Oh okay, well for the next shot I am not going to move the camera over to a bunch of graves after. I was just going to rotate around the actor only, if that would work?

And if the it's Paul Greengrass's style to use a gimbal instead, then maybe that's his style, but I have never seen him do a shot like that, where it circled around someone. I could use a dolly, it's just int he past, when I tried to use a dolly, there were bumps in the footage here and there, so I decided to throw those shots out and not use them. We ended up getting a gimbal for the shots, and that worked a lot smoother, or so I thought, because the bumps in the dolly track were more obvious. But as far as that gimbal shot looking uncontrolled goes, do gimbals always look uncontrolled in their movements, or can one make a gimbal controlled?

You're being literal again, whether or not he does a circular shot on gimbal doesn't matter, it's closer to one of his handheld shots than a circular track on a dolly. It's close up and personal like a handheld shot.

The DSLR cameras you use are so poor for handheld filming you need to use a gimbal

Oh okay. I just haven't seen Greengrass do circular type movements, so I thought his style was totally different in comparison. But if it's closer to Greengrass, then it is.

But if it's similar, should I use a gimbal then, since Paul R Johnson pointed out that it looks uncontrolled and doesn't work?

Why would you use a shot that doesn't work?

A shot can be uncontrolled and work brilliantly.

Oh I am not saying I want to use a shot that doesn't work. What I mean is, can I use a gimbal at all, if it was pointed out that it doesn't work, because it looks uncontrolled. Can I do a rotating shot around someone with a gimbal, and uncontrolled, or will that not work?

You're asking a question to which the answer is it depends.

I'm painfully aware of what he is saying but not saying so let's do a quick recap:
1. He once tried to do a dolly shot it didn't come out right and it was hard to do so he doesn't want to do it.
2. He has discovered that using a gimbal is far easier, requires very little setup and he has a friend who owns one I think.
3. He is going to use a gimbal despite anything you say and he is asking you to confirm that he will be able to get the shots he saw in a movie using a gimbal despite whether it's the appropriate tool or not.

I can get a dolly and use that, if that's better, I just didn't think the shot would turn out well. Plus it was suggested to go for a more Greengrass style, as that might be more do-able, it was said before, if I read that right.

So if I should, does that mean I should use a gimbal instead of a dolly? It was said here, that the Greengrass style is better than what I am planning:

This isn't all this equipment, it's pretty basic stuff. Many of the short films made here have this type of kit.

You can do without it, but you need to stop pretending you're making a 1960s Hollywood thriller. You could make an edgy Paul Greengrass style thriller, which could be better than the one you're planning.

So if that's true, should I use a gimbal then, or is a dolly a better tool for the job?

Ryan - it's fine to call me Paul - it's my name after all.

The thing I suspect happens is that you are very reluctant to increase your operating skills. You seem to want to open a box, charge a battery and produce excellent work. I have no doubts that if you practice properly, you will be able to do your circular walk without gaining or losing height, and with perfect framing as you turn and keeping the thing sharp. That probably means serious rehearsal time - perhaps weeks worth of practice till it's second nature.

Are you willing to put the effort in? If you hire in somebody it doesn't guarantee they can do it. I remember doing sound on a video shoot years ago, and the helicopter pilot had declared his hours in command for the insurance company, and it was something like 5000. The cameraman was shooting through the open side door, and asked the pilot if he could fly sideways towards the lighthouse, and the pilot really struggled. Afterwards we discovered he had 5000 hours of taking off, flying the same route and then landing again.Never in his flying career had he ever been asked to fly sideways. So our experienced pilot really wasn't experienced at all in video work.

Maybe if you put the effort in you will master the gimbal?

Oh well it's just I thought an experienced gimbal operator or dolly operator could do better than me, especially since they have the equipment. I was advised before, just hire pros rather than trying to do everything myself. So wouldn't a pro who has had more experience be better?

Plus I have to concentrate on the performances and figured I could do that better if someone else is operating the gimbal or dolly.

[QUOTE=Ryan Elder;1958825 So if that's true, should I use a gimbal then, or is a dolly a better tool for the job?[/QUOTE]

If you're doing it Paul Greengrass style nearly everything has to be shot using a gimbal. It all depends on the look you're going for, don't expect someone else to give you an answer it's something the director decides.

Oh well if I shoot everything on a gimbal I just feel that's very tiring on the operator, especially if I do all the static shots on a gimbal as well. What if I just do the shots where I want the camera to move on a gimbal, and keep the static shots on a tripod. Would that be okay?

Shooting all day with a handheld 35mm film camera is also tiring.

Yeah true, but why should almost every shot be a gimbal shot though for mine? Why not just some shots? It seems to me that about 30 percent of the shots would require a gimbal for what I had in mind, but should I have more?

