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

[Alex Donkle]

I know a lot of people that prefer steadicam/dolly/tripod over handheld unless there's a reason to go handheld, but I personally think it's all about what you want to set as the "norm" for the film. If most of the movie's handheld, then going to sticks can be very powerful. If most of the movie's on sticks/dolly, then going handheld can be powerful.

Bourne 1 vs. Bourne 3 illustrate that point very well imho. Same character, difference visions of the directors. Both work well imho.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Between hand-held and sticks is always an artistic choice. IMO, I think hand-held has been overdone to death recently. Not that it's a bad thing, but the overuse of overly shaking barf-cam is just stupid.

What is even more important is shot consistency within your film. Don't jump around between tripod, shoulder and shaky handheld. It looks like crap and takes your audience out of the movie. A good recent example of that in a major film (shot on RED) is KNOW1NG. There were half a dozen shots throughout the movie that were suddenly shaky handheld like the camera guy was getting tired or they shot these later as a pick-up and didn't do their homework.

 

[Tyler Black]

Ugh. Sometimes I want to respond, but hate to reiterate what others have already said. But today I just can't drag myself through all of the responses. I hope this isn't a repeat.

I recently shot a love story where we, as viewers, witnessed the crossing of the lives of two very different people. One was an abused wife in a low-income neighborhood. The other was a banking executive with every privilege. I made the choice to shoot the abused wife's world handheld... not shakey-cam, but as steadily as I could. It had a more organic feel. I felt this represented the lack of control in her life. I shot the banker's world on sticks, as he has a very solid foundation to his life. And where their worlds met, the camera was always moving in a controlled way... either on a dolly or on a steadicam.

 

[Felix K.]

Ugh. Sometimes I want to respond, but hate to reiterate what others have already said. But today I just can't drag myself through all of the responses. I hope this isn't a repeat.

I recently shot a love story where we, as viewers, witnessed the crossing of the lives of two very different people. One was an abused wife in a low-income neighborhood. The other was a banking executive with every privilege. I made the choice to shoot the abused wife's world handheld... not shakey-cam, but as steadily as I could. It had a more organic feel. I felt this represented the lack of control in her life. I shot the banker's world on sticks, as he has a very solid foundation to his life. And where their worlds met, the camera was always moving in a controlled way... either on a dolly or on a steadicam.

Did something similar with my first short.

 

[Mark Collins]

I'll concede that the handheld in Star Trek was fantastic. It didn't feel like handheld a lot of the time. The cameraman was phenomenal. Vibrations and judders were timed by the director personally, who drummed on the actual camera at specific times. It was a good approach that worked.

Good luck going after Kubrick on a filmmaking forum though!

I have no problem with other people liking Kubrick, I just hate his style of filmmaking. He does make good films after all, and he's made some of the most popular and controversial films ever made.

Doesn't stop me from not liking them though.

It's just for me, every shot I feel needs to have movement. Shot's where there's no movement bug me. So, with close up's, having the camera handheld creates that little bit of extra movement, even if the actor is not moving.

For medium shots, steadicam or dolly moves, and wide shots obviously steadicam, dolly, jib, whatever rig we can come up with, so long as the camera moves.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I've worked with a lot of young guys who use that as a mantra: "The camera has to be moving." Or "We have to have some movement in the frame... send an extra to walk through." Frequently when you question a specific move, or subject moving through the frame there is no substance in the answer.

I like Kubrick, Welles and Hitch for example because they are so calculating and precise. They are at their best when every choice bears meaning; every line in each composition, camera move, light placement, color in the palette, every beat and every sound exists to advance the narrative. Density of communication= Mastery of the medium. In my humble, old opinion.

 

[Andrew Wilding]

I've worked with a lot of young guys who use that as a mantra: "The camera has to be moving." Or "We have to have some movement in the frame... send an extra to walk through." Frequently when you question a specific move, or subject moving through the frame there is no substance in the answer.

I like Kubrick, Welles and Hitch for example because they are so calculating and precise. They are at their best when every choice bears meaning; every line in each composition, camera move, light placement, color in the palette, every beat and every sound exists to advance the narrative. Density of communication= Mastery of the medium. In my humble, old opinion.

Amen!

 

[Alex Donkle]

I've worked with a lot of young guys who use that as a mantra: "The camera has to be moving." Or "We have to have some movement in the frame... send an extra to walk through." Frequently when you question a specific move, or subject moving through the frame there is no substance in the answer.

I think part of this is caused from a lack of interesting production design and/or lighting. A static shot in a white walled apartment with nothing on the walls and a 1k pointed at the ceiling for a giant bounce is extremely boring.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Amen!

Amen +1

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think part of this is caused from a lack of interesting production design and/or lighting. A static shot in a white walled apartment with nothing on the walls and a 1k pointed at the ceiling for a giant bounce is extremely boring.

There is no question that the suggestion arises out of a desire to spice things up. But if the shot needs to be improved as to be less boring, is a moving camera or extraneous extra going to be an enhancement or merely a distraction designed to hide a gaping hole in the storytelling?

