Did anyone catch ‘When Louis Met……the Hamiltons. A documentary about Neil and Christine Hamilton by Louis Theroux.
It was interesting from a photography point of view. On a couple of occasions you got to see the camera operator, he seemed to be using a Sony PD100. Whilst I can understand that this camera allowed for a ‘fly on the wall’ approach I was surprised at some of the camera technique. During a lot of the close up shots, the camera was obviously in auto focus mode. On occasions it would hunt for focus or simply focus on the wrong thing!
Having used one of these cameras and not having any focus problems I wonder if it was filmed to be amateurish? To try and give it that rough home-made intermit look?
I enjoyed the program but 2 out of 10 for camera work!
Cheers
Martin
------------------
Martin Shakeshaft
Latest Project
www.vivasort.com
I saw the film too but I had assumed it was a shoulder camera, I did not spot the cameraman. I was surprised at the focus but also at the amount of lens flare and the very rough panning.
It was filmed over a longish period so even if the camera was new to the operator he/she would have caught up with it by half way, but obviously not. It may be a case of the Beeb being prepared to dumb down on the equipment and assuming the same for the op?
Sounds rude I know but I cannot think of another answer.
I use a Sony PD100 and would heve been fairly shamefaced at some of the footage.
Des
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the effects were deliberate. The company I work for, who had better remain nameless, have recently produced the first of what is intended to be an ongoing series of videos "to keep staff informed". Constant chopping of scene (the same speech recorded ing various locations then cut together each time the speaker drew breath, swaying cameras, the lot. I actually felt quite queasy during the first few minutes.
Arty, farty approach seems to be more important than content recently.
------------------
Regards
Keith
Hi,
I hate it when Pro Cameramen try to imitate amateur camcorder users; they usually make such a bad job of it.
Well, they just can't replicate the real thing and their pro-amatureish footage looks, well so amateurish, if you know what I mean.
It's true, it's impossible to imitate a cameraperson who doesn't have a clue, can you?
So why do the Pros keep trying, they always fail, they should know when their beaten and leave it to us.
Jim Bird.
Thre were at least two camera ops, three I think.
I'm pretty sure that two of the guys used shoulder mounts and that the PD was operated by the producer / Director for the more intimate stuff.
The hand-held would be a PD150, 95% certain.
quote:Originally posted by Alan Roberts at work:
The hand-held would be a PD150, 95% certain.
I would have thought that, but I am 96% sure it was a smaller camera ;) I know the BBC do use a lot of VX2000's and PD150's (I have a BBC VX2000) but the camera I saw was smaller.
Interesting.
Cheers
Martin
I would guess it has more to do with getting across the intamacy of the subject matter. I didn't see the whole program so I couldn't say whether it was intended to look "bad" or it was a conscious choice because Louis spent so much time with them.
Maybe at times he didn't have/couldn't afford a full crew? So maybe at times when they KNEW they would want a full crew (e.g. going to the solicitors)they got one and other times when it was something more casual like going to a restruant he took along just a handheld (in case anything cropped) up?
Hence some of the stuff that made it into the program was footage caught by a camera sat in the corner of the room on autofocus?
Hi,
Is there any truth in the fact that the Beeb has to pay the talent so much money, that they occasionally have to cut production costs when and where ever possible?
Jim Bird
With loads of TV these days there seems to be deliberate camera shake, to make it all look 'trendy'. Ranges from Jamie Oliver cooking to The Bill.
Makes me feel sick watching it.
Adam
but the programme was good(for once) so it doesnt matter if it was a bit shakey, the content of the subject was the important thing so if a shot is slightly out of focus or shakey then it doesnt matter.
i know some poeple will disagree but there you go...
quