Steadicam Aesthetics

[Lars Erik]

I don't see the harm in creating an aesthetcis section. The "operating" section is the second most used section on the forum. Filled with everything but why a certain shot helped the movie from a storytellers point of view. The section discusses, who did the shot, if walls were removed during the shot and on and on. It might as well be a section on how to build a house, it's all technical.

 

I think an aesthetcis section would be of great help to many of us in improving our skills in storytelling, and thus be a greater asset to the DP and director.

 

In a forum that is rather difficult sometimes to navigate through, (no disrespect to the moderators, you're doing a great job, but there's a hell of alot posts here), a section on why different shots contribute to the films might be a good idea.

 

LE

[Bryan Fowler]

I'm not sure if this goes along with Chris' idea, but what I'm imagining would be a video clip of a shot, (youtube, vimeo, whatever) along with commentary from the operator on what happened to make that shot what it is.

 

Like, on one thing that I did, we were loosing light, shooting with an A-Minima, and my weight cage wouldn't fit. I had to do the shot with a janky setup, and "muscle" the arm down.

 

It was really a result of poor prep on my part, and by looking at the video some might not be able to tell. Others might be able to, or at least learn something from the shot.

 

We also had other issues with the shot (wardrobe issues) that I had to work around with the framing.

 

Seeing what I did, and what made me do that =) might be helpful to someone. I always enjoy the behind the scenes commentary that people have with a production.

 

Anyway, those are my updated thoughts.

 

Bryan

[Charles Papert]

Bryan:

 

I would posit that those sorts of things would be exactly NOT what Chris was suggesting (check his original post again). While I think there may be some interest in the story of why a shot was so difficult from an operating standpoint, I think the idea here was more of a "film study" type of discussion in which the shot would be analyzed as an objective viewer.

 

It can be very hard for us to create this objectiveness when viewing our own work, which is why it is good to get at least a second set of eyes on one's demo reel. One tends to include shots that were difficult to achieve for one reason or another, however the ONLY thing that counts is whether they are impressive or impactful to the viewer who has no clue as to the operator's trials and tribulations. I finally excised a shot from my own reel that required me to step over a prone 300lb gentleman while skimming the camera past him in low mode, because I finally admitted to myself that the shot itself was far less noteworthy than the effort to achieve it. Along these same lines, I have long thought that the Alien (AR, Revolution, whatever it is going by these days) is a tool that is far revolutionary for the viewer than for the filmmakers; simply extending the boom range of a given Steadicam shot by a few feet or flying the camera closer to obstacles is something that even Steadicam operators themselves may fail to notice while watching a give shot. For instance, if Will Arnot had done that amazing deodorant commercial with a standard rig rather than the AR, would the overall result suffer or change tremendously? I personally don't think so. I recently did a shot that required booming from floor level to eye level, which we did with the rig in lowmode hardmounted to the arm of the dolly. On-screen, it's functional but hardly spectacular, reason being that we've seen it a thousand times from a crane; we just didn't happen to have one that day.

 

Bit of a digression, but this is all to say that I agree also that this type of discussion should probably be segregated from the general nuts-and-bolts chat, and in fact it may not be of much interest to a particular subset of participants here as being too "artsy-fartsy"; so be it.

[Bryan Fowler]

Charles (and others)

 

I re-read the other posts....yeah, I see your point, and agree.

 

I guess it boils down to just me wanting more knowledge about film making, visual storytelling, and how steadicam (or even moving camera) fits into that.

 

After reading my above post, I should say that example was what I, being a "young" camera op (10years), would be able to bring to a discussion. *heh*

 

Bottom line for me I guess: if I have the chance to listen, and learn a little bit of what/how other think and process stuff, it's a good thing. However that happens is good.

 

Now, I must let that coffee escape.

[Alfeo Dixon SOC]

100% agreeable with the adults here. What we do is purely mechanical.

