Crazy Camera Syndrome !!

I think a universal law should be passed whereby anyone who buys a camcorder, or any video taking device (including iphones and such), should be made to undertake a 1 day course in producing reasonably watchable videos.

I am sick to death at watching shaky videos, with mad panning side to side, and crazy in and out zooming. I get nauseas very easily and after only about 10 seconds of this type of disorientating action, I need to puke. It’s like trying to watch a bloody Lars Von Trier film !

Please, if you want to show a vid that you’ve made, learn how to use the camera before-hand. Here’s what I mean, a current UFO top story on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace Out

reply to post by nimbinned

If I may make an observation in defense of all those who make really crappy videos...(There's a reason I've never shown vids from my time in St Louis Occupy.. lol).. In my own case, it was a legitimate toss up in the action of the moment, for what was most important to get film of one moment to the next...... Later, it becomes obvious that not just sticking with a single thing destroys the whole vid, but I'll say it didn't seem that way at the time. Umm.. I even managed to do it more than once.

Adrenaline is also a real thing I'd add for defense on that, since this is kind of a general rant? I got video for Occupy of quite a running fight with multiple people and over nearly 10 minutes time moving across one whole side of the camp and back and forth. Liability footage was the intent....but the shake from the adrenaline of the energy on the spot made it look like it was filmed by a 10 year old overdosing on speed.

I vote those gizmo makers build in much better anti-vibration and stabilization systems.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Point taken about the adrenaline pumping thing. I guess this is a valid excuse if you are desperately wanting to catch something worthwhile. Problem is though that the end product is almost unwatchable, unless you love viewing super slo-mo

* Ned

reply to post by nimbinned

lol... So true... and there certainly is a lot to be said for the creator using discretion about posting real shaky home movie stuff when, as you note, it might look passable to them but gives everyone else motion sickness.. lol. I kept my vids from then but wouldn't go advertising my ..ahem.. cinematography skills.

Not everybody carries a tripod everywhere they go.

It's not easy to film dots in the sky.

reply to post by violet
I'm being general with what I said....but ...and I'm not being snarky in saying this, because as noted, I sure wasn't making vids worth a damn when it really mattered, but there is always something a camera can be braced on or against. Even if it's just the ground.

I say I'm not being snarky, because it took a photography course in college last spring to learn that and actually start doing it myself... As they'd point out in class, when it's a multi-thousand dollar deal for a photoshoot, well.... oops doesn't work, and that's how I learned to fix the problem. Just late for what I so wish I'd had the skill to properly record at the time.

yes,i agree! a lot of these videos give me vertigo as well!
and yes i also agree about the scenario where you just 'all of a sudden' capture something strange!
BUT,if your going out on purpose to film something,invest in a damn tripod!!!
the example video you posted (i watched it when it was first posted - nothing too special!)
is a perfect example. the guy said on the video he intentionally went out to film the crop circle,and caught the ufo as a bonus. if he went there to film on purpose,why would he not use a tripod???
they are cheap! god,you could find a stick and use it as a unipod!!!
i guess these people all think they are cinematographers,and can't wait to get home to bore their friends to death with their horrible home movies!!!
seriously people,if your on a mission to go film ufos,get a half decent camera/camcorder, and a TRIPOD!
they are about $20 for a cheap one!

reply to post by reficul


Poor stance and the way most people hold a camera accounts for most of the shakiness. Its amlost like shoothing a gun if your dont hold it right and use a correct stance you will be all over the target. Most people hold the camera way out in front, the closer to the body the more stable the camera will be. Its almost the way the Army teaches how to hold a M4... Heres a image to show what I mean


Your right a tripod does wonders. The lightwieght cheap tripods arent very stable (I broke a DSLR when a gust of wind blew over a lightweight tripod) they also still allow some shaking(not as much as holding it) but they are fine as long as you are using a wide angle lens or if your not zooming in to much. even the cheapest tripod is better then holding it.

reply to post by ussoldier


so true!!!
i remember i had a 35 mm nikon,with a 50 mm 'add on' lens and you needed 3 men and a boy to hold that puppy up! but the photos were amazing! that was back in the day when ya had to bring your film into th pharmacy to get developed!!!
why do those photos look better than the digital 'instant' photos?!!!

Originally posted by reficul
reply to post by ussoldier

 

so true!!!
i remember i had a 35 mm nikon,with a 50 mm 'add on' lens and you needed 3 men and a boy to hold that puppy up! but the photos were amazing! that was back in the day when ya had to bring your film into th pharmacy to get developed!!!
why do those photos look better than the digital 'instant' photos?!!!

I barely remember the film cameras(wow, total brain fart, I forgot how to spell "camera", had to google it:lol I used used go to with my mom to RiteAid to drop of film and I used a disposible camera a few while fishing so I wouldnt ruin my DSLR..

I have a couple of telephoto lenses that wiegh like 5 pounds, im in pretty good shape and it tires me try to hold it still while shooting so I use a lens monopod for those heavy lenses.

Your are absolutely right about film taking nicer photos then digital. I thinks its because digital uses light sensitive cells(CMOS) that turns the light into elctric signals then into binary code then processed into the image pixels(megapix) and some information is lost in that process(miniscule amount)

Film is exposed to natural light so it captures evey tone of color digital can only capture 8-12 bit of tone. Film aslo has alot higher dynamic range and depth of color that it can capture. when film uses a chemical process that distributes the "dye clouds" in the 3+ layers as digital is one layer. theres some other things like ISO noise and what not.

But there is alot of stuff digital can do that film cant, most important able to see the image instantly and able to use editing software.

Im not a expert so all that might not be 100% correct and since I never took a class, im self taught.

reply to post by nimbinned


I certainly know what you mean, it is frustrating that videos aren't clearer.
You'r right that people should avoid zooming in and out and moving wildly from side to side.

The steadiness issue is harder to address though as it is really hard to hold a video camera steady by hand especially when your at full zoom and every movement is magnified, pro camera operators use huge weighted steadicam rigs like this

As a rule If you have something solid to lean your elbows on then you should use it, the video in question might have been steadier if the camera person had lay down with his elbows resting on the ground and shot upwards but it's not something you might think of in a situation where you aren't expecting it.

Also.. Whats wrong with Lars Von Trier films? Antichrist was excellent

As a rule If you have something solid to lean your elbows on then you should use it

reply to post by davespanners


Your absolutly right, cant believe I left that out. im guessing you have experience in photography or shooing guns, cause the same rules apply, well except for pointing it at someone. At high zoom even your heart beat is enough to throw the frame off center.

I took this photo using 35xzoom( 840mm telephoto lens equivalent) using no tripod only by resting my elbows on my grill, even though i was using a long exposure it still came out pretty good. It was a big differance then when I tried without using the grill.

Note: I also dont use the Image Stabilization, when its on I get some noise in the photo sorta like when you use a high ISO setting....I scaled down the photo to fit this forum

reply to post by ussoldier


thanx for the reply.
damn,i'm no expert either! i'm lucky if i can get a picture in focus!
ya but that 50 mm lense weighd a ton!!!

reply to post by davespanners


Wasn't he one of the first directors to use the shaky camera technique ?

He is pretty good though. I think my most fave film of his would have to be 'melancholia' - so beautiful and sublime, not to mention Kirsten Dunst - OH MY !

* Ned