Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Handheld Shooting

Just to clarify, Stephen, here's the source of my original comment. It turns out it was from Scorsese...

"In the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, Martin Scorsese admits his surprise at seeing Stanley Kubrick use zoom lenses in Barry Lyndon. Kubrick had created a lush period piece, a costume drama in which seemingly no detail was spared his scrutiny. He'd commissioned special lenses so that he could light his indoor scenes with real candlelight, but for his outdoor scenes, he scanned the vast garden by panning with telephoto lenses. If he was going for a historical look, why shoot it with such modern optical effects? And why dress such elaborate sets and explore them from a tripod?

"The use of the zoom lens is very interesting because you would never do — who would think of using a zoom lens in the past? Never! No, the zoom lens flattens it out," says Scorsese, "like an 18th century painting."

The proper context can be found here:

http://www.dailyplastic.com/2008/08/top-ten-loathsome-or-laudable-uses-of-a-zoom-lens/
 
There you go, the author of the article was being technically correct (telephoto) while Scorsese had that all too common misconception of what a zoom lens is, unless he assumed the person he was speaking to would only understand it that way.

I wasn't trying to attack you personally, but to leave information for anyone who may read this thread, and be carrying that misconception. There are hundreds of people who aren't aware of the difference... and possibly even Martin Scorsese!
 
Stephen Strangways said:
There you go, the author of the article was being technically correct (telephoto) while Scorsese had that all too common misconception of what a zoom lens is, unless he assumed the person he was speaking to would only understand it that way.

I wasn't trying to attack you personally, but to leave information for anyone who may read this thread, and be carrying that misconception. There are hundreds of people who aren't aware of the difference... and possibly even Martin Scorsese!
Click to expand...

No worries, just clarifying. Internet text is often devoid of context. I knew I'd heard the quote correctly, so I found it and posted it for the reasons you state. But I seriously doubt that Martin Scorsese is unaware of the difference between a telephoto lens and a zoom lens.

It is interesting to note however that Barry Lyndon was in fact shot with a special 28mm-480mm zoom lens designed and built by Cinema Products Corporation at the request of Stanley Kubrick.

Ed DiGiulio, then-president of Cine-Pro, wrote an article in the March 1976 issue of American Cinematographer detailing the creation of this lens and its legendary sibling; the Zeiss f/0.7 50mm (36.5mm) prime lens. It's a great article with lots of factual information from the people that actually did it.

In this same issue (which may be hard to find, I'll grant you) there's also a great interview with John Alcott, BSC, in which he describes working with the zoom lens for the battle scenes-- on a dolly no less!

If you can't find the March 1976 issue of American Cinematographer to confirm this, there is a great color still on page 441 of the Stanley Kubrick Archives (Taschen Books) that shows the zoom lens and its motor.

So Scorsese was in fact, correct when he referenced the use of the zoom lens and there was in fact, no misconception. A fact that anyone reading this thread can take comfort in, thanks to your calling attention to the apparently widespread confusion surrounding telephoto lenses versus zoom lenses.
 
"...I couldn't discern the action--punches barely connect before the next is thrown, bodies fly through the air, and on to the next bad guy. Couple that with the relentless handheld through every scene, and for me its an experience that evokes more confusion, motion sickness and ultimately indifference than any kind of real thrills or excitement."

That's why I generally avoid "action" movies. There's no there there. It's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The better ones rise above this.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
In this same issue (which may be hard to find, I'll grant you) there's also a great interview with John Alcott, BSC, in which he describes working with the zoom lens for the battle scenes-- on a dolly no less!
Click to expand...

Barry Lyndon is quite notable for the f/0.7 lens, but I wasn't aware of the use of the zoom. It makes sense, as if I were to shoot a battle scene on a dolly, I'd likely want a zoom!

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, the one thing I find most annoying is the tiny little zoom-in actions. I tried to watch an episode of Boston Legal, but quite early in the episode, a single shot had three quick zoom-ins on an actor delivering dialogue, as if the intent was to say "Wow, pay attention to this! Bam, now this! Zap, this line is a real hard hitter!"
Not only did I find it visually distracting, it seemed to be intended to hit people over the head as if they were complete morons unable to understand the content of the dialogue.
 
I agree with the original posters, as I too feel the trend of handheld shooting has jumped the shark. I actually feel exhausted and with sore eyes every time I watch a movie heavily relying on this particular style. THE HURT LOCKER and OUTLAW are some "good" examples: shaky camera and quick, short zooms attract too much attention to themselves indeed.

I must say that this style is quiet different than what we used to see in the 70s or 80s though, as in those days it wasn't as insisted (since it wasn't "reminiscent of the 70s") as it is today.

I personally love the smooth use of handheld camera and wide-angle lenses we used to see in the pre-steadycam days.
 
I went to see a Bourne Triple-Feature 2 years ago. And even then I thought that I had enough of shaky cams. Especially when its use is stringent throughout the whole movie. Gives me headaches and nausea. I can appreciate it in bits (I remember the Render-sequences in Firefly where the camera would shake and go out of focus while trying to track a spaceship and I appreciated it then, especially because it makes FX-Shots more believable), but too much of it and I feel like youtubes mobile-DOPs took over Hollywood.
 
Bottom line is this ....
If it's hand held the viewer can sense this, you don't have to do anything to reveal that the shot is hand held ... it's already obvious, already. (no extra motion required)
Don't do anything to accentuated the handheldness ... it already shows.
 
Peter Hodgins said:
Bottom line is this ....
If it's hand held the viewer can sense this, you don't have to do anything to reveal that the shot is hand held ... it's already obvious, already. (no extra motion required)
Don't do anything to accentuated the handheldness ... it already shows.
Click to expand...

I agree.

In James Wan's DEATH SENTENCE there's a couple of scenes were the hand-held camera is used wisely - a nice example of what you said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top