Comments on: Open Forum Friday: Is Shaky Cam Good or Bad for Action Movies?

By: Malakith

Malakith — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:21:09 +0000

The worst camera shake? “The Devil Inside.” I could not see a damn thing. It was “violently” shaking almost the whole time. It looked as though a 3 year old filmed it.

By: Craig

Craig — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:55:07 +0000

I hope some Hollywood directors take the time to read the comments on this site.
When you see a movie that is beautifully shot, you wish it would be used as a training video for directors showing how things should be done.
Please bring back skilful camera work & leave the out of focus & shaky footage on the cutting room floor where it belongs.
Craig

By: Ronald

Ronald — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:06:17 +0000

There should be a law that will require movie theaters to inform the viewers if the movie is using shaky cam. Movie theaters should also be required to maintain a doctor and medical facility inside the theater in case a viewer suffers as a result of the shaky cam.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:18:07 +0000

Shaky cam is lazy and sh!te.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:34:19 +0000

Please stop shaking the F-ing cam, a-hole.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:21:54 +0000

Hate shaky cam,makes me feel seasick.

By: Scarshi

Scarshi — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:26:20 +0000

Shaky cam is good for home cinema but very, very bad at the actual cinema. Let me explain in brief terms:

1. Home cinema you can have a much higher frame rate so the jarring effect of motion blur is much less.
2. The cinema screen is much too big for this style of cinematography as you look left to right, up and down the big screen and the camera is often shaking against your head movement creating the nausea effect.
3. It is not a natural movement. The camera may mimic your own head rotation looking at things, but your eyes often compensate. Which is why you don’t fall over when running.

Violent camera movement does not copy a natural viewpoint. Just shoot the damn picture and let my own eyes choose where to look quickly!

By: mrza44

mrza44 — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:56:52 +0000

As Rich described, it like a book with moving words. So i dont want to watch this kind of f*ing films. It make me sick. It must be writen if it is shaky cam or not on the films. It can be used on news but with professional cameramen. It is a way if there is no chance. I feel like cheated, i dont wanna pay for it, or watch for free even if the whole world likes it.

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:48:57 +0000

As a follow up…’
Yes the mysterious camera person in question in which hands the camera is shaking needs to be explained and be part of the story for the shaky cam to be valid.

If you haven’t told me who this person shaking the camera around is in your story, then it shouldn’t be there at all.

Places where it MIGHT be appropriate.

-(Fake) real, live news footage
- One of the characters filming with a personal camera of some kind
- A fixed camera from survailence or something that got shaken by an earthquake or bomb or something.

Otherwise, the camera should not be shaking.

I can’t think of anymore at the moment.

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:42:06 +0000

When telling a story the camera is supposed to be invisible to the person watching the story. It’s like a book with the words moving all over the page as your reading them.

Here is a rule of thumb for you directors thinking about using shakycam.

Is the watcher supposed to think that there is someone there physically filming this, another off screen character perhaps?

If not, then do not shake the f’ing camera because it has no place in the story, if so shake to your hearts content becuase it makes sense for it to be shaking, very f’ing simple.

By: Philip

Philip — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:42:13 +0000

I had to leave The Black Swan 45mins into it. I felt nauseous (and actually still do the day after). Shame really as I was enjoying the story.
I agree with Ronald, please put a warning up if shaky-cam was used in the filming.
I’m getting to the point where I won’t go to see a movie I suspect may be using that technique.
I think this is a case of Hollywood all telling each other that it’s cool and leading edge to do this kind of thing. Well from my standpoint it’s not. It isn’t even realistic. I for one don’t shake my head around when viewing real life.
I keep it still so I can take it all in and savor it.

Please, please, please – Move On!!

By: stanbarney

stanbarney — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 06:57:51 +0000

Enough of the shaky cam
use a freakin steadicam
if you have great action you do not need to shake the camera around to make it more realistic. All it does is make me feel like I am seasick. Paul Greengrass is the worst offender. The first bourne movie is the best, because Greengrass and his shakycam were not present. Greenzone made me ill.
If you have a great script and great acting, and hell even if you don’t there is no need for a shaky cam. To me it just looks and feels like the work of a rank amateur.