Comparison Handheld and Tripod - IMPORTANT

[greg weisert]

Hey guys,

atm i'm writing my bachelor-thesis about our last project we shot. one chapter i want to write is about the reasons, why i choose handheld camera work instead of tripod work. sure i have arguments for that, but i want to include before a comparison of those two styles and then at the end with the result why i choose handhed/shoulder rig.
maybe u know some links in the internet were i can read a comparison between those two styles??

it would be so great if you have some links!

thanks for your help in advance.

best
gregory

 

[Domenic Barbero]

in narrative, i like the script and director to dictate when Handheld is appropriate for a scene. I for one am not a fan of sticking to handheld for a whole movie just for the sake of doing handheld. I feel it has its strengths and weaknesses and is powerful when used sparingly or where its Needed vs wanted.

 

[Mike P.]

It's a visceral thing; subconscious, subjective, and stylistic choice. I think the strongest logical argument is that it's more traditionally used in news and/or documentaries, which people have a tendency to perceive as reality (so when used in movies, it's hyper-reality). In other words, it seems more realistic and less hollywood.

Movement also naturally attracts attention, so you could say going handheld *could* potentially attain a person's focus longer for slower moving subject matter… Conversely, it can also be used to convey a sense of urgency/hecticness for the exact opposite reason (you can't focus on anything for too long if the camera is constantly moving around).

To be honest, I think the biggest proof will be in your footage (static shots look static, handheld shots do not look static -- when and why would you need one or the other?). I've done work that was handheld solely because there was way too much material to get through in the day and setting up support gear would have taken too long (Ironically, a couple of those projects ended up resulting in the best handheld footage I've shot).

 

[Sam Goldwater]

Sean Bobbitt has some interesting points on handheld. Starts here, it's a long lecture but facinating - http://youtu.be/IHcYjKpJb-I?t=9m22s

I'd agree with Mike, though it's worth considering what movement is important in the frame. It could be that on a big wide where the action is intentionally small in the frame then having the whole frame moving with handheld may not aid the point your shot is making.

 

[Eric M Hurt]

I hate to sound like a nagging teacher, but shouldn't you have known what separates the two styles before you chose hand held for your last project?

In teacher voice: "The question is what do YOU think the comparison is".

 

[Rob Gardner]

Hand held footage usually draws attention to itself. Does this help or hurt the scene? I think it is that simple question that needs to be answered on a scene by scene basis.

 

[Brian Pascale]

Short answer is hand held shaky, tripod, not so much...

A less glib answer is that hand held gives a more immediate feel, like you are ease dropping on a scene. In particle terms there is no faster way to shoot, and be able to get lots of angles and movement. There are plenty of draw backs as well, like making your audience sick if you do it too much. And as others have pointed out, there are times it is the wrong choice.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I almost always use a tripod, and rarely go hand-held. I feel like tripod work ensures classically composed, breath-taking shots. Hand-held not so much - so hard to hold even a simple shot long enough.

 

[greg weisert]

I hate to sound like a nagging teacher, but shouldn't you have known what separates the two styles before you chose hand held for your last project?

In teacher voice: "The question is what do YOU think the comparison is".

you are dfinitly right eric and i had several reasons to go for handheld. but i think it would be nice to underline my reasons with some quotes of experienced cameramans