Film Riot's style of doing action scenes.

H

harmonica44

I watched some of their tutorials again and they use the shaky cam and various quick cuts to mask low budget flaws. I would like to practice shooting action more in my free time, with others. I respect their style, and they said that the shaky cam was necessary to make it look real for what they had to work with. But I really hate the shaky cam. Plus the shaky cam might shake too much, or not enough, and seems like a risk for even further flaws likely.

I was thinking would it be a good idea to shoot the whole thing steady cam, then in post, only shake the shots that need it, to mask flaws, and keep the other shots steady? Or is their a reason for why in this style, the WHOLE action sequence must be shaky? On set, I could also assume which shots will need it and make a not to shake those ones on the storyboards if that's better, and if I can tell beforehand.
 
Last edited:
There is also a difference in the amount of shake with a hand-held camera vs. a shoulder mount camera. The shoulder mount shakes less.

You can also shoot action on a tripod with the camera pulled back. If the camera is in close, the shake is not as irratating to look at.

Also, there are a few camera operators with extremely steady hands.
 
No amount of camera shake will hide a bad and meaningless fight scene. Watch more hong kong cinema if you want to learn.

And you already hsve like three threads about this.
 
That's true. I had to throw out a whole fight scene in my Very Special Agents production because the DP "was thinking Jaws" with the camera off the tripod.

Look at Salt and the last Bourne movie. Do you really want your action to look that way?

If you can find a copy of Mortal Kombat 2, the story is very weak, but the stunts are VERY good. One of my favorite DPs, Matthew Leonetti shot the movie. Look at the action scenes there and see why he is one of the higher paid DPs in the business.

His brother, John was credited as the director of MK2. The Leonetti brothers have their own warehouse of lighting and camera equipment in Los Angeles. In big budget productions, the DP is more of a supervisor over the camera man and lighting crew, unlike small productions where the DP operates the camera and supervises the lighting and may even provide some or all of the lighting. So, John would be more responsible for how the action of MK2 was shot.
 
Last edited:
Oh wow, and here I was feeling like maybe film riot's shaky cam advice was good. Like for example they showed how to show someone get thrown to the ground. put a matress underneath them, but don't film the matress in the frame, when they land. Then move the matress out of the way, and have the actor roll as if he'd just been slammed into the ground. The fall will go from one take to the next. The point of the shaky cam was to mask the obviousness of that, but can I go from one take to another of the same fall, with the steady cam, in that situation?

I saw Mortal Kombat 2, years ago, along with other movies back in the day, before the shaky cam took charge of the majority of action films. I am still looking for online tutorials on that, but more of them seem to give out the shaky cam advice. I'll keep looking.

They also showed how if you shake the camera during a car chase, you can make the audience believe the cars are going faster, since you don't want to shoot cars going over the speed limit on a microbudget. They said they had to shake it to achieve this, but can you still achieve it a steady cam, but still moving and panning?
 
Last edited:
those techniques are useful. Its not just for masking BAD photography, rather it is used for adding energy. There is SHAKY cam, and then there is good camera work which sometimes involves shaking the camera.

The drop technique is an especially useful to know.
 
the drop technique I mentioned you mean? I'll see about doing some tests shots of it this weekend, with some friends and a matress, whilst making it look real without the shaky cam.
 
Last edited:
What we're really talking about in the last few posts are solutions to problems:

PROBLEM - slamming an actor on the ground without hurting them
SOLUTION - slam them onto a matress in one shot, then film a second shot to see the actual contact with the ground from a much safer distance (inches rather than feet -- or cm vs. m for the non-NTSC folks)... which raises a

PROBLEM: how do we hide the cut between the two shots
SOLUTION: if it doesn't cut together in tests we've done, try shaking the camera or moving the camera, or adding a quick cutaway, or end the original fall on a whip pan up to the person throwing before cutting back to the impact or...

If one can identify the problems, one can then seek logical solutions to these problems. Consistent solution choices will generate a style as Filmriot has done with their action scenes. Use theres, find your own that works... whichever.
 
wheatgrinder said:
those techniques are useful. Its not just for masking BAD photography, rather it is used for adding energy. There is SHAKY cam, and then there is good camera work which sometimes involves shaking the camera.

The drop technique is an especially useful to know.
Click to expand...

It's to mask poorly choreographed and poorly structured fights. At least in no budget land. You don't need camera movement at all to sell energy or motion in motion picture. I like camera movement in a fight, but just saying that's why they are telling other newbs to do that.

It's actually an obvious sign that your action is lacking, at least traditional HKSCs would say so. One of my mentors is an HKSC and shot/lit some of Jet Li's movies. Im probably biased so take it with a grain of salt. Haha.
 
Shorter lens (zoomed out) will give objects in the frame more apparent distance they're travelling in the same amount of screen time if coming toward/away from the camera / just past the camera. Closer to the ground will show the most dramatic use of this effect. Panning the camera with the car on a long lens will make the background move past quickly as well... so if it's motion on the X-axis, long lens/ more zoom, if it's motion on the Z-axis, wider lens, less zoom.

When following something in a pan, the background will also get a bit more motion blur lending a sense of speed to it. Less actual speed is needed in a shot out of the side of a car than is needed out the front or back because of the amount of screen time background objects spend as well. (I read about a 25-30% difference in perceived vs. actual speed somewhere IIRC).