It's up to you, just bear in mind that your favoured 85mm lens shots on the gimbal tend to look more hand held, rather than classical shots on a dolly, so won't mix as well if you're using a tripod for the rest of the scene.

Oh okay. But why is there a rule that if a gimbal is used for a few shots, then it has to be used for every shot? Why can't audiences accept some handheld looking shots, mixed with tripod shots?

There's no set rule, because there are circumstances when a calm scene will explode into explosive confrontation and the camera goes handheld. Kubrick has done this in in number of his ilms.

You may want to have a more "intimate" feeling CU than you get with a tripod for part of a scene.

I'm not sure if this applies to you, since you seem to be unaware of the secondary aspects of how you shoot a scene, since you keep asking questions about it and are till struggling with the basics. If you switch between them you can carry a sub conscious message about the relationships within a scene to the audience.

A gimbal gives a different feel to a dolly, it's not a replacement.

Oh okay. What feeling does the gimbal give that is different from a dolly if the same type of move is being performed, for the same shot, in the same emotional context? The circular shot around an actor for example, if it's the same move done on both, why would the gimbal feel different, and what would that different feeling be?

Does the gimbal cause a feeling of more anxiety perhaps, or is it more specific than that?

Look, if you can't tell that there;s going to be be a difference, why should we waste time explaining it to you?

Just think about the physics involved in using both methods and work out the differences yourself. It's what you need to do with everything when you're directing a film, you can't keep asking, there's a point where you have to decide I wish to use a certain tool for a particular reason.

If you can't work out the differences in your own mind you're going to be limited as a director. You need to sense the reason why you're using it in a particular scene and in a particular way.

Oh okay, well I guess I just not seeing why a gimbal will not be do-able for a good portion of the moves, but that's just me. The only thing I can see is that the gimbal may add more anxiety as far as feeling goes.

If a gimbal were interchangeable with a dolly, don't you think that the major feature films would just get rid of their dollies? Producers love saving money.

Yeah that makes sense, but who says that the moves I want to do are dolly moves? How do you decide what camera movements are dolly moves, compared to gimbal moves?

Because your approach is more I can't afford a dolly, so a gimbal will do instead. You use longer lenses on a gimbal, which you seem to be unaware of being less steady,

Oh yes, there is that, but when you say the gimbal look is okay for looking handheld, is an 85 mm that bad though, if it just means the look, will look more handheld? Is handheld looking bad for some shots? It was said before that the gimbal looks more handheld, so if it does, than is using a wider lens for smoothness that big of deal, if the gimbal has a more handheld look anyway?

A gimbal is supposed to do smooth moves, however. longer lenses are more demanding on the skills of the operator, especially in keeping a constant height over uneven ground,

Given how much dialogue, with (I assume) people sitting around, that you seem to be having in some scenes, a (proper) dolly would probably make more sense for these scenes.

Oh okay thanks. But what I mean is, is that if the longer lens, means there is a little more shake is that bad, especially since Greengrass for example, has more shake in his camera movements by comparison?

“Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it.”

Honestly Ryan you want to do it how you want to. That’s understandable but stop asking for advice you’re unable/unwilling to take. You must drive everyone including us crazy asking questions about your movie every waking moment.

I go away for a bit and the topic grows and grows.

The thing you are missing Ryan is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between deliberate gimbal moves and sloppy camerawork. These movie clips that appear to be handheld - they're planned to look that way, so the audience accept the images because they do what your brain thinks they should. In the car on a bump road, it's a Star Trek bumpy scene - the camera is not just being 'pointed', it's following the plan.
It's perfectly possible to go from a static tripod shot watching a vehicle coming closer, then cutting to the bumpy internal shot. Then even back again - the solid steady shot works, the busy internal shot works - as the context is right. Convention says that if you don't have a tripod or other camera support for the outside shot, you MUST keep steady. Even tiny movements look like the runner got given the camera and messed up.

Can you hold a camera with a long lens steady in your hand? I can't, not for very long at least. Small moves left, right up or down are very obvious on long lenses. If you stuff the camera on the gimbal it's even heavier!!

I get a bit confused when you ask about doing this or that, and then you say - isn't that the DPs job? I forget if you are talking about Ryan doing things or Ryan getting others to do them?

I've been lucky enough to use lots of weird camera supports over the years, and in every single case, the smoothest shots come from the heaviest equipment - not always the most expensive mind. If you have a mid to heavy weight dolly on a hard studio floor or on track, then all your starts and stops are lovely looking. If you put a tripod on a rolling skid, then your starts and stops can jerk unless you take care. My GoPro gimbal definitely has a 'look' but it's smoothness is at the expense of controllability. If it wasn't for the wide angle lens, I'd never have anything framed properly. with an 85mm or longer lens you're going to need more continuous panning to keep it centred, and your long lens might be outside of its capabilities.

