After BIAFF 2024 I began to wonder if we are having too much drone footage.
It is (relatively) new for amateur film makers, so there is a novelty factor. Sometimes it is used to obtain unusual angles or to mimic the old Hollywood crane shots at the start and end of a film ... but so often there are tracking shots that are almost unnecessary.
I admire the skill of the drone pilots - I just question whether the shots they take are being included for their novelty value rather than because they help to tell the story or make the point.
Too much drone footage?
-
Dave Watterson
- Posts: 1884
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
- Location: Bath, England
- Contact:
-
TimStannard
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:20 pm
- Location: Surrey
Re: Too much drone footage?
I'm sure you're right, Dave, that very often drone shots are included simply to add variety or simply because the film maker can.
Neither of these in themselves are bad things but I don't think it's right to point the finger at drone shots. Many types of shots become fasionable - usually because technologuy has made something new available to budger film makers. Other fads in recent years have included extreme shallow depth of field, this month's favourite colour grade, hand-held look, rack focus, slider shots and I'm sure ther are plenty of others.
Your question - are drone shots being included for novelty value rather than because they help tell the story? should apply to every shot - even the simplest locked off tripod shot should help tell the story, not just those using special techniques or equipment.
I don't have a problem with plenty of drone (or any) shots - unless I notice them as out of place. One common response from me is "Oh, here we go, the obligatory drone shot". That would be a fair indication that the shot draws attention to itself for all the wrong reasons.
Some films can work well as almost entirely drone footage (take some of Alan Sinclair's films). But they have to be crafted in such a way that whilst one recoginises the shots are drone shots, that is not the purpose of the film.
That being said. Having bought the equipment, learned to pilot it, paid for courses and licences like any responsible drone pilot, one must be very tempted to use it as much as possible.
I'm involved in a documentary about crop growing. Drone footage feels highly appropriate here as we want to show the areas covered. Whether the shot showing the presenter walking into the field (not a tracking shot as it happens) before turning and giving his piece to camera is wholly justified - I doubt. But it does make for a seamless link from the establishing shots to the PTC.
I also quote like the use of a drone shot for establishing shots in drama. By their very nature they are wider than the traditional wide establishing shot and can give a great representation of not just the street in which the drama takes place, but the size and type of the whole area.
Neither of these in themselves are bad things but I don't think it's right to point the finger at drone shots. Many types of shots become fasionable - usually because technologuy has made something new available to budger film makers. Other fads in recent years have included extreme shallow depth of field, this month's favourite colour grade, hand-held look, rack focus, slider shots and I'm sure ther are plenty of others.
Your question - are drone shots being included for novelty value rather than because they help tell the story? should apply to every shot - even the simplest locked off tripod shot should help tell the story, not just those using special techniques or equipment.
I don't have a problem with plenty of drone (or any) shots - unless I notice them as out of place. One common response from me is "Oh, here we go, the obligatory drone shot". That would be a fair indication that the shot draws attention to itself for all the wrong reasons.
Some films can work well as almost entirely drone footage (take some of Alan Sinclair's films). But they have to be crafted in such a way that whilst one recoginises the shots are drone shots, that is not the purpose of the film.
That being said. Having bought the equipment, learned to pilot it, paid for courses and licences like any responsible drone pilot, one must be very tempted to use it as much as possible.
I'm involved in a documentary about crop growing. Drone footage feels highly appropriate here as we want to show the areas covered. Whether the shot showing the presenter walking into the field (not a tracking shot as it happens) before turning and giving his piece to camera is wholly justified - I doubt. But it does make for a seamless link from the establishing shots to the PTC.
I also quote like the use of a drone shot for establishing shots in drama. By their very nature they are wider than the traditional wide establishing shot and can give a great representation of not just the street in which the drama takes place, but the size and type of the whole area.
Tim
Proud to be an amateur film maker - I do it for the love of it
Proud to be an amateur film maker - I do it for the love of it
-
James Mitchell
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2024 11:44 pm
Re: Too much drone footage?
The problem with drone shots is that they distort perception. Given that we aren't used to an aerial perspective in our day-to-day existence it's hard to identify with the world as portrayed from such a vantage point.
Travelling "as the crow flies" distorts our sense of distance between places as the drone inevitably takes a route inaccessible from the ground as well as being much quicker than we would normally take.
Also, differences in height seem to be reduced visually from the air, such that I recently had some difficulty locating a large hill on an aerial photo of somewhere I know quite well.
As with wide angle lenses, there is also a tendency to squeeze too much into a picture such that I would disagree with Tim's comments given that I think we can see too much, or rather, not see it as it is too small given the area covered in the shot.
Sadly, we live in an age of fads (tilt shift, colourisation, documentaries showing the interviewee being positioned before the camera, etc.) and it must certainly be tempting to use an effect (aerial photography) that, until relatively recently, was outside the amateurs' budget.
About the only aerial shots that I can bring to mind that actually contributed to a story were those of the mountains in the opening sequences of The Shining where they helped to establish the isolation of the area around the Overlook Hotel.
Sadly, not many landscapes would be deserving of such treatment, so it looks like more "drone because we can" (i.e. gimmick) rather than "drone because we need to".
Travelling "as the crow flies" distorts our sense of distance between places as the drone inevitably takes a route inaccessible from the ground as well as being much quicker than we would normally take.
Also, differences in height seem to be reduced visually from the air, such that I recently had some difficulty locating a large hill on an aerial photo of somewhere I know quite well.
As with wide angle lenses, there is also a tendency to squeeze too much into a picture such that I would disagree with Tim's comments given that I think we can see too much, or rather, not see it as it is too small given the area covered in the shot.
Sadly, we live in an age of fads (tilt shift, colourisation, documentaries showing the interviewee being positioned before the camera, etc.) and it must certainly be tempting to use an effect (aerial photography) that, until relatively recently, was outside the amateurs' budget.
About the only aerial shots that I can bring to mind that actually contributed to a story were those of the mountains in the opening sequences of The Shining where they helped to establish the isolation of the area around the Overlook Hotel.
Sadly, not many landscapes would be deserving of such treatment, so it looks like more "drone because we can" (i.e. gimmick) rather than "drone because we need to".