• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Why (Not) Go Hand-Held?

M

mad_hatter

I'm curious to know some ideas and opinions on when you should or shouldn't use hand-held camera?

It seems to me that a number of people consider hand-held to be lazy. Theres the argument that hand-held is quicker to set up, but I'd argue that dropping the camera on a set of sticks takes no time at all.

So why go hand-held at all? Why not? Is there any time that you should absolutely not use hand-held? Is it just an asthetic thing; personal choice?

I watched a couple of films today, to see how they used hand-held. Both The Devils Rejects and You're Next have the sort of style I'd like to emulate. TDR uses probably around 50% hand-held, but mixes them with static/stable shots. You're Next uses probably over 80% handheld. There are static shots used throughout, but they are relatively few and far between. Check out this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-44P-raV8Z4


So many of the shots in the above scene could have so easily been static. And, typically, they would be. So is this just an asthetic choice of the DoP/Director? Or is this technique supposed to convey some kind of emotion?

What's your opinion?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Some of my opinions on this:

First I will make a distinction between fully handheld, verses using a shoulder mount or some stabilization method whether it be steady cam, handles or whatever. I don't think there should ever be an instance when you go FULL freehand because of the shakes and jitters. Looks really unprofessional.

So why do I shoot mostly handheld with a shoulder mount?
Many times it is an artistic choice, but the reasons behind the choice need to be thought out in advance.

Handheld brings an energy to a scene that cannot be captured on a tripod. It tends to give the audience of sense of being there, at the site, rather than being an observer on the other side of the screen. That's why it works well in the horror genre.

Another artistic choice is that handheld shots can reflect the emotional state of the character. A great example of this is the film Rachel Getting Married: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1084950/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Another reason I shoot handheld is because there is much more room for error and immediate correction. When you're on a tripod and you do a take but there's not enough headroom on your actor, you have to make an adjustment in the middle of the take. IT's usually VERY obvious on a tripod that the camera operator is trying to correct a mistake. But when you're handheld, it's all a fluid movement and you're constantly adjusting your shot and moving around so mistakes become forgivable and mostly unnoticeable.

Lastly, I am against a lot of types of camera movements, period. I hate zooms, pans, tilts, etc. in low budget filmmaking because the gear they are using rarely allows for smooth movements. It often takes me out of the film. I say either shoot handheld, or stick it on a tripod and don't touch the camera at all if you want a static disconnected feel for your scene.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've been told the opposite and told, that my shots are looking like they are obvious mistakes being corrected when using a steadicam, and to use a tripod instead cause that looks less obvious. I guess it all depends on how you do it. I kind of see that in other movies, and Hollywood movies, the hand held tracking of a character, is more obvious than using a tripod or dolly, even when it comes to correcting framing mistakes, the hand held looks more obvious.

Personally I like using the steadicam for a scene if there is going to be a lot of movement, whether it's the actors walking around, or it's a tense scene where the actors are stationary, but you want that movement for the emotion of the scene. If it's just an ordinary set up scene to get the ball rolling and the actors are stationary, I think a tripod suits better. It's also about time, as when you are on location not switching from tripod to steadicam shots saves time, when you only have like two hours to shoot.

After watching that scene in Your Next, I think too much of it is handheld, and it looked like almost every shot was. It reminds me of how in a lot of TV shows from the 80s, they would constantly zoom back and forth on the lens, to add tension, but it felt like they did it too often. This is kind of the thing, but the lens zoom has been replaced with shake in the new age. I just feel that so many of the same camera move in almost every shot does not work, and is overdone to do it that often. Especially when their is no tension in the scene. But a lot of audiences seem to like hand-held in stationary shots, so it should fly okay with a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Handheld is quite often used to heighten the emotion of a scene, to give the film a 'documentary'/'news' kind of feel, or perhaps to make the viewer feel closer to the action - more like they're right there in the thick of it, rather than sitting at home in their lounge room.

