you're thinking of the "NYPD Look" I would call that jerky movement simulated hand held (because you can tell it's on a fluid head) or just over active hand held.

 

I guess it stems from trying to give it a documentary feel but when I shoot documentary I spend all my time trying to keep the camera still not move someones head all over the frame.

 

Is that show "The Days" still on? If it is watch and try not to vomit. :lol:

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

BTW DavidSloan, click for the Mesmeriser

Edited November 15, 2004 by J. Lamar King

[Brad Grimmett]

If you're thinking of the "NYPD Look" I would call that jerky movement simulated hand held (because you can tell it's on a fluid head) or just over active hand held.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think someone mentioned this already, but NYPD Blue uses geared heads, which to me seems very strange. I think it would be easier to do with a fluid head.

Edited November 16, 2004 by grimmett