Why not describe the scene properly and give it to the DP and ask what grip kit they think would be best?

I revamped my music studio and I have a thick carpet in now - one of my cameras on a Vinten pnuematic per seems to live in there now - and the one thing it cannot do is move on carpet. Totally the wrong product.

Oh okay thanks. But what I mean is, is that if the longer lens, means there is a little more shake is that bad, especially since Greengrass for example, has more shake in his camera movements by comparison?

It's only bad if it doesn't work in the context of the shot. The problem seems to be that you're apparently unaware of it's affect and if it's appropriate. If you were you'd know if it works or not. so wouldn't be asking.

Kubrick used a long lens on a Steadicam in a battle scene in Full Metal Jacket. It's not as steady as other methods, but I suspect the audience wouldn't be aware, but it visual taps into the hand held long lens shots used by TV news camera people in wars and here he adds the extra element of movement of moving with the action. It's steadier than a hand held shot, yet not the same as dolly or techno crane.

Oh okay. I've seen the handheld look done when the camera is following people walking or running. However, when doing moves when the characters are still the camera is often, smooth. So I am wondering, if a longer lens, more handheld look, would be appropriate for camera moves when the character are still. That's what I was worried about.

Gimbals work best with wide lenses, so why try to use a more difficult one - n' you use standard/ wide and move in closer? It would be much more stable.

Oh it was only for the close up shots, I where I want the camera to move that I would use a longer lens, to avoid barrel distortion.

For example there is a scene where two characters walk down a hallway and are talking. I could use the gimbal to move with them on a wide shot of both of them. But if I want a close up of each character as well, I would want to use a longer lens to avoid the distortion. So I would have to move with them, but maybe without a gimbal therefore, for the close ups...

Where is this barrel distortion coming from? I only get it on one of my wide angles lenses, it only starts to look odd when using a wide-wide very close in. Surely you won't be this close. Can you not just use a normal lens?

Perhaps barrel distortion is not quite the right term but people's faces look more narrow on a wide lens and I just do not like the narrowness. I've tried both 85mm and 50mm in close ups on past projects and the 85mm shapes the face perfectly, of those two, I would say.

I would regard the 85mm as a bit flat looking, especially in a moving shot like this. A 50mm looks better.

This is probably more a music video shot than a drama shot, since the background is usually a part of circular moves, rather than just a CU. It's something that works more often with a singer than a character in a story,

In the end, it all depends on the context of the shot within a scene.

Oh okay, there is a specific reason for the shot I wanted to rotate around the actor, it's because he is being surrounded by police officers, and as the camera turns around him to emphasize his world closing in, and anxiety. That was my intention for that shot least. But I thought for a close up that does that, it would look better on an 85 mm I thought, for the shaping of the face. Maybe a 50 could work, but that's still not wide though for a gimbal.

It's quite an introverted shot, so I would be careful about using it.

Actors are usually good at anxiety, so you don't need any camera moves, all you need is to see their eyes in a CU. Your shot might imply that they're about to blow their brains out in that situation..

Oh okay. I know the actors can act it, I just thought I would have the camera movement as well to add to it.

You can over do camera movement, just as you can over cut.

Oh okay, but I didn't think this was over doing it though, especially since there are a lot of static shots in the planning already.

Lots of static shots makes it worse because it/s so different.

So you are saying that I can over do the movement but at the same time have too many static shots? I feel like if I move the camera during too many shots, then the movement becomes less impactful, when I want to have impact. But at the same time what would I be doing that would be over doing it?

Every camera movement needs a purpose. If it has a valid purpose it's good. Surely these are first week film school things. You seem totally unable to produce conclusions from your research. We simply don't work like this. I've never in my life had to try to rationalise very basic processes into kind of black and white. When people ask if I liked a movie, I don't think about the mechanics - I just know it was good, or bad. We're now at the level of single shots in a movie. This is just crazy. If you cannot engage your intuition, theres no hope you will move out of the talking phase of development.

So you are saying that I can over do the movement but at the same time have too many static shots? I feel like if I move the camera during too many shots, then the movement becomes less impactful, when I want to have impact. But at the same time what would I be doing that would be over doing it?

In this case it may imply more that you're wanting. As I mentioned earlier, "impact" in this situation could imply he going to blow his own brains out, rather than just being anxious about the cops

Your use of this move in the short is different because it's closer to a music video in style than a drama. Although, I'm not entirely sure that you fully understand what's being conveyed by some of your camera moves and cuts. As you say, you're going for impact rather than any deeper emotion.

A slow track in or even a slow zoom in (bearing in mind that you currently don't have a suitable lens) would be a more appropriate move.