It's really an aesthetic choice that should be determined between the Director and DoP based on what the script calls for. Sometimes things play out stronger handheld, sometimes they play our stronger static. It's another tool in the arsenal to be used when appropriate. I've shot whole films handheld, whole films without putting the camera on my shoulder, and I've shot films that combine the two.

I'd also point out that there's a pretty big difference between 'handheld' and the shake-cam that many refer to when talking about handheld. Many Hollywood films incorporate a lot of handheld - often you might not notice it because it doesn't have that indie 'shake' to it. Both are aesthetic choices, and again based on the needs of the script/story.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
I've been told the opposite and told, that my shots are looking like they are obvious mistakes being corrected when using a steadicam, and to use a tripod instead cause that looks less obvious. I guess it all depends on how you do it. I kind of see that in other movies, and Hollywood movies, the hand held tracking of a character, is more obvious than using a tripod or dolly, even when it comes to correcting framing mistakes, the hand held looks more obvious.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. The thing is you almost never see those types of mistakes in hollywood films because they DP or director wouldn't allow such a mistake, they would simply do another take because that was clearly a mess up.

But on an indie set where there's no money for more takes, that's when handheld saves you. the camera is already weaving in and out of the frame, so when it goes out just a little too far just for a second, it's forgivable.

Let's say the camera operator's arm got bumped a little bit. On a tripod that would ruin the take, but on handheld you probably wont even notice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
moonshieldmedia said:
I disagree with this. The thing is you almost never see those types of mistakes in hollywood films because they DP or director wouldn't allow such a mistake, they would simply do another take because that was clearly a mess up.

But on an indie set where there's no money for more takes, that's when handheld saves you. the camera is already weaving in and out of the frame, so when it goes out just a little too far just for a second, it's forgivable.

Let's say the camera operator's arm got bumped a little bit. On a tripod that would ruin the take, but on handheld you probably wont even notice.
Click to expand...

Since when do we not have time for another take? Why aren't we doing rehearsals?!

If you're a good operator, then someone bumping your arm will be noticed, even on handheld - but why is someone in such a position that they can bump the camera operator's arm in the first place?! (or alternately - why haven't we done a rehearsal, or at least a block through to figure out where the cameras moving, where those around the camera [AC/Boom Swinger etc.] can go, and where's safe for everyone else to stand so they're not in the shot).

Do the rehearsals, get the blocking of actors and camera down, and then do the takes. Certainly indie films don't have time/money for 13 takes of each shot, but 3-5 should be more than enough to perfect the move. Also, most of the time you're covering the scene from a few angles, so any shoddy operating shouldn't end up in the final cut..

N.B: If we're on take 10, 13, 15 etc. of a shot that's already taken hours and we're running to the point where we won't make the day unless we move on, or are moving into unpaid overtime (gotta love low budget sets), then there's definitely no time for another take (unless, of course, your AD is incredible and can find time in the schedule to push the other stuff to another day). But surely parts of each of the previous 10 are useable, even if you do have to cut around them?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
N.B: If we're on take 10, 13, 15 etc. of a shot that's already taken hours and we're running to the point where we won't make the day unless we move on, or are moving into unpaid overtime (gotta love low budget sets), then there's definitely no time for another take (unless, of course, your AD is incredible and can find time in the schedule to push the other stuff to another day). But surely parts of each of the previous 10 are useable, even if you do have to cut around them?
Click to expand...

Yep, if the shots are planned, scene blocked, and plenty of coverage is gotten of each setup, there should really never be a need for that many takes.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks to all for your input.

I do agree that hand-held can make a scene look more documentary-ish, and perhaps it does drag the viewer deeper into the scene. I'm not sure though. I'm not sure if I'd feel any different if all the shots in the scene above were all static. I doubt it though. And as for correcting mistakes, I get that hand-held may make those corrections look more natural. But, as Jax rightly said, I'd be aiming to block and rehearse shots so as not to make those mistakes at all.

I guess it's really just a case of choosing for myself where I want to go hand-held, based on my own asthetic choice.



