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 :)

Hand-held or sticks? What's your preference?

Stephen Pruitt

Stephen Pruitt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Website
www.thetreemotionpicture.com
Hi all. . .

I'm asking this as a philosophical question as I prepare for my next film, "Terminal."

While a very much enjoy seeing good, clean hand-held work (but NOT "shakiecam," as I like to call it), I also very much enjoy the quiet repose of stable sticks and other mounts.

So this brings me to a question: What is your personal aesthetic? And when would you choose one style of shooting over another?

"Terminal" is going to be a very quiet, subdued, dialog-driven film with minimal action.

Thanks much.

Stephen
 
I only care for handheld when it's a really chaotic/in your face action sequence. I cannot stand handheld for slower paced things for example the show Curb Your Enthusiasm's usage of handheld which, is just distracting from the content for the most part.
 
That's not really for me to say, is it? I don't think it's a philosophical question at all; that choice is part of the film maker's voice in the film. Just as a writer might to choose first person or third, the choice of solid POV or hand-held is part of your voice as a film maker.
 
By default, all movies should be shot on sticks/dolly/jib/steadi etc. I feel handheld should only be used if the specific scene calls for it, not the other way around.

Here's my reasoning: In order for audiences to suspend their disbelief that they're watching a fictional movie, which of course is essential to any movies success, it's important that the audience feels like they're not just watching the story, but part of it. In order to do this, the camera should mimic as best as possible what the human eye sees, and we don't see in handheld, we see a steady image. While our eyes physically rock up and down, our brain has a sophisticated image stabilizer, so when we walk down a hallway, our image has minimal, if any, footsteps. This, BTW, is the reason I generally shy away from zooming mid shot. Our eyes don't zoom, so neither should the camera unless it's truly motivated.

I also feel handheld is often used to distract from the poor performances, lighting, set design, etc by adding a whole other, completely artificial dimension to what you're shooting.

Of course there's no right answer... but based on the short description of your film, smooth, deliberate shots seem to be in order.
 
The best hand-held is when the operator REFRAINS from putting in artificial shake. Watch Children of Men for an example of good hand-held, watch Hurt Locker for a poor example. Watch Thirtysomething to shock yourself into realizing just how dated the technique really is. JMSAO*

*Just My Sorry Ass Opinion
 
Alex Kornreich said:
While our eyes physically rock up and down, our brain has a sophisticated image stabilizer, so when we walk down a hallway, our image has minimal, if any, footsteps.
Click to expand...

Actually, our eye muscles are tightly connected to our movement and balance senses and compensate for minor head movements during motion. You can test it by fixating on something then shaking your head rapidly :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex
 
Ahhh well there you've gotta get all technical on me.

However that's only half of the image stabilization process. Our eyes move several times per second, and without an internal image stabilization system, images would jolt back and forth. If you watch someone's eyes, they're constantly darting back and forth, and our brain's ability to piece together all the separate images into a whole is what keeps us coordinated and makes the world seem stable.

"Just like high-end video cameras, the brain relies on an internal image stabilization system to prevent our perception of the world from turning into a blurry mess."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/53680.php

To roundtrip back to the OPs question, handheld doesn't get the benefit of these stabilizing systems (eye, brain, ear), and is therefore unnatural to our brains if not used in the right dramatic circumstances (this part is my opinion...).
 
I totally agree with Alex -- he's put it well. If you go handheld, for reasons of scheduling or making your setups, it's best when you can't tell. Even the sort of POV handheld "gimmick" I think is the "cheap" choice.

Of course there can be deliberate and justified story-wise hand-held shots. And I've been in situations in which there wasn't any choice, but I always do my best to disguise the fact -- unless specifically called for.

Granted it's now become a kind of faddish "stylistic" choice -- and I see a lot of big name television drama using it -- so you can "get away" with it. But it just seems like getting away with bad grammar. Yeah, we know what you're saying but it ain't too elegant or pretty and can be distracting.

What I've seen of The Wire seems a good example of narrative cinema on a schedule using sticks and going handheld at appropriate times (and not emphasizing it.) It's quietly elegant cinematography that serves the story.
 
I personally do not have a preference regarding the use of handheld vs. sticks. In my work, I have chosen to use different camera mounts to match the content. For example, I use handheld when I want to convey a human perspective or place the camera in the action. I use locked down positions when I am trying to depict the surroundings of the characters and allow the viewers eyes to take in the details, much like a snapshot or a painting. I use cranes to provide the viewers with a wide perspective or depict the vastness of a space in relation to the actors. I utilize Stedicam when I want to show the movement of actors within a complex and varying environment, providing a view that is observatory rather than participatory. Dutch angles are used to convey uneasiness (made even more effective when the dutch angles are handheld). I use dolly shots similarly to how I use stick shots, adding additional interest to an otherwise dull moment or scene.

Each shot style has a purpose (and keep in mind that what I said above is just my personal preference, I have seen all of the above methods used for different purposes)

In your case, I would shoot a scene in both handheld and tripod and see which one works best with your content. I am not a fan of the chaotic form of handheld, I have to look away from the screen at times. In the Bourne series, I loved the content but the constant use of shaky cam really annoyed me, much like Michael Mann's Public Enemies (for Christ's sake, put on on sticks once in a while).

