camera movement

[stefanocps]

hello in the last years i see this kind of shot in lots of movie

Camera is shooting a subect or two, or a situation, not making typical movie, pan, or tilt, but  has a kind of continue little shake.  Seems like if it is handheld, but i don't think it is. To me it is on a tripod and continuosly slightly moved

I would like to know more about this, who can help?

thanks

[Grimor]

Could be a backpack system-rig  like easyrig/turtle x. 

Modern TV shows used it a lot these days. 

 

[stefanocps]

ok can be that, how is made. I want to know more, about the lanuage. Why they use this and not the tripod?what the director want to achieve with this shaking. I think that even with that shoulder mount, the image could be more stable, so i say that that shake is wanted

[kye]

4 hours ago, stefanocps said:

ok can be that, how is made. I want to know more, about the lanuage. Why they use this and not the tripod?what the director want to achieve with this shaking. I think that even with that shoulder mount, the image could be more stable, so i say that that shake is wanted

Any camera movement should be a deliberate artistic choice, designed to support the narrative and aesthetic of the film.

I'm far from an expert, but there are lots of articles around if you google 'camera movement'.  There is also the element of motivated vs unmotivated camera movement that you can read about as well.

In terms of camera shake, it the aesthetic of it is that it's a bit more 'real' because that's how amateurs take video of real life, so it can give a more authentic feel to a shot.  It can also make things more exciting, which is why they use camera shake in action sequences.  Topics like this are so deep that you can never learn everything about it, even if you studied it for the rest of your life.  

However, these are the skills that will drastically improve your film-making.  Camera movement, composition, lighting, editing, dialogue, sound design, etc etc etc.....   the beauty of film-making is that you can learn a little and get a big improvement in your work, you can learn more and get even better, but you can study it for the rest of your life and never run out of things to discover and there is no limit to the degree that you can improve your work.

[stefanocps]

it was just about aesthetic the main reason of my post. Being graduate at cinema studies ( in my univesity the sutdies are all about thery..not practices)  i am interested , a part of all the techniques parts, also about all the question regarding language, ahestetic and so on. My main think about this kind of shooting i am talking about here is that most of the time, it does not really look like motivated. To me i seems more a kind of habit, a fashion style of thelast years that should give some more "live" feel to the action. Sometimes this shake is more noticeable than other..looks like a kind of "fear" of a steady shot on a tripod

[kye]

Depending on what films or TV you are watching, it could well be a choice made due to laziness or fashion rather than an optimum aesthetic choice.  There are plenty of film-makers who have a style that other people do not appreciate and are critical of.  Michael Bay is a great example of someone that makes creative choices that many are critical of, but others are supportive, so it's all a matter of taste.

[Mark Romero 2]

2 hours ago, stefanocps said:

it was just about aesthetic the main reason of my post. Being graduate at cinema studies ( in my univesity the sutdies are all about thery..not practices)  i am interested , a part of all the techniques parts, also about all the question regarding language, ahestetic and so on. My main think about this kind of shooting i am talking about here is that most of the time, it does not really look like motivated. To me i seems more a kind of habit, a fashion style of thelast years that should give some more "live" feel to the action. Sometimes this shake is more noticeable than other..looks like a kind of "fear" of a steady shot on a tripod

Yes, I think it is just about aesthetic. Most viewers will probably not consciously notice the amount of camera shake / movement but will subconsciously notice it. 

If you are interested in different cinematography styles I suggest you go to youtube and look for the https://www.youtube.com/c/InDepthCine/videos In Depth Cine channel and watch the Cinematography Style videos on there.

[TomTheDP]

Do you have a specific example you could show us?

[stefanocps]

for example this

check the first sequence after credit

[kye]

5 hours ago, stefanocps said:

for example this

check the first sequence after credit

This all looks suitable for hand-held to me.

I don't know what they were saying, but from the various clips and acting, I can see that the characters (and therefore the narrative) is raw, unpredictable, unstable, violent, and high-energy.  The editing is reflective of this as well.

By contrast, think about the aesthetic of viewing something violent, like an armed robbery perhaps, through footage from a security camera.  The security footage is completely stationary, and is wide-angle making any movement in the frame much smaller than a tighter lens would make it.  This experience is very detached, impartial, and makes the action seem small, despite how intense it might be.

Another alternative to having a static angle or hand-held footage would be to have smooth and steady camera movement like a pan or tilt.  This would obviously not be a good aesthetic choice either, as smooth controlled movement is just that, smooth and controlled.  This type of movement is often associated with beauty (like panning over a grand vista) or scale (tilting up to see a tall building).  Both of these situations are controlled - the horizon is always level and the building is always vertical.

The alternative to that is a steadicam or crane shot, where the movement is steady but is not controlled in the same way that a pan or tilt is.  The aesthetic of a gimbal is that it is floating, and although being closer to the action and maybe even being affected by it in the example of a shot where the camera follows the action or revolves around characters, it's still got the feel of detachment.  It lacks the reaction that a security camera lacks - it doesn't jump the way a human would.  
Crane movement is slightly different that it's normally more geometric, and as it often moves vertically more than a gimbal shot it's also more detached from a human point of view, considering that humans typically experience the world from eye-height.

I think they're the choices for camera mounting and the various aesthetics of movement.

The trick is to choose the one that most represents the emotional experience you want the viewer to have.

[stefanocps]

you are right, in this scene, the shake is well appropriated to the subjet. i put this link as it was the first i found, but in this case the aesthetic is clear. I just wanted to show what  is the kind of movement i  am talking about. i agree, this could be handheld easily. other times i don t think it is. Other times i don't see any reason to make these slight movement of the camera but they are there...Now that you know what i am talking about you ll find several example of this

[MrSMW]

20 hours ago, kye said:

Any camera movement should be a deliberate artistic choice, designed to support the narrative and aesthetic of the film.

This.

My own 'aesthetic' choice is for the camera to remain static at all times. I do not want it to move as much as 1mm.

My clients probably wouldn't be, but I am hyper-aware of camera movement in anything I watch.

If it's following a character, OK, that's 'natural' as are several other techniques, but for myself, I just want the scene to tell the story. If that makes sense.

[stefanocps]

sometimes the movements are really an abuse in quantity...they all want to move the camera 🙂

[dgvro]

On 11/20/2020 at 2:01 PM, stefanocps said:

it was just about aesthetic the main reason of my post. Being graduate at cinema studies ( in my univesity the sutdies are all about thery..not practices)  i am interested , a part of all the techniques parts, also about all the question regarding language, ahestetic and so on. My main think about this kind of shooting i am talking about here is that most of the time, it does not really look like motivated. To me i seems more a kind of habit, a fashion style of thelast years that should give some more "live" feel to the action. Sometimes this shake is more noticeable than other..looks like a kind of "fear" of a steady shot on a tripod

I know the exact vibe you mean.

It's rampant in highly sentimental low to medium budget pieces with docu- type (but still an artistic piece) video portraits of human subjects. I can already see the examples I recall in my head, a person standing there (not speaking) in their house or other environment of theirs, with their "sleeves rolled up", the camera gently swaying. All very "candid" and ~authentic~. There's a strange sense of 'canned vulnerability' about it at this point, but I suppose there's a reason for everything, its only guilty of being a bit overused really.

Often shot at 60fps and conformed to 24/25p for a subtle slowmo look but not full blown overcooked slowmo.

Wouldn't discount certain (other) types of contrived camera sway being added in post, btw. Seen plenty of examples where it was obvious