Moving the camera

[Dave Watterson]

In a number of movies I have seen recently the operator seems determined to
keep the camera itself moving. As a viewer I find that distracting and often
annoying ... unless the viewpoint is going where I want to go. If it is following
the star as s/he races across the screen that's OK. If it is simply turning
to show us another part of the holiday resort it's not.

It is also very difficult to make any camera moves smoothly. Even Hollywood
has problems doing that ... try sitting in the front row of a cinema and
looking out for those creeping movements into a close-up. You will find your
eyes watering before long.

Yes, I recognise that sometimes camera moves can be extremely effective.
Oddly enough I often like them in movies where the style and bravura of the
approach make me willing to put myself in the director's hands for the duration.
In amateur movies an example of that was "Yellow Tulips" by Tony Jacobs which
started with a move.

Is it just me?

Dave (eyeballs bouncing) McWatterson

[Chan Jackie]

W a you unsteady
h t do mean ???

You s h o u l d s e e m y z o o m s
!

[AnimatioN]

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

In a number of movies I have seen recently the operator seems determined
to
keep the camera itself moving. As a viewer I find that distracting and
often
annoying ... unless the viewpoint is going where I want to go. If it is
following
the star as s/he races across the screen that's OK. If it is simply turning
to show us another part of the holiday resort it's not.

It is also very difficult to make any camera moves smoothly. Even Hollywood
has problems doing that ... try sitting in the front row of a cinema and
looking out for those creeping movements into a close-up. You will find
your
eyes watering before long.

Yes, I recognise that sometimes camera moves can be extremely effective.
Oddly enough I often like them in movies where the style and bravura of
the
approach make me willing to put myself in the director's hands for the duration.
In amateur movies an example of that was "Yellow Tulips" by Tony Jacobs
which
started with a move.

Is it just me?

Dave (eyeballs bouncing) McWatterson

As you know, I'm a great fan of camera 'liquidity' as I call it.
Amateurs seem, in general, to shy away from tracks and cranes.....
...Oh yes, they are great fans of zooms as they are so easy to do.

Give me an over craned, over tracked film any day to staid and boring
tripod 'fixation.'
Albert....prefers moving around.

[Ken Wilson]

Sometimes modern films are ruined by over movement of the camera. There used
to be a theory that the techniques used should not draw attention to themselves
and remind the viewer constantly that they are watching a film, but this
seems to have been abandoned in favour of keeping entertained the easily
bored teens. If the camera is not for ever swooping and swirling all over
the place, the typical teenager will get fed up and abandon the cinema altogether,
(the film-makers think.) Of course, for the non-professional film maker,
obtaining truly smooth camera moves is very difficult and expensive. Cranes,
Jibs and steady cams usually cost thousands, and even a few hundred pounds
for "cut-down" amateur versions. Hence, most of us keep the camera fixed
to a tripod. Recently I have experimented with a lot of hand-held stuff,
though still held fairly steady. This enables some movement and makes action
scenes look better.
The trouble with the professional cinema in general, is that they are now
over-doing it to the extent that even dialogue scenes are constantly "on-the
move" with the camera circling around the actors in all directions. added
to this is the rapid cutting which was once reserved for heightening the
drama in chase sequences or dramatic tense situations.
One film ruined for me by over use of these techniques was "The Bourne Supremacy".
Much too gimicky for my liking.

Ken.

[Cinema For Thurso Group]

I like those camera moves but all things in their place one might say. If
a movie maker is using it just because he can then it may not be a good thing.
There are places where it works with great effect, scenes of battle and dramatic
action. I would love to be able to some stuff with fly-over camera moves
but I won't use it willy-nilly.
Steadcam shots are neat too and I've done them sometimes too. Part of the
reason for this kind of filming is to create a freedom of movement from the
viewers point of view as in we don't always stand still when we are talking
to other people so our view point changes.

[Ned C]

"Ken Wilson" <wilsonkenneth@granadamedia.com> wrote:

The trouble with the professional cinema in general, is that they are now
over-doing it to the extent that even dialogue scenes are constantly "on-the
move" with the camera circling around the actors in all directions. added
to this is the rapid cutting which was once reserved for heightening the
drama in chase sequences or dramatic tense situations.
One film ruined for me by over use of these techniques was "The Bourne Supremacy".
Much too gimicky for my liking.

Ken.

Recognise that most American films with constantly moving camera, car chases,
explosions and a high body count are aimed at males with a chronological
age between 15 and 25 and a mental age of 12. So don't expect anything else
from main stream Holywood films where violence is the norm and the story
rudimentary. For best use of the camera watch a Mike Leigh film where the
movement is by the actors rather than the camera.

Ned C

[Michael Slowe]

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

In a number of movies I have seen recently the operator seems determined
to
keep the camera itself moving. As a viewer I find that distracting and
often
annoying ... unless the viewpoint is going where I want to go. If it is
following
the star as s/he races across the screen that's OK. If it is simply turning
to show us another part of the holiday resort it's not.

It is also very difficult to make any camera moves smoothly. Even Hollywood
has problems doing that ... try sitting in the front row of a cinema and
looking out for those creeping movements into a close-up. You will find
your
eyes watering before long.

Yes, I recognise that sometimes camera moves can be extremely effective.
Oddly enough I often like them in movies where the style and bravura of
the
approach make me willing to put myself in the director's hands for the duration.
In amateur movies an example of that was "Yellow Tulips" by Tony Jacobs
which
started with a move.

Is it just me?

Dave (eyeballs bouncing) McWatterson

Funny this should appear today. I just came back from shooting tests for
a new film with a new small lightweight camera and was experiencing a new
freedom of movement since my old camera was very heavy and cumbersome and
HAD to be on a tripod. I was able to move about with minimal camera shake
and for some documentaries where action has to be captured as it happens
I will I think find this useful. Not movement just for the sake of it as
Dave complains about but of necessity. One snag I notice now though is that
the very good mic. which I especially had fitted to the camera is picking
up noise from the handling of the camera, wheras of course a tripod prevents
this.
Camera movement I fancy needs a lot of practice and careful thought. I think
it can be a useful tool if used carefully.

[AnimatioN]

"Cinema For Thurso Group" <canuimagine@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Steadcam shots are neat too and I've done them sometimes too. Part of the
reason for this kind of filming is to create a freedom of movement from
the
viewers point of view as in we don't always stand still when we are talking
to other people so our view point changes.

A skillfull sideways track shot behind people/scenery/trees etc

gives depth and tension....see the side track shot near the
end of film, "The Blue Max" for example where the camera
is rushing pass stationary people watching an areoplane
breaking up. This shot could so easily have been hand held
as there were no static reference points to sense camera shake.

Albert...getting the shakes.

[Cinema For Thurso Group]

A skillfull sideways track shot behind people/scenery/trees etc
gives depth and tension....see the side track shot near the
end of film, "The Blue Max" for example where the camera
is rushing pass stationary people watching an areoplane
breaking up. This shot could so easily have been hand held
as there were no static reference points to sense camera shake.

Although I never mentioned tracking shots I'm sure my jist was covering such
ilk of film work, i.e. moving the camera by any method.

Cinema For Thurso- tracking in the wider CinemaScope to enhance the action
and dynamic flow.