If anybody is interested, here's some test shots I took the other day, using my shoulder rig:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVOAZ_-ezkg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mad_hatter said:
I'm curious to know some ideas and opinions on when you should or shouldn't use hand-held camera?

It seems to me that a number of people consider hand-held to be lazy. Theres the argument that hand-held is quicker to set up, but I'd argue that dropping the camera on a set of sticks takes no time at all.

So why go hand-held at all? Why not? Is there any time that you should absolutely not use hand-held? Is it just an asthetic thing; personal choice?

I watched a couple of films today, to see how they used hand-held. Both The Devils Rejects and You're Next have the sort of style I'd like to emulate. TDR uses probably around 50% hand-held, but mixes them with static/stable shots. You're Next uses probably over 80% handheld. There are static shots used throughout, but they are relatively few and far between. Check out this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-44P-raV8Z4


So many of the shots in the above scene could have so easily been static. And, typically, they would be. So is this just an asthetic choice of the DoP/Director? Or is this technique supposed to convey some kind of emotion?

What's your opinion?
Click to expand...

Wow. This clip was good. The feel would have been totally different on static/dolly system. so much to learn, huh?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mad_hatter said:
How so? How do you feel a static camera would change the feel?


(Not disagreeing with you, by the way. Just trying to figure it all out!)
Click to expand...

I understand.

It would have felt more formal. It would have felt more like I was watching a Richard Attenborough movie. This clip felt like I was at the table, somehow. less like I was watching a movie. I think.

That's the best I can do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
moonshieldmedia said:
I disagree with this. The thing is you almost never see those types of mistakes in hollywood films because they DP or director wouldn't allow such a mistake, they would simply do another take because that was clearly a mess up.

But on an indie set where there's no money for more takes, that's when handheld saves you. the camera is already weaving in and out of the frame, so when it goes out just a little too far just for a second, it's forgivable.

Let's say the camera operator's arm got bumped a little bit. On a tripod that would ruin the take, but on handheld you probably wont even notice.
Click to expand...

That's true, you have a point. Perhaps handheld is the way to go. So far I have been afraid to use it since a lot of people post hand held short on here, and then people say that it looks sloppy and they should use a tripod.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If there's no reason to move the camera, then I usually prefer to just not move the camera. Put it on sticks.

But I often find myself with a reason to move the camera. If all I need is a little bit of tilt, pan, or a small amount of tracking, I personally find handheld to be very effective. Though, technically, I don't prefer handheld so much as I do my fig rig. Fig rigs are great!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mad_hatter said:
How so? How do you feel a static camera would change the feel?


(Not disagreeing with you, by the way. Just trying to figure it all out!)
Click to expand...

IMO, it's hard to judge whether or not the handheld works for this scene without having seen or read the entire movie. The handheld 'shake-cam' provides an underlying tension that may not be present without it. Of course, there are many other ways to create tension, but this is one.

Had it all been steady, it may not have had the 'punch' they wanted.

I say steady - there's much more to camera movement than simply handheld or tripod. It's rare that I shoot a movie and have the camera on the tripod the entire time. I'm usually employing dollies, steadicams, jibs/cranes, as well as the tripod.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
It's rare that I shoot a movie and have the camera on the tripod the entire time. I'm usually employing dollies, steadicams, jibs/cranes, as well as the tripod.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that with budgetary and time constraints, I'm often limited to do one thing or another. But on an ideal shoot (and I absolutely plan for my next feature to work this way), I do believe that variety in shooting methods is very important. I'm with Jax on this one.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I feel hand held work is often over used in indie filmmaking and can be considered the "indie" look far too often due to lower budgets and time restraints. When we watch traditional films, they are usually shot conventional and composed professionally in a sense as it's more thought out and provides what seems to be a more cinematic sense as you're watching a film instead of a documentary or amateur work. Now there are times when hand-held can really be used to help tell what the character is feeling or add tension but it must be thought about it and planned accordingly. I've seen plenty of moveis where no hand-held work is used and the tension is still there. "No Country for Old Men rings a bell or a lot of Deakins' work.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top