Lots of cutting (not the emo kind)... and that will want a larger variety of shots... move the camera around.
 
Film Riot's style of fight scene cinematography is really an ode to the current Hollywood style of fight scene. In my head I just think of "Bourne" cinematography. That said, the Film Riot guys are still learning (yes just like all the rest of us) and their fight scene cinematography wasn't perfect or brilliant by any means. It was effective enough to tell a story.

Camera movement is essential to this kind of style. But to me "camera shake" is a much heavier word. It feels like when people mention "camera shake," I think of the intense turbulence with the camera we were used to seeing in the early 2000s.

I think a stedicam approach is the best for a fight scene. Use camera shake during most intense hits, or use a camera whip to reveal someone or something. I was working with a very young and gifted cinematographer (it still blows my mind to this day how he grasped the concepts of Hollywood action cinematography at such a young age.) He would use the camera movement to "Reveal." He'd move the camera where it needed to be to reveal a attack (in the direction an attack was going,) to reveal an impact or damage (example: One character's punches another character's head. The attackers fist swings from the left side of the screen to right. Use camera to swing from the left, far to the right then back, on to the subject. Not shake the camera left to right, left to right, left to right, left to right. One forceful camera whip goes a longer way then just shaking the camera out of control. One method adds energy, one just looks amateur) or reveal an object/weapon used by a character. There is a lot of smooth but fast camera movement, but very few uses of actual camera "shake" or heavy turbulence.

If you think about it, when we look at things in real life, very few times do our eyes just stay dead focused on one thing. Even when we talk to our friends, our head and eyes move ever so slightly. I think that's the appeal of camera movement / camera shake.

A basic example of camera shake vs camera movement in terms of efficiency, is tracking with someone with or without a steadicam. If you track with someone who's running and you're running yourself, if it's handheld and without any steadicam or stability- it just looks like a bad shaky Blair witch shot. If you track someone with a steadicam and they're running, it adds energy and the audience can still follow them. Camera movement adds a live feel, camera shake disorients. You want to disorient them sometimes (so DO use camera shake) but don't over do it. You don't want them to look like they started fighting and then an earthquake happened.

Use lots of close ups and if you can go with a steadicam.
 
Sure, I agree with moving the camera, and panning, but not shaking. Even a little shake though sometimes bothers me. I have been practicing with a steadicam, and prefer that method, since I don't have a camera cart or fluid head tripod, at the time. I like film riot's advice on taking frames out. This can work during a fight scene, but maybe not so much in a car chase, for speed. Is there any type of lens I could use that would make objects look like they are going faster or would help?

Maybe I would like the shaky cam, quick cutting, better if it wasn't used so often. I realize that in order to break in, you have to have a different style, so if I use the style that most Hollywood action films are using, then that won't be good, cause you're not being seen as doing something different.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to resurface this, but I have a quick question...

The way I view it, I split the "styles" or "levels" of shaky-cam into 3 categories:

1) Shoulder-mounted, loose and fluid. The kind of movement you would see in a lot of (actual) indie productions. It's the kind of shake that is in no way distracting or obnoxious; it simply isn't locked down.
2) Docu-style, where it involves many quick movements and cuts. Seen most prevalently in Bourne and other contemporary (American) action films.
3) Hand-held. The kind where the camera jitters and claims to physically be in the world. Think Cloverfield and Blair Witch.

My question is this: What do you call the first (least shaky) kind?

Thanks!
 
It's just handheld.

Cloverfield is documentary style

Shaky Cam = I can't hold my camera still, not on purpose, but on accident.
 
Well I shot a fight scene that should last about four minutes, and it's not shaky cam at all. I had the operator use a camera stabilizer and did a good job of keeping it steady, while panning smoothly. I have edited half of it. I noticed also in this new hand held cam style there is a lot of really quick cutting, almost to the point of random. I am not editing mine that way, and find that normal non-rushed editing, can make a fight more intense. Some shots have to be edited fast though, to mask flaws such as continuity flaws, but only a few here, and there. Not near as much as you see in the Bourne films, or other films of a similar style. I don't see why it's so hard, to keep the camera straight.
 
Check out this fight scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLyLMC70RdY

No super quick cuts, no shakey cam. Just excellent fight choreography. Now, that being said, can you film this type of scene on a low/no budget production? It all depends on who your fight choreographer is, and if they can put together such a well crafted fight.

If they can't (or if you're doing the fight choreography yourself) then the Film Riot tutorial is going to be geared more toward what you'll be able to accomplish.

The bottom line is, do you like the way the Film Riot fight scene turned out? If yes, then follow their advice.
 
BTW, quicker cuts can hide the limits of your actors' abilities as fighters.

My guilty pleasure on TV is Chuck. The fight scenes on that show aren't very good, but they are better than they should be. The actors are obviously not well trained in martial arts, and yet they are required to perform a lot of martial arts moves. The quick edits at certain points hide a LOT of their amateur moves... but not all, unfortunately... :no:
 
Oh so that's why they do it. For my fight I only have to do a quick cut to mask a continuity flaw so far. I only have had to a make a couple though, and try to make them look like they blend in naturally, even though the cuts are way quicker, than the others. They look kind of choppy, but I don't want to quick cut the whole thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top