Remember how NYPD blue was innovative? at DVinfo.net

Brent Marks · March 10th, 2005, 05:53 AM

In the camera style that was a lil shaky and random??

Is there a plugin/effect in Vegas to do this to my footage????

thanks!

Don Bloom · March 10th, 2005, 07:32 AM

No plugin that I know of. Remember that the camera work while shaky, each movement was extremely well thought out and planned. Also if you watch the camera and then move your eyes as if you were walking down the street and moving your eyes normally so as to be aware of your surroundings and to see whats around you, THERE'S the NYPD Blue camera movement. They tried to make it appear as if the camera was someones eye movement. I ALWAYS move my eyes like that while walking (perhaps it was from time in the Army hundreds of years ago when I was in a far away place) but I still do it and it made perfect sense to me, I guess thats why the camera work never bothered me as it does some people.
Anyway, shot it like that cause there ain't no plugin ;-)

Don

Rob Lohman · March 12th, 2005, 07:47 AM

This might help you:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=40599

I assume the amount of shaking can be set up etc.

Richard Alvarez · March 12th, 2005, 08:33 AM

By the way. The shaky style was first broght forth in commercials, notably the Maxwell House commercials. (Maybe it was Folgers)

John McManimie · March 13th, 2005, 04:41 PM

Didn't the style actually originate with Cinema Verite and the early hand held cameras (their techniques later used by filmmakers who wanted the same feel of realism)?

John Hudson · March 14th, 2005, 12:25 AM

Yes it did. I agree.

Richard Alvarez · March 14th, 2005, 08:13 AM

Well, the question becomes, when does a shaky image, naturally induced by hand held work, become an aesthetic choice. News reel footage, and "Cinema Verite" shot with newsreel cameras - has always had a shaky feel to it. So has 'home video'. These aesthetics are a result of low budgets, run and gun type of shooting environments. News Footage, Cinema Verite, Documentary, Home Movies

The question is, when faced with a completely controllable environment, and the budget to support any aesthetic... why choose to make it look like it was shot as a 'one off' shaky take? And , in fact, deliberately induce that aesthetic?

Andre Andreev · March 14th, 2005, 03:18 PM

To answer Richard: Because, when used masterfully, it creates an almost visceral experience of being there, as a (hidden) witness.

If you haven't seen the show "The Shield", go rent a dvd from any season. It is an excellent and very inspiring example of masterfully planned and executed "shakycam" which however reveals exactly what's needed (vs random nauseating camera movement aiming to make footage "interesting").

Cheers
-- Andre

Richard Alvarez · March 14th, 2005, 05:02 PM

What it recreates, is the images we see in raw newsfootage, which we have come to understand was aquired in a context of reality. (Going back to early newsreels and raw war footage shot with eyemo's)

The frame as a context of film syntax, grew out of the frame as a context of theatrical staging conventions. At first, it didn't move. Then it did. Then it moved a lot, but only in the service of 'newsreel' style footage.

Once we began to accept that only raw news footage was 'real' than the doorway was open to make fiction look 'real' by imitating the framing of news footage.

We accepted it as showing us 'raw unedited life' (which it seldom was) Verite picked up on this shift in our conciousness by ustilizing cameras designed for news gathering for feature filmmaking. The same paradigm has been recreated by the 'shakycam' footage.

The only reason to accept is as 'being voyueristic' or 'being there' is because that's what news footage, and home video looks like. Nothing wrong with it, it's just utilizing the accepted norms of the syntax.

Wayne Orr · March 14th, 2005, 07:19 PM

I have to agree with Dan Bloom. In the recent tribute to NYPD Blue, the show's original director said very much the same thing; that he wanted the viewer to feel he was there by imitating random eye movements the same as you might if you were actually viewing the scene. I believe this is different from most cinema verite, which attempts to get "in the moment" but without the random camera moves that were so original in NYPD Blue, to the distraction of many early viewers. Remember that sometimes these random movements don't work so well, but since they use more than a single camera, they do have coverage. But the chutzpah it took to shoot the original show in this style is just amzing to me. You've got to have some really big balls. And a great producer behind you.