Ryan, please study up on the difference between barrel distortion and wide angle perspective when used close to a subject.

The vast majority of modern lenses, even wide angle zooms, have very little to no noticeable distortion (barrel or pincushion), which is an optical design issue for the engineers. Wide lenses do, however, by their nature, exaggerate depth in a shot and can give unpleasant effects when used too close to human subjects or when shooting at extreme angles up or down in rectangular spaces.

Please try to use the terminology correctly.

All lenses and different fields of view have their own aesthetic uses and it's your job as a director to figure out what is appropriate for the action and emotion in each scene.

Greg - you mean the often seen huge nose syndrome! It only just clicked what Ryan was banging on about!

This was discussed in another thread, but seemingly it hasn't gotten through.

In this case it may imply more that you're wanting. As I mentioned earlier, "impact" in this situation could imply he going to blow his own brains out, rather than just being anxious about the cops

Your use of this move in the short is different because it's closer to a music video in style than a drama. Although, I'm not entirely sure that you fully understand what's being conveyed by some of your camera moves and cuts. As you say, you're going for impact rather than any deeper emotion.

A slow track in or even a slow zoom in (bearing in mind that you currently don't have a suitable lens) would be a more appropriate move.

Oh okay, but I feel that the zoom or dolly in, will not have quite the same emotional impact as the circling around in this case. I don't think there is a rule that this kind of camera movement belong in music videos only, I've seen movement just as elaborate than this done in movies, so I think it's okay. When I said impact, I meant emotional impact. I didn't mean to imply I wasn't going for emotion.

Greg - you mean the often seen huge nose syndrome! It only just clicked what Ryan was banging on about!

What just clicked? Did I miss something?

Ryan, please study up on the difference between barrel distortion and wide angle perspective when used close to a subject.

The vast majority of modern lenses, even wide angle zooms, have very little to no noticeable distortion (barrel or pincushion), which is an optical design issue for the engineers. Wide lenses do, however, by their nature, exaggerate depth in a shot and can give unpleasant effects when used too close to human subjects or when shooting at extreme angles up or down in rectangular spaces.

Please try to use the terminology correctly.

All lenses and different fields of view have their own aesthetic uses and it's your job as a director to figure out what is appropriate for the action and emotion in each scene.

Sorry if I used the wrong terminology but a wide lens and an 85mm lens shape the face differently in a close up though. You can't just throw a wide lens on and say the face will look exactly the same, unless there are some special wide lenses that shape the face, just like an 85? I couldn't find the right terminology for this though so far. I'll keep looking. When I look this up on websites, a lot of sites talk about how focal lengths shape the face differently, but no one ever uses an actual word terminology for it on the sites I have looked on. I will keep looking.

On this site for example, they call it 'facial distortion', not sure if that's right, but if you look at the focal length examples of the person's face:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4164807

I would say that 70mm-100mm is where the face looks the best. So I would want to keep the focal length somewhere in there, assuming we are talking about a full frame camera. So since 85mm is a more popular focal length, I was thinking of using that one. I don't know the terminology for that, but that is what I mean. Sorry for using the wrong terminology. So for wide master shots, I can use a a 24 mm and it should look fine. It's just the CUs of faces that I do not like the look of on a wide lens.

When I read his posts all I see is:

blahblabah...telephoto... blahblabah... wide angle... barrel distortion... blahblabah... compression... (repeat)

You've also missed up the added horribleness that close in, wide angle AND MOVEMENT makes.

We're taking about compression or expansion - and usually we accept these two processes as distortion. Wide angles expand perspective and telephotos compress it. If the head turns, or the camera rotates around it, the poking out or going in bits change size - so the nose suddenly leaps out and then recedes as the ears enlarge.

We think you do know this, but keep calling it barrel distortion by mistake.


I've been thinking about all this emotional stuff - Maybe this is the part I lack? I'm not an emotional person and when selecting positions, angles, heights and movement all I think about is composition and shot purpose. I don't think I have ever designed a shot by thinking about emotion generation ever. The story generates the emotional content, and any movie that is emotional in intent is one to avoid like the plague for me. I like telling stories and I like images or image sequences to be smooth when required, or 'live' when some kind of excitement/realism is needed.

I can visualise this person looking out, and the camera rotating around them, and in my head the vertical height stays exactly the same, the horizon stays horizontal, and the rotational speed stays constant. The background will probably be sharp, and probably any edits in this sequence would also have identical movement parameters, but narrower angle with blurred background, which would cut together well. The purpose could be the subject seeing things important to the plot, or NOT seeing things he should, or maybe showing him thinking. emotion for me would not be there at all as a drive for the shot, as I don't understand the use of 'emotion' as a shot driver.