camera movement

[Josh Bass]

So I'm talkin' to this dude I work with, thinking about working together on a few no budget movies or shorts or whatever, and he seems to be real big on camera movement (not pans and tilts, but the big stuff--dolly, steadicam). Me? Not so much. Why? Well, sure it makes your stuff look slicker and more "Hollywood", I suppose, but when you're on the low end of low end, and your days are short and time is valuable, you don't want time-eating shots, that are, in addition, difficult to light for. Also, harder to get the gear necessary for sweet movement if you have no money and aren't an engineer. Oh, and, it can be annoying.

 

So, thoughts on camera movement? Here are mine: good for following action, sometimes good for reframing a shot (say someone's sitting on a couch, then they stand up--it's nice to not be shooting too up or down at them, so if you can boom up when they stand, that's nice), also good for scene transitions or establishing a scene. Beyond that, to me, it gets tricky. I'm sure I've seen several "indie" (I put it in quotes 'cause they could have huge budgets and not be very independent at all) movies that skimp on the camera movement in favor of more static setups. Then again, you have your super huge budget movies (your Van Helsings, your X-Men, etc.) where almost every shot has some movement in it whether subtle or grandiose, most of it unnecessary.

 

So, again, thoughts?

[Jonathan Spear]

There aren't really any guidelines as far as when and where the camera should move.

I mean yeah, there are basic rules...but rules can be broken and filmmaking IS an art after all, so it's really all about expression and personal taste.

 

For example, imagine a couple walking through Central Park.

There are at least 100 ways to film this scene so it's up to you to decide which method/angle/lens/setup/etc to choose from.

I've noticed that many films portray 'subtext' (emotions, P.O.V.'s, inner thoughts, opinions) through choreographed camera movements.

Some movements add depth, create confusion, alter perspective - you name it.

 

Excessive camera movements may not necessarily give you that "Hollywood" look...but if you use them wisely and make sure they're subtle, they can definately add some "ooo's and ahh's" - not to mention depth and atmosphere.

 

IMO, what seperates a good movie from a =GREAT= movie is that the latter doesn't constantly remind you it's 'just another big budget movie made in Hollywood'.

 

As far as camera rigs and gear is concerned...you don't have to fork out thousands for steadicams, dollies and cranes. Just use your imagination, pick up a few 'how to' books and surf the net. You'd be surprised what you can build with your own two hands.

 

;)

[Michael Nash]

This is similar to another recent thread where we were comparing wide static shots to scenes covered in closeups. My outlook is the same here, that camera movement is part of a visual LANGUAGE you use to tell the story. It's not just an aesthetic or "look".

 

With any shot you should have a clear idea of what action you're trying to illustrate, what POV that portion of the story is told from, and what emotion or subtext you're trying to communicate. So if you're going to move the camera, you should have a clear idea of what emotion, POV, and action you're conveying with that shot. And if you're not going to move the camera, you should have a clear idea of what emotion, POV, and action you're conveying with that shot. If you're not clear on the visual language you're trying to use, then you're dropping the ball either way.

 

I think there is some legitimacy to the notion that camera movement adds "production value" to a movie, because cheaper productions often can't afford the time or technology to move the camera. But beyond that, arbitrary camera movement can start to backfire on you once it becomes apparent to the audience that there's no rhyme or reason to the shots, just that they look "cool."

 

I love camera movement because it's such a powerful visual device, both narratively and aesthetically. But even when I have the camera already mounted on a jib or dolly I won't move it unless the shot really calls for it.

 

Dolly and jib moves don't always have to eat up production time, depending on the shot and the coverage for a scene. Sometimes squeezing everything you need to say visually into one camera position can be more challenging than moving the camera from point A to point B instead. But yes, there are lighting challenges to moving shots, especially the bigger and longer they get.

 

And yes, there are lots of cheap ways to configure camera platforms and such. Even if you're not mechanically inclined enough to build these things yourself, you might find a friend who is. ;)

[David Mullen ASC]

Camera movement tends to weaken composition and lighting (not always of course but it gets harder) so the question you have to ask yourself is if the movement is adding something to the scene that makes up for what it is taking away? Often the answer is yes, because the movement may be increasing tension or creating a lyrical feeling or enhancing depth, or allowing you to control the cutting pattern. But there is rarely a free lunch -- you give up one thing to gain another.

[Michael Nash]

Camera movement tends to weaken composition and lighting (not always of course but it gets harder)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess I never really looked at it quite that way, but I do agree with you. I think of moving shots as being a different type of composition instead, where the movement (both the camera and the subjects) are used to create a moving composition. But it is definitely a trade off from what you can do with lighting and framing in a static frame. I guess I don't look at either static or moving as inherently preferrable; just whatever you need for the story. But lighting is defintely easier from a static position!

