This is topic Shakiness rating? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006107

---

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 03-25-2010, 04:01 AM:
 
Not really sure where this topic should go; putting it in Yak for now but feel free to move it.

How about, on either the 'film handler reviews' or the 'feature info' forum, the poster places a kind of shaky-cam rating out of 10? 1 would be all static shots or smooth pans, whereas 10 would be something like Cloverfield. The rating should be based on the average amount and severity of shaky-cam throughout the entire movie; i.e. a movie with a quick, violent shaky scene at the end would score lower than a movie with medium shakiness all the way through.

Myself, I can't really handle anything with a shakiness rating more than 6/10

Just a few examples from my personal experience:
Alice in Wonderland (2010) - 3/10
District 9 - 8/10
12 Rounds - 9/10
Angels & Demons - 5/10
Avatar - 4/10
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-25-2010, 04:46 AM:
 
I'm just guessing, but you've not seen The Hurt Locker yet, right?
 

---

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 03-25-2010, 09:41 AM:
 
An excellent suggestion. Such a thing also should be required of reviewers in the general media.
Today's Los Angeles Times had a small article by Kenneth Turan commenting on the fact that audiences haven't flocked to GREEN ZONE.
This one is so shaky that even the trailer makes it incoherent!
I wonder how much that had to do with the audience turnoff, in addition to the fact no Iraq war film had done much business.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 03-25-2010, 08:03 PM:
 
I'm guessing there must be something biological about this, eh? I've never been bothered by anything that's often called "shakey cam" - and I'm certainly not just saying that to be difficult or buck the trend. It simply doesn't bother me either by a) making me nauseous, or b) rendering the plot incomprehensible (assuming the plot was comprehensible to begin with).
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-25-2010, 11:49 PM:
 
Jeremy, it is just annoying. Basically it is done on purpose, professional cinematographers wanting to look amateur to give the movie a "realistic" feel because as we all know, realism is shaky. But even amateurs aren't that bad, they waaaay overdo it.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-25-2010, 11:54 PM:
 
Hey, the solution is simple. We've been repeatedly told that when a movie is projected with digital projection, that image is ROCK STEADY -- none of that jitter that ruins all film projection. Problem solved.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-26-2010, 12:56 AM:
 
Sorry Frank, you've got it backwards. It seems even MORE shaky with digital projection simply because it is so rock steady. With a film projector, the naturally unsteady image counters the on-film shakiness, making it seem much steadier as a result. With unreasonable films like the Bourne series where even a table full of suits having a meeting looks like an earthquake, you can ride the framing knob up and down a bit to compensate even more. Having loosey-goosey lateral guide rollers can help as well. The result is a rock-steady picture when projecting shaky-cam movies on film and a horribly shaky image on DLP or TV.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 03-26-2010, 01:10 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Jeremy, it is just annoying. Basically it is done on purpose

---