Which camera style do you think is better or looks more pro?

H

harmonica44

I was watching the Dark Knight and I noticed how even in the scenes where characters stay completely still, the camera still movies a lot. Usually it will slowly move in and out, on the characters faces or like in the scene when they are sitting at the restaurant table, the camera will slowly pan around them.

If you watch a movie like 12 Angry Men now for example, the camera is completely still for every shot I'm quite sure.

Also in a lot of older movies, the angles are a lot more wide and shot from the side a lot, until the scene gets down to business. Where as with a lot of newer movies their are less side angles are more closer front dead on ones, right from the start of a scene. Is there any way that looks more pro, or are both styles good and it's just a matter of preference? Personally I prefer the older way, until the intense scenes come, that's when you do all the angles and move the cameras, depending on what you are trying to convey.
 
Camera movement is dictated by the needs of the film, there is no better or right or wrong or "professional." Plus directors have their own personal styles, and even those change over the years as the director grows and technology changes.

In "The Changeling" (1980, starring George C. Scott) the camera is constantly following John Russell in the mansion
because he is being followed by the ghost of the child
; it has a definite purpose to the mood and the story.
 
Alcove Audio said:
Camera movement is dictated by the needs of the film, there is no better or right or wrong or "professional." Plus directors have their own personal styles, and even those change over the years as the director grows and technology changes.
Click to expand...

Well said :yes:
 
TCM is my favorite channel, and I love 30s & 40s movies. There's little to no camera movement. Just very good coverage. To me these movies beat the shit out of modern movies. But, that has to do with script and storytelling.

Everything with movies have to do with script and storytelling. If those suck, then it doesn't matter how pretty or wonderful the cinematography is, the movie will still suck.

Unfortunately with modern movies, everyone seems to believe that camera movement is necessary and should be used on a consistent basis. All you have now is the camera moving to something worthless. If you removed every useless camera pan from a modern movie, you'd probably knock out 10 - 15 minutes of the film.

If it doesn't mean something, don't do it.
 
Am fed up with all these 'action' shots when there is no action as mentioned.
It's the MTV-generation and their way of looking at cool movies...
All these will pass one day (I hope) and we'll see more movies like it's supposed to be:

- The action is in FRONT of the lens -

Twitch, jerky or whatever they call these things are just a substitute for lack of story in my mind. Reminds me of a newspaper reporter who didn't have a story and had to make one up (news story). Yeah, it happened in real life.

BTW, 12 angry men was one of my favorite movie. One location, man... that was a low cost movie with high impact results. Why can't people make movies like that? Is it the generation now, don't know a good drama when they see one?
 
Last edited:
I agree with Gonzo, smooth on/purpose movement adds a lot to your production. There are a few shots that will always need to be dead still, but the right motion helps tell the story better and adds so much to the visual production value.

Alcove said it well too, times and styles and technology changes. There wasn't as much movement 60-70 years ago, but camera rigs also weighed as much as 100 times more than some of today's tech. The earliest movies were shot without audio and some were great, doesn't mean that it's okay to get away with that today... Oh wait haha, darn you oscars.

Similar to older cars using carburetors vs modern fuel injection. The art has evolved, and there's a better way of doing things. If 12 Angry Men or Casablanca was made today with the same cast and crew, they would likely have much more movement.

Indies can complain against it all they want, and I've seen many do it, but both ticket sales and industry awards in cinematography tend to favor movement. The story is important, but since it's cinema and not just at novel, the camera work is also incredibly important.
 
Herky-jerky cam looks like sh!t.
There's zero argue room.


"Ah, but I want that found footage look."
Yeah.
And it's gonna look like found sh!t.

Over analyze well done professional hand held camera work even with that retarded zoom-in/zoom-out, pan about because I'm in a combat zone bullsh!t and even then you'll see there's some stabilization going on.

Not the same as an epileptic with a camcorder on a very chilly shoot. And he has low blood sugar.



  • Stationary camera on a still subject shot.
  • Moving camera on a still subject shot.
  • Stationary camera on a moving subject shot.
  • Moving camera on a moving subject shot.

Anyone got another option?
Otherwise, these are all fine when used appropriately for the film's thematic look.

Organic look shoulder mount hand-held - or - mechanical look on a tripod/track: Director/cinematographer's discretion.

I don't think we need Michael Effing Bay's chronic use of a camera on a slider on a swinging crane shot of Pensive Paul staring out the living room window in the insufferably sublime fuax film "THE THOUGHT".
Wrong decision.
 
Last edited:
PaulGriffith said:
and there's a better way of doing things. If 12 Angry Men or Casablanca was made today with the same cast and crew, they would likely have much more movement.

Indies can complain against it all they want, and I've seen many do it, but both ticket sales and industry awards in cinematography tend to favor movement. The story is important, but since it's cinema and not just at novel, the camera work is also incredibly important.
Click to expand...

Not better, DIFFERENT. Does it work? Of course, done properly. But, not using it (very few do nowadays) doesn't mean the movie will suck. Us Sinners had no camera movement. Even the hand held was pretty steady. Not one person good or bad mentioned the lack of camera movement. A few talked about transition shots and other things. It doesn't even mean that it won't have an audience. If the story/acting/script are good, it won't make a difference.

I don't remember because I thought the movie sucked after a while. But, did Paranormal Activity have a lot of camera movement? Since the few good moments were them in bed, the camera was completely still. That movie was huge (oh how public has no taste nowadays).

It's something a film maker can use. It won't make or break a picture. It's film makers like Spielberg and Scorsese who use camera movement to the ultimate advantage. Most indie people use it without much thought to the end result.

I had a film maker friend show me a shot that took them hours to set up and shoot. The end result was a couple walking from the kitchen to living room. The saving grace was the acting was awful, so it really didn't matter how nice the shot looked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top