 

And there are those cases where a director will get sloppy or lazy and want to "spray" the action with a steadicam, and forego composition. That really bugs me unless it's deliberately part of the visual design to be "sloppy." I mean, don't throw away the power of shot composition just beacuse you can move the camera freely, you know?

 

Don't get me wrong, you can still do long floating moves with a Steadicam and maintain controlled composition (and a good Steadicam op will endeavor to do that). It's just that sometimes you do have to work a little harder to control the frame when both the camera and the subjects are moving. I go through this with jib operators as well. Most of them are pretty good, but you've got to be pretty precise about the framing at the #1 and #2 positions as well as the timing.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

You know one book that is brilliant when it comes to this is "The Five C's of Cinematography". I've just bought it, it's mainly about camera positioning movement e.t.c.

[Bill Totolo]

I really look at camera movement as part of the blocking.

 

It's almost a participant. How is the camera participating in the shot? Is it objective or subjective, is it active or passive? How is the audience to interpret the movement?

 

I feel very uncomfortable without a rehearsal. Many discoveries are made during the blocking with the actors. Even between takes tweaking occurs, finessing the shot.

 

Even if you have a very dynamic camera move I think it should feel natural, linked to the story and the goals and obstacles in the scene for it to feel organic and not call attention to itself by feeling out of place.

 

In my humble opinion, of course.

[Guest dpforum1968]

Did you see the "Bourne Supremecy"?

 

Now there's how you shoot...every thing shoulder mounted, just pan and tilt around following the action. No need for dollies, tri-pods, and cranes. Makes editing so easy, just connect up the long shots. Done.

 

DC

[Max Jacoby]

IMO, what seperates a good movie from a =GREAT= movie is that the latter doesn't constantly remind you it's 'just another big budget movie made in Hollywood'.

 

Especially since most 'great' movies I have seen didn't even get made in Hollywood!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Coming from a place where the majority of drama is shot in a very staid, boring style, I love camera movement. I'm probably more likely, on any given shot, to take the position "If it looks pretty, do it!"

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

Did you see the "Bourne Supremecy"?

Now there's how you shoot...every thing shoulder mounted, just pan and tilt around following the action.  No need for dollies, tri-pods, and cranes.  Makes editing so easy, just connect up the long shots.  Done.

They did use dollys and tripods actually. Handholding the 24-290mm Optimo is not something you want to do on a regular basis...

Edited December 3, 2004 by audiris

[Brad Grimmett]

They did use dollys and tripods actually. Handholding the 24-290mm Optimo is not something you want to do on a regular basis...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They apparently also used steadicam, although I couldn't really tell where when I saw the movie.

[Keith Mottram]

personally i'm a fan of the barely there track, this way you can keep your lighting, composition etc whislt still having a bit of movement to keep the mtv generation happy. from an editing point of view i'm always happier to sit for longer on a moving shot, so the tiniest track gives the best of both worlds.

 

Keith

[DavidSloan]

I think it was Gordon Willis who said: "Everything falls apart once you move the camera." I tend to agree with that philosophy. I'm generally inclined to like slow paced films with very subtle movements, if any. I really love the hypnotic way Tarkovsky moves his camera with the super slow dolly/zooms shots. I also love the static, yet perfectly composed frames of Gordon Willis, and Hou Hsiao Hsien. I think that the content, and the director/DP approach to it, ultimately decides how much movement is necessary, if at all.

[Max Jacoby]

They apparently also used steadicam, although I couldn't really tell where when I saw the movie.

I think that was the point. :D

[Guest fstop]

I was disappointed Ivan Strasburg had nothing to do with Bourne Supremacy, given his excellent available light and verite-cam work on Greengrass's powerful Sunday.

[Brad Grimmett]

I think that was the point. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I would normally agree with you. But my point in my previous post was that the whole film looks handheld. Violent handheld at that. I'm probably overlooking some things since I've only seen the film once, but being a steadicam operator I'm normally very aware of when steadicam is being used. Of course there are those times when I'm fooled because the operating is so good. But on the Bourne Supremacy I don't remember seeing anything that looked like steadicam. Not that the operating wasn't good.....it just didn't look like steadicam to me.

[Josh Bass]

Well, this thread certainly exploded.

 

I'm all about pretty shots, but I find more beauty in lighting than camera movement. Especially when we're talking video, and even more especially-er when we're talking miniDV, I feel good lighting, little to no camera movement will make something look sweeter than crappy lighting and the best dolly/jib/steadicam shot in the world.

 

As I said, working at the lowest of the low end levels of production--no budget, friends as actors, etc., this stuff is hard to pull off successfully. I'd like to try it, but I know from experience that moving shots take even more forever-er to set up than a static shot. Ditto what you guys say about lighting compromises.