I can usually answer the question with a simple litmus test of my own: Whatever it is that is being suggested... does it serve a specific narrative use? If the answer is no then I suggest that we look elsewhere for a better way to improve the scene. For example; if a camera move is designed by the director to wipe the shot and reveal the murder weapon, then there is no question... We'll get right on it. However if we are shooting the master of a couple at a table in a diner, eating humdrum egg salad sandwiches in still another day of their humdrum lives while discussing toejam, and the director says "Get that camera on your shoulder and add a lot of shake to the shot." Well that damn well better be because the story calls for a f$%*ing earthquake or something.

Has the reason ever been because my light was flat and boring? ME? no never. :rolleyes5:

 

[David Kristensson]

This is my first post in this forum, as I read this post I feel abused. I did a "personal portrait" 2months ago and saw the final product.. Well I almost projectile vomited.. Most of the cutaways that was used where when I refocused on the talent while letting the cam runbecause I didnt want to "loose" any dialogue. It was shaky and discusting.
To give my two cents in this discussion I believe that when the audiance just sits down and enjoy the ride and dont think to much about the "look" But I guess thats what we all want.

 

[constantine Tirintzis]

Directors do ask for a lot of things. Some of them are quite unreasonable .
I for one was ask in the past while operating steadicam to produce shaky shots and unstable, missing the total point of using a steadicam there, you know sometimes camera ops know that what they are doing is crap, its just that you either do the job or argue with the director, something that its not always wise.
Somehow Iam going to repeat my self again and say, every way of shooting, tripod, steadicam dolly crane hand held may serve its own good purpose if used in the right time and place.Excessive use of tecknics may also be or not a good thing.
But the tools are there to choose from, and sometimes the operator has no word about it cause thats what he does, he is an operator giving the best of what he is asked to do.
Nothing goes down the toilet if used wisely .

 

[Isaac Bauman]

Man y'all are some HATERS. I feel like it's more of a trend to poo-poo handheld than it is to even utilize it!

I shot a feature this fall and, despite weeks of opposition from me, the director insisted on shooting the entire feature handheld. After the experience, I honestly don't know if I'll ever be okay with using a tripod again. The freedom to move with the actor, take a step closer, to lower the camera in an instant, to give the frame that little bit of life - it's addicting. And if any of you out there haven't tried putting the RED on your shoulder with an ET Mantis and an EasyRig, you are missing out. Big time.

Handheld shots (artfully done, I think we can all agree that "shaky cam" is lame) are so much more ALIVE than a locked off frame could ever be. That being said, there is a time and place for all methods. The style of cinematography should be project dependent.

For example, who here in their right mind would ever shoot a 1940's set, black and white Noir revival with an EasyRig? Seriously. And what kind of bonkers DP wouldn't use the inherent tension and anxiety that can come from handheld in a film about combat in Iraq? How you decide to mount your camera is all about enhancing the tone of the piece. So, ask yourself, do you have a handheld script?

Imagine Barry Lyndon shot handheld. Imagine Saving Private Ryan shot using a tripod. No way! It's that simple.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Imagine Barry Lyndon shot handheld. Imagine Saving Private Ryan shot using a tripod. No way! It's that simple.

Yeah. Read the script, watch rehearsals and start seeing the story before thinking about what technique is best. I've got no rules personally. I've been in acting classes for almost 2 years now. That's done more for my shooting than anything. I tune into the scene and actors and the shots come from there. A lot of times that ends up being a very simple shot because camera work would just distract from the moment.

I think it's more about contrast. If you go handheld for a while and then lock a shot off... everybody's watching. Or the other way around. Obviously that has to be planned based on the script. The idea that there's any "default" way to shoot a movie doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

We must also be careful to avoid shooting styles becoming standard for a certain type of film. Experimentation is the best way. If you want to shoot a film noir on the shoulder, go for it! That might be an interesting way to mix up the new and the old. No one ever got ahead by following conventions.

For years, all war films were shot on the tripod. Paths of Glory and Apocalypse Now and the Thin Red Line are no less powerful due to the fact that they are shot traditionally. I always imagine putting a spin a tried and true methods. Fight convention I say. How about a film shot entirely with a POV cam perspective? Lady in the Lake did it back in the 40's. Talk about being different!

The Handheld look is in, much like the steadicam look of the 80's and 90's. Goodfellas gave us the steadicam long take and next thing you know, everyone is fighting for the title of longest and most complex single take. It gets out of hand and Brian De Palma kills it. Shooting styles, become new and exciting, everyone does them, it gets overused, there is a slight backlash and like all things in the film industry, they become commonplace and subdued, as if thy had been there the whole time. Shoulder shooting is the same.

 

[Steve Das]

I'm all for the simplicity and power of a locked-down, well composed static shot.

True if the shot is well composed it will have a visual energy all it's own.

Sometimes people frame too wide over the shoulder dialogue compositions or locked down masters
and then think their film has no energy cause it was shot on sticks.

 

[James T Mather]

Handheld is very amateurish and only to be used when there is absolutely no other "lock down" option. For those that think DoF is the be all and end all ... hand held is the mark of low budget, and erases all your DoF efforts.

Someone forgot to tell Oscar nominated director Paul Greengrass that's it's amateurish. He used handheld on the low budget $110,000,000 film The Bourne Ultimatum. Best let him know.