 

Now, from this thread I have come to the conclusion that a forum entitled something like "Directors Corner" or "Why this works or doesn't" would allow for commentary and critic which would be a vital asset and learning tool if we could get directors as well as the operators to chime in.

 

Alfeo "just a tool" Dixon

[Jerry Holway]

Bit of a digression, but this is all to say that I agree also that this type of discussion should probably be segregated from the general nuts-and-bolts chat, and in fact it may not be of much interest to a particular subset of participants here as being too "artsy-fartsy"; so be it.

 

Add my name to the AF crowd who would like a discussion free of nuts and bolts - it's the "operator," right?.

 

Garrett gives a wonderful lecture on the moving camera, i.e. what makes a shot more or less satisfying, regardless of rig, "authorship" or other concerns (like they chose the wrong take, even). The key is not to get into the "I like it, I don't like it" mode as the end point of the discussion - as meaningless as chocolate vs. strawberry - but to give some critical eye to what's going on image-wise, how it relates to the task or story at hand, etc.

 

Tough enough to do in graduate level film school, but I think it's worth a try here, as ultimately it's what counts.

 

Jerry

[Charles Papert]

When the chocolate takes are dipped in the strawberry ones, now THAT's satisfying.

[Brant S. Fagan SOC]

Gents--

 

I would venture that WHO dips the strawberry ones into the chocolate ones is almost as important as who SERVES them!

 

Best,

 

Brant

[Alec Jarnagin SOC]

Hello all. Been traveling, etc. so a bit behind here.... Just read the thread again from top to bottom. Aesthetics of the moving camera is a subject that is dear to me, although, the camera platform of choice to execute a well placed camera move is more or less irrelevant once you move past the filmmakers (like Charles says, does the average audience member care that he used a Steadicam in low mode hard mounted to a dolly to achieve a boom from foot level to eye level?). That said, the tool used to move the camera can most definitely provide a feeling or mood to a given shot (even if it is very subtle) and thus, we get into the psychology of camera movement. While this is a great conversation, it is not always relevant to Steadicam and this forum. I have no issue with a thread of this nature, but I ask, does it make sense to limit it to Steadicam or do we want to roll up our sleeves and talk about the aesthetics of camera movement?

 

On a more practical note, are there enough people out there that want to use this proposed thread? Please realize, the more threads added, the more things end up in the wrong place creating more work for the moderators. Not that I mind more work, but I need to believe that the community will use it.

 

Thanks,

[Garrett Brown]

Chris, et al,

 

I think a forum titled "Steadicam Aesthetics" is a really good idea. I'd be interested to read it and to contribute. 'general discussion' is too diffuse, would make it tougher to check in on such matters, and tougher to direct related comments. Also not a bad idea to remind friends and colleagues that this is why we do it.. it's not an exercise machine!

 

best regards, Garrett Brown

[Alec Jarnagin SOC]

"I think a forum titled "Steadicam Aesthetics" is a really good idea. I'd be interested to read it and to contribute."

 

 

Nuff said.

[Tim Tyler]

It is done. :)

[Buster Arrieta]

Chris... How much could be the rest time between shots?

 

How much could be the maxime time of continuos operating P/day -Vs- human body resist?

 

Thanks

 

Buster

[Buster Arrieta]

EXACTLY...!!! (dot)

 

 

Chris, et al,

 

I think a forum titled "Steadicam Aesthetics" is a really good idea. I'd be interested to read it and to contribute. 'general discussion' is too diffuse, would make it tougher to check in on such matters, and tougher to direct related comments. Also not a bad idea to remind friends and colleagues that this is why we do it.. it's not an exercise machine!

 

best regards, Garrett Brown

[Buster Arrieta]

How long can withstand continuous up or support a steadicam operator carrying the day?

 

 

Chris... How much could be the rest time between shots?

 

How much could be the maxime time of continuos operating P/day -Vs- human body resist?

 

Thanks

 

Buster