 

So I'm watching Frequency just now, you know the one with Jesus--oops, Jim Cavaziel in it--and I notice for many of the scenes where he and pappy are on the radio with each other, there's PHil's ever so subtle tracking shot, and I don't see what it symbolizes, if anything. Was it just cool? Did it symbolize how talking to your dad across the span of time, and some sketchy sci-fi, is dizzying?

[Guest fstop]

Very interesting comments by all. I must admit, as far as tracking goes I've lit a fair bit of steadicam but NO dolly work. I'm wondering actually whether I ever will work with dollies! I read a thread on this forum some time ago before using steadicam about how it is so difficult to master etc. and how everything needs to be plotted out in advance to a meticulous level and you can't "blag" stuff, so I was initially terrified. However, having gone in and used it I must say it's very quick to set up (once the operator has done all the balancing etc), the added perspective of a mobile operator taking over from the main operator brings a fresh perspective and it makes everything more interesting. I guess in the real world where budget and price becomes a concern I'll be swayed more to dollies however I do think going into the deepend first has prepared me for any kind of tracking move. My operator has been fantastic and most watching won't know the difference on the subtle stuff where we were using steadicam for dolly.

 

Ironically I use to dismiss Steadicam as "that bandwagon gimmick from Halloween". :P

[David Mullen ASC]

The most frustrating thing about Steadicams for a DP is watching that crappy transmitted UHF signal and knowing that NO ONE is watching the shot through the lens. At least with a dolly move, the operator can usually tell you if the focus was good after the take is over. I've had Steadicam moves where the signal to the monitor would come and go and I'd see about 50% of the shot and then have to watch a playback on the Steadicam operator's sled.

 

So I tend to keep the use of Steadicam to a minimum if I can do it on a dolly. Plus with a dolly move set-up, it's not as big a deal to swap lenses and try it on a longer lens. I can track two people talking with a wide-angle and go to a telephoto and grab some of the walking again. But putting a 100mm or 180mm on a Steadicam is asking for trouble.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

My problem with steadicam is that if you're not just replicating a dolly, you're inherently doing a fairly lengthy shot that travels around and shows a lot of the locality, making it extremely difficult to light and production design to a point where it looks any good. Interior locations with steadicam are a complete nightmare.

 

Phil

[Guest fstop]

The most frustrating thing about Steadicams for a DP is watching that crappy transmitted UHF signal and knowing that NO ONE is watching the shot through the lens. At least with a dolly move, the operator can usually tell you if the focus was good after the take is over.  I've had Steadicam moves where the signal to the monitor would come and go and I'd see about 50% of the shot and then have to watch a playback on the Steadicam operator's sled.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What about when it's so dark (like you are filming day for night) and the UHF signal suggests there is autoexposure going on or visible gain? I had that recently, I thought my shots were ruined- played it back on the monitor though and it was fine!

 

I must say, I really like John Hora's work on Gremlins 2 and I can't think of a moment in that film where a dolly was used.

 

BTW- what weas that jungle based film where an expensive longer lens (like a 200mm+) was attached to a steadicam and it fell off and they had no other longer lenses on location? That must've sucked!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

It's probably worth pointing out that a lens is no more likely to fall off a steadicam-mounted camera than it is off any other camera, beyond the fact that it might be moving around more.

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

"I'm all about pretty shots, but I find more beauty in lighting than camera movement."

 

For a long time this was my feeling too, my personal work had become 95% locked off shots but lately I've gone way to the other side of this question sometimes. I need to interact with space as well as light. Everything doesn't have to be Caravaggio or Vermeer, that IS beauty but it's been done....

 

Pretty and Beauty are very different things in my book, I don't want to be about pretty.

I've convinced myself I can do beautiful lighting, but also this is the 21st Century, I don't want to impose the 16th on it neccessarlily.

 

I need to investigate, interrogate even, space & time :)

 

-Sam

[Adam Frisch FSF]

The problem with very much Steadicam work is that it tends to get used not because one needs a 360 shot following people through stairs, but because one CAN GET IT.

 

But on the other hand, what's so wrong with getting it just because you can? I used to think movement had to be motivated - but who says it has to be? Who made the rules on movement anyway? It's all down to taste.

 

My personal taste tends to be more restrictive - I don't move that much because I find excessive movemement easily can get cheesy. Can't stand the little dolly creeps on EVERY shot Micheal Bay has in is his films - it's as if he doesn't trust the dialogue or the story to be interesting enough.

 

That said:

 

A great steadicam shot is the intro to Keanu's FBI office in Point Break - very "macho" operating. Nescessary? Not really, but very "cool".

 

For a good example of some great dolly gripping - check out the new Thomas Crown Affair. Very elaborate dolly moves - very much like steadicam.