Talk:Shaky camera

Cinéma vérité

No one thinks to mention "Cinéma vérité"? Of course, that is what "shaky camera" really is and, hence, there's already a phrase to describe this approach. RoyBatty42 (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cinéma vérité is a style of filmmaking, not a camera technique. I'm not sure if there even is a more official name for "shaky camera," but "cinéma vérité" isn't it. Erick295 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No Battlestar Galactica?

Why is Battlestar Galactice not mentioned in the article? Most of the shaky camerawork is produced digitally, but the end result is the same. -- 84.178.102.198 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You might add Stargate Universe as well. Just as much shaking, I think.--Cyberman TM (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article when thinking of Battlestar Galactica which is a good example of virtual shaky camera and has all the problems that come with real shaky camera work. Stargate Universe has some of this but is nowhere near as bad. As this is a talk page I can say that every time I see camera shake I loose the illusion of reality and jump into 'why is the cameraman drunk?'. I hope it is a short lived fad. Mtpaley (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there any references saying why this style is being used? It seemed to come from nowhere a few years ago. Mtpaley (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Directors thought it would improve their product. Personally, I disagree, but it's worth hearing directly from them. J.J. Abrams released a video short on it shortly after he released Star Trek (2009). I searched for it, but couldn't find it. It may be on the ST 2009 DVD.75.163.158.115 (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

From the article: "Shaky cam gives a film sequence an ad-hoc, electronic news-gathering, or documentary film feel." is that so?

Can this actually be said as fact? Might be a bad example, but since I just saw it on TV - Stargate Universe: the camera is shaking as if the person holding it suffers from Parkinson. The scene: a dozen people SITTING AROUND, TALKING. I don't deny that this was likely overdone, but right now this sentence sounds as if any and all instances of shaky cam are perfectly fine the way they are. I'd suggest reforming the sentence similar to the second one, to make clear it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be that, but it CAN be. Sorry if I sound somewhat cranky, my head is still shaking from trying to watch a scene where a couple of people do nothing but talk...--Cyberman TM (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit was removed

I recently added a short paragraph in the "Criticism" section referencing a third party site (Movie Hurl) whose sole purpose to address the shaky-camera phenomenon. This website has been up and running for three years. Yes, I'm the creator and admin for the site. My edit was removed claiming that it was merely a selfish promotion. I do not agree. I think that websites and services that are directly relevant to the issue this page discusses should be referenced.

If you read my edit instead of merely taking for granted the removal by Binksternet, you will see that I did not phrase it as a promotion (I didn't say, "visit this site"). I merely noted the existence of the site and clearly stated its purpose.

At the very least, instead of having my edit summarily removed by a single user, I believe all editors of this page should have a say in that matter. Please read my edit (17:37, 24 March 2012) and voice your own opinion on that matter. I believe the link and description are directly relevant -- regardless of any notion of site-promotion -- to the article's topic of discussion.

Binksternet, if you have a problem with the wording of the edit, please communicate with me about it instead of heavy-handedly pushing me around. I did not mean to offend you with my edit.

-- kebwi —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

I accept that your paragraph was added in good faith. It is clear that Movie Hurl is on-topic; Movie Hurl is all about shaky camera films. However, the connection is only one way: shaky camera technique and films are not affected by Movie Hurl. I searched for and did not find any sense that Movie Hurl is acknowledged as a reference website for moviegoers. I found no evidence that Movie Hurl is widely known or heavily accessed. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes each topic rather than trying to put every known connection into the article about a subject.

I reverted the addition because I felt that a website with as little prominence as Movie Hurl was looking to gain eyeballs by putting a link in the article. This is a common wish; many not-very-well-known groups put bits about themselves into Wikipedia. These are typically removed, though, because of the encyclopedia's nature as a mainstream summary.

I wish you luck with your website. If it is discussed in a mainstream publication, one that is WP:SECONDARY to you, bring it back here at that time. Don't bring it back with only a primary source to support it, one written by you. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well, thank you for communicating with me about it.

-- kebwi —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

NYPD Blue?

This is the first show I remember where everybody talked about the shaky camera technique. It seems to pre-date most of the other things mentioned in this article, so surely it deserves a mention? 77.99.191.114 (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Fast cutting

Shaky camera is used in conjunction with fast cutting to help make movies unwatchable. I don't know how to add this to the article because one is a filming technique and one is an editing technique. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Shakiness can also be added with digital effects; this artificial method might be considered an element of the editing process. Decisions such as whether to use an actual camera in a shaky fashion, or to use digital effects, are part of the cinematography, so that is what ties it together. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Okay. I still don't quite know how to add it to the article. I'll think about it all the while hoping somebody reads this and does it for me. :) Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Shaky cam pre and post production

I am not comfortable editing the actual article to include this distinction, but I would like to see a distinction between shaky cam in pre and post production. Notably because they are fundamentally different in style and result. If going for the "documentary style", then it makes sense that films rely on shots that are literally from a handheld camera, whether "Saving Private Ryan" or "Cloverfield" (though for different reasons).

Post-production shaky cam, however, is noticeable an after-effect (ie - the camera shooting the scene wasn't moving, but made to seem so later). This has grown extremely prevalent in television and film, and often does nothing to give a "found footage" feel or a "documentary feel", but seems to be used to add drama or emotion (eg - a scene that is rife with unspoken tension, where the director tries to indicate that tension through erratic camera motion).

The difference in result of these two couldn't be greater. While "found footage" films indeed have their own criticism, seldom is the motive for the use of shaky cam questioned. Post-production shaky cam, however, is arguably more arbitrary, spoon-feeding the emotion of the scene. This hasn't been missed or ignored by critics, who wouldn't clump "The Blair Witch Project" with the shaky cam techniques of dialog scenes in "The Hunger Games" for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus75 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

To me, some of the shaky-cam effects just look really unnatural and distracting, and it seems to have gotten a lot more prevalent in recent years. I'm guessing the special effects used for post-production shaky-cam just aren't realistic enough yet. Is there any research on that? I'm guessing that making it look realistic would require some pretty complex modeling but that the current special effects use a really simple model. Unfortunately, I can't find any references. Aij (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)