Wayne Orr, SOC

March 10th, 2005, 05:53 AM	#1
Brent Marks Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Houston TX and New Orleans LA Posts: 300	Remember how NYPD blue was innovative? In the camera style that was a lil shaky and random?? Is there a plugin/effect in Vegas to do this to my footage???? thanks!

March 12th, 2005, 07:47 AM	#3
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	This might help you: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=40599 I assume the amount of shaking can be set up etc. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 14th, 2005, 03:18 PM	#8
Andre Andreev Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 98	The Shield To answer Richard: Because, when used masterfully, it creates an almost visceral experience of being there, as a (hidden) witness. If you haven't seen the show "The Shield", go rent a dvd from any season. It is an excellent and very inspiring example of masterfully planned and executed "shakycam" which however reveals exactly what's needed (vs random nauseating camera movement aiming to make footage "interesting"). Cheers -- Andre __________________ It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult. -- Seneca

March 10th, 2005, 07:32 AM	#2
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	No plugin that I know of. Remember that the camera work while shaky, each movement was extremely well thought out and planned. Also if you watch the camera and then move your eyes as if you were walking down the street and moving your eyes normally so as to be aware of your surroundings and to see whats around you, THERE'S the NYPD Blue camera movement. They tried to make it appear as if the camera was someones eye movement. I ALWAYS move my eyes like that while walking (perhaps it was from time in the Army hundreds of years ago when I was in a far away place) but I still do it and it made perfect sense to me, I guess thats why the camera work never bothered me as it does some people. Anyway, shot it like that cause there ain't no plugin ;-) Don

March 12th, 2005, 08:33 AM	#4
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	By the way. The shaky style was first broght forth in commercials, notably the Maxwell House commercials. (Maybe it was Folgers)

March 13th, 2005, 04:41 PM	#5
John McManimie Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 314	Didn't the style actually originate with Cinema Verite and the early hand held cameras (their techniques later used by filmmakers who wanted the same feel of realism)?

March 14th, 2005, 12:25 AM	#6
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Yes it did. I agree.

March 14th, 2005, 08:13 AM	#7
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Well, the question becomes, when does a shaky image, naturally induced by hand held work, become an aesthetic choice. News reel footage, and "Cinema Verite" shot with newsreel cameras - has always had a shaky feel to it. So has 'home video'. These aesthetics are a result of low budgets, run and gun type of shooting environments. News Footage, Cinema Verite, Documentary, Home Movies The question is, when faced with a completely controllable environment, and the budget to support any aesthetic... why choose to make it look like it was shot as a 'one off' shaky take? And , in fact, deliberately induce that aesthetic?

March 14th, 2005, 05:02 PM	#9
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	What it recreates, is the images we see in raw newsfootage, which we have come to understand was aquired in a context of reality. (Going back to early newsreels and raw war footage shot with eyemo's) The frame as a context of film syntax, grew out of the frame as a context of theatrical staging conventions. At first, it didn't move. Then it did. Then it moved a lot, but only in the service of 'newsreel' style footage. Once we began to accept that only raw news footage was 'real' than the doorway was open to make fiction look 'real' by imitating the framing of news footage. We accepted it as showing us 'raw unedited life' (which it seldom was) Verite picked up on this shift in our conciousness by ustilizing cameras designed for news gathering for feature filmmaking. The same paradigm has been recreated by the 'shakycam' footage. The only reason to accept is as 'being voyueristic' or 'being there' is because that's what news footage, and home video looks like. Nothing wrong with it, it's just utilizing the accepted norms of the syntax.

March 14th, 2005, 07:19 PM	#10
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	I have to agree with Dan Bloom. In the recent tribute to NYPD Blue, the show's original director said very much the same thing; that he wanted the viewer to feel he was there by imitating random eye movements the same as you might if you were actually viewing the scene. I believe this is different from most cinema verite, which attempts to get "in the moment" but without the random camera moves that were so original in NYPD Blue, to the distraction of many early viewers. Remember that sometimes these random movements don't work so well, but since they use more than a single camera, they do have coverage. But the chutzpah it took to shoot the original show in this style is just amzing to me. You've got to have some really big balls. And a great producer behind you. Wayne Orr, SOC