That's true about the colour conspiracies Irascian. I think I've watched about 10 films from 2004-2006 over Christmas and probably 7 have a really green cast. Please tell me my TV's not on the way out

Irascian - "quick zoom in, focus and wobble, then zoom in even more and refocus"

That one cracks me up - The real tension in a piece of documentary footage stems priamrily imho not from the often inevitrable wobbly cam / zoom / focus but from bigger thigs like the narrative, the subject matter and subjects.

Atttempting to recreate this tension often just does not work, when it does work it is good but I think to pull it off well is much more complex than random wobble / zoom / focus.

I felt a complete whore doing this little bit of work. http://www.zaskarfilms.com/Films/Tem...ailerpromo.wmv

It was for mtv, looking for yufff presenters -hence my whoring.

__________________
I have one prejudice - I am anti HDV for consumer camcorders.

www.zaskarfilms.com You tube channel 'zaskarfilms'
JVC DV5001e (big cam), Sony PC6E (tiny cam), Vinten pro5, PAG light, SM58, Sony ECM50, Sony C-76, 0.5x convertors for sony, Rode video mic, Vegas 7.

Actually you do "see" a remarkable amount clearly and in focus when your body/head is jerking/lolling. The human brain does a tremendous job of learning to compensate based on other factors around us and especially a sense of balance/movement.
Similarly the million and one things that get in our way are immediately, almost subconsciously dealt with (either they're of no import - ignore or they need to be avoided/circumvented)

With film, we don't have these other sensations so we cannot interpret the movement correctly.

I can see the valid use of the "handheld" look in the following circumstances:
1. It needs to appear to be filmed by a handheld camera (eg a video journalist in a war zone)
2. Extreme confusion is requred where the other senses combined with the eyes would not allow the brain to build a complete picture and thus compensate.

I can see absolutely no reason for the "sticking the talent on a turntable" shot unless you want to "reveal" something on the other side of the room or the talent's body (eg part of the head blown away revealing a robot underneath in sci fi, or another person having entered a room)

__________________
Tim

I have the opposite experience. Granted you don't see the world a la Paul Radcliffe's bobbibng head, but when I want to get somewhere quickly, all I ever see is obstacles that I need to get around. And it's these obstacles that create the unexpected movements (these would normally be expressed by an alternate camera angle within video). What I was trying to say was that when you're running along, you don't see the world as you would through a steadicam, which overcompensates movement. So to create a realistic sense of intensity, you need to be skilled in creating that intensity through camera movement and editing.

It must be a personal thing, as I rather like these shots. I pressume because I feel like you're not just viewing the action. Perhaps it's part of growing up as part of the videogame genaration where fixed camera angles have become substituted for free movement. Who know's pretty soon we'll probably be a part of a film, being totally emersed in a virtual environment.

__________________
digital director - video editing guides, forums and reviews
digital-director.tv - watch and upload inspirational videos
bride-and-groom - contemporary wedding videos
digital spice - my personal blog

You make a good argument, Marc and I'm inclined to agree with you about what you see when running - your focus constantly switches between target, environment and obstacles. But the key thing here is it is your *focus* that switches, the brain "sees" a number of clear *steady* scenes - in rapid succession. As you say this would traditionally be achieved by alternate camera angles. When viewing a sequence shot with the handheld look the brain has no other points of reference from the other senses and so it's just confusing. Both techniques have a place, but for excitement in a chase give me the former approach any time!

I suspect you're right - I was a teen long before first person RPGs so I'm certainly not used to moving around a 2D screen in a virtual 3D environment. (Dunno why we have to use colour anyway and as for spoiling film by adding sound.....)

I have no doubt at all.

__________________
Tim

Hey folks - what a great thread, seriously. It's caused me to think about a lot of things I haven't considered before. I must agree with the general idea - the "camera shake" that is overused in modern movies becomes quite annoying (ie. the bourne supremacy... motion sickness anyone?)

One thing I have to contribute, if only because your friends over here "across the pond" can relate to it:

I think The Office, both the original BBC series and the current North American version, make brilliant use of the camera. This has to be one of the most convincing documentary-feel tools I've seen - the camera is often turning to catch a character just walking into the room, subjects take a moment to come into focus, people are filmed between blinds and through windows. I realize that this type of show isn't normally applauded for its camera work, but I can't help but point out that it really does a good job. The show doesn't "feel" like a sitcom, and the camera work has a lot to do with that, I think.

Thanks again for the great thread guys

Wow,

This is a great thread.

My wife and I just watched the Bourne Ultimatum and to be honest it was hard to tell what was going on half the time (not sure if it was just wobble).

As far as Galactica, I think that it seems to have influenced the Bionic Woman show somehow (not only by hiring Katee Sackhoff), since the camera wobbles there too.

I suspect that the wobble-cam effect could be done entirely in software (if you have played Hitman II and used the M-50 sniper rifle on maximum zoom, you saw a pretty darned good simulation of wobble-cam). That way, you could have a set-up choice on your DVD as to whether you wanted wobble-cam on or off, along with subtitles on or off. You could also wobble a shot that didn't work without the wobble. Probably easier than trying to remove it.

An easy way to get the Bourne effect is to open up Pinnacle Studio and tell it to make an "extreme music video" (I think that's the choice) from your movie. You end up with something similar to Bourne (especially if you let Pinnacle put clips together in random order).

Take it easy.

Zam
my blog: digital-video-and-film.blogspot.com

"Filming Cloverfield with hand-held cameras for a realistic effect probably sounded like a great idea...
...However, there have been numerous reports about audiences suffering from motion sickness, according to a report."

It seems that you can go too far with a wobble-cam

Audiences find Cloverfield a moving experience - Yahoo! Movies UK

I saw a horror movie the other nite on SuperChannel and they used the wobble-cam ONLY when seeing through the eyes of the monster (e.g. when sneaking around in the bushes and spying on the next victim). I think this is probably fair, since my head also bobs around when I am sneaking about.

Zam
global warming home page

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Peters It must be a personal thing, as I rather like these shots. I pressume because I feel like you're not just viewing the action. Perhaps it's part of growing up as part of the videogame genaration where fixed camera angles have become substituted for free movement. Who know's pretty soon we'll probably be a part of a film, being totally emersed in a virtual environment.

I like these types of shots in films however they do have to be used correctly. As for the Bourne Ultimatum I don't think there was anything wrong with it. Admittedly I haven't watched the DVD for several weeks now but it's a fast paced action film so the shots match the footage. But it is personal preference and no-one's wrong when it comes to whether they like something or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guru "Filming Cloverfield with hand-held cameras for a realistic effect probably sounded like a great idea...

I recently saw Cloverfield for the first time and wondered what everyone was on about. I ate a large bag of maltesers all the way through and didn't feel queasy once. The only shots that I thought were a bit odd was when they main characters were climbing through that building to rescue the young woman. When I first heard these reports I thought that camera work was really all over the place but to me it was fine. In the previews it was said to be documentary style like the Blair Witch project and it was. The whole idea of the film was to shoot it from the hands of just an average bloke not a cameraman so the shots aren't going to be perfectly still and move correctly. Did the audience really think that he (the character with the camera) was just going stand there in the subway whilst those spider like things attacked? No, I don't even a professional camera operator would. I could go on about Cloverfield but I won't. That's for another thread in another forum. The general population gets used to something and expects everything to carry on like that. This isn't the case, things change, new ideas are concocted, new ways of doing something are found.