Does stabilization add cheapness?

[richg101]

Re. OSS, IS, in camera crop stabilization etc.. (not steadicam mounting)

do you think these in camera/ in lens anti shake systems add another 'non film' look to our footage?  and if so, which of these systems provides the closest effect to using a true steadicam system?  I have been comparing some footage using a sony nex 18-55 lens with OSS and it is smooth, but i wonder if it is too smooth creating an unrealistic and digital look.  I suppose when you watch a kubrick movie it is all tripod/dolly work with a bit of steadicam - using very heavy cameras which physically add weight and rigidity to the captured material. 

 

[Mirrorkisser]

I guess that is a question of taste. Some people dislike those stabilization functions and stabilization software which you use during editing. For some its ok.

We do not have those huge dollys and the equipment that people like Kubrick had. We can only work with what WE have.

Also i dont think there is ONE cinematic look. If you look through cinema history, each director has its own approach. A Bresson is totally different than a Tarkovsky or an Antonioni. Still all of them are cinematic.

Sometimes i have the impression there is too much hype about that "cinematic" look, especially with the use of anamorphic lenses (sometimes that hype also gets me). In the end this only leads to a lot of stuff looking uniform.

Back to your question: Just use what you like best, your eye decides. Since i mostly only use old lenses which dont have that feature, i rarely use OIS. In 90 % of the cases i use a tripod only. Then sometimes a nice steadycam which another EOSHD member recommended to me. And you can do a lot of stabilzation with the camera strap or by keeping your arms close to your body. 

I only use OIS when i am too lazy too carry all my lenses, tripod etc and just use my kit lens.

[Axel]

[quote author=richg101 link=topic=941.msg6826#msg6826 date=1341495042]
Re. OSS, IS, in camera crop stabilization etc.. (not steadicam mounting)

do you think these in camera/ in lens anti shake systems add another 'non film' look to our footage?  and if so, which of these systems provides the closest effect to using a true steadicam system?[/quote]

I found some clips with the lens you mentioned on youtube, most of them quite shaky. You should link one you find too smooth to illustrate your point. Or you upload one of your own.

[quote author=richg101 link=topic=941.msg6826#msg6826 date=1341495042]I have been comparing some footage using a sony nex 18-55 lens with OSS and it is smooth, but i wonder if it is too smooth creating an unrealistic and digital look.  I suppose when you watch a kubrick movie it is all tripod/dolly work with a bit of steadicam - using very heavy cameras which physically add weight and rigidity to the captured material.[/quote]

A realistic look and a cinematic look have to be different, no? If the OSS for example causes weird jello effects like the post stabilizers sometimes do (like a rolling shutter in post, because the change in perspective of solid objects - i.e. cars - are misinterpreted as unwanted instability), the audience will consciously or subconsciously realize a technical layer on top of what happens in the clip. This makes the motif of your clip seem more realistic, because the recording device can't be ignored. Cameron used this a lot in [i]Avatar[/i], shaky camera, pumping autofocus and lensflares (in a complete CGI image!). All this to improve the credibility of the blue aliens. Just imagine the shots had all been old fashioned, clean and technically perfect!

Kubrick often tried to get a very clean look. Some of the scenes in [i]Full Metal Jacket[/i] could easily be 48p. What does this mean? It means "anything goes". If you want not-too-steady dolly shots, you will have a reason for it. You can do anything, the only one who cares for it is you.

[HurtinMinorKey]

For me, nothing is worse than a shaky camera. It puts too much strain on the audiences eyes. And I've never seen stabilization that makes something look worse. Even modern pan and scans from 4k sources, like some of the shots in the Social Network, look good to me