You say that your film is dialogue driven. In that case, you could use sticks when you want to show how the actors fit into their location, allowing the viewers eyes to wander around the screen and take in the subtle details (sometimes, handheld can be distracting when there are multiple elements in the frame). You could then transition to the perspectives of the actors themselves, which you be perfect if shot on the shoulder.

Thats is basically what I would do but you need to experiment.
 
It's a preference, if you feel that your film should have a more of a "raw" look. Then go with hand held. It's all about what you think best serves your film's look. I personally don't like going entirely with handheld, just bits and pieces/scenes to try to accentuate the story. As what Andrew ^ said "Each shot style has a purpose" so don't do handheld just to do it. To me, I'd mainly go with a steadicam if you always want the camera moving as opposed to handheld.
 
I appreciate the viewpoints very much.

I'm not a professional. . . I'm just a second-time writer/producer/director/cinemetographer, hence my question. I'm thinking that perhaps the best route would be to use a combined approach. But, no, I cannot stand "shakicam" under any circumstances. I really do have to look away periodically. It's like being stuck in an amusement park ride while sitting down. Awful.

Thanks so much for your help, gents!

Stephen
 
Now Stephen Pruitt, i wonder where are you from... i am from Romania and around here there is a weird tendency of hand held everything(sometimes it is because of extreme low budget films but the directors keep asking for that no matter what). You have dialogue hand held, no cut, then a held grip to a girl running in the dark. It is a little over abused lately.(see 4months, 3weeks, 2days, Politist Adjectiv - if you can find this around Europe... etc.) If you need a young cinematographer's opinion: "Allthow i am new in this business i am already tired of this hand held stuff. It impresses me less day by day."
Sincearly Andrei Gatu
 
Its funny, I never shoot on the shoulder, at least not with the DSLR I have been using. They are too light and the shake becomes really noticeable. I actually prefer to use a monopod. It looks semi-handheld, with just a little side to side sway but none of the jerky up and down movement that induces nausea . It looks more graceful in my opinion than actually shooting on the shoulder. Granted, a monopod will not work on a RED, unless you built your own, but they should work nicely with the Scarlet. Philip Bloom has used a monopod on some of his stuff and it looks very graceful. Just food for thought.
 
We've got an EasyRig, which we like a lot for handheld work, but it's the philosophy I'm gunning for (pun intended!) here.

So, in your opinion, if we did the wides on stocks (or dollies, Actioncam, jibs, etc.) and then did over-the-shoulders hand-held (gently), that would be okay?

Can anyone point me to a film where they used this philosophy?

Thanks!

Stephen
 
so here is when I come in.. gentelman I made these new hheld rigs so hheld can be not taken as a shaky cam anymore. Its not steadicam in any way but its centainly has its own character . The new rigs can produce some great shots quite stabilized and with out any typical horizon errors, and with the new absorbing mechanism it all gets much smoother.
Wait until the end of january first week of february, I will do some serious demos with R1 , Viper, F900R.
Hand held can be very interesting with these rigs and in a affordable price compairing to tech.
Stay tuned ...
ps all vids so far where shot with a very first testing prototype out of balance, still quit interesting to view.
since then everything has changed ...... a lot

www.the-running-rig.com
 
Stephen, I think absolutely use sticks or something steady for wides. And I personally find unsteady over-the-shoulders very disconcerting, as the very nature of that shot is semi "objective" while serving as a point-of-view -- but think of it this way, when you're talking to someone say in close-up -- the only movement is just them, not the whole frame (unless it's an earthquake, a small boat, etc) -- so I think it can be distracting.

These shots also tends to get jerkier because usually a longer lens is used for close-ups. Often, these days, the cutting gets so fast, that it's hardly noticeable -- and sometimes that's appropriate -- but sometimes you get the feeling the editor is making technical decisions to disguise the poor camerawork. We seem to be afraid these days to linger.

I pointed to The Wire as an example of using hand-held and sticks or something steady in a way seems appropriate -- at least in the few episodes I've seen.

But as has been pointed out, there aren't any hard rules. A part of being a good director is making the right decisions in this regard in collaboration with the DP. And Andrew is right, every shot can have a purpose and stylistic justification. But some of those "justifications" seem to get a bit thin or inappropriate at times, I think. And you can rarely if ever go wrong by having a steady frame either static or moving. When in doubt: sticks are good, I'd say. And it also, I think, tends to make for more careful and elegant shot selections. Sometimes taking some time pays off. Even under the pressures of budget and time constraints.
 
Adam. . . that is the quote of the year so far. . . "we're often not very popular at indie film screenings these days." I loved it!

Stephen
 
I think handheld puts the camera into the scenes dynamic movement. You're able to dance with your actors and react to their motion in a different way. Steady shots are more an outside view IMO. I don't like shaky cam but I love to bring a bit of life to closer shots. Wide shots I normally do steady, cause i find the motion when the whole room is moving destracting. But I also tend to shoot my close ups with a wider lenses, cause I like to be close to the talent. That's kind of my style, find your own and more importand the one that suites the feelings of the story/scene. One last thing I find you can intercut handheld/sticks/dolliemoves really nice. You don't have to stick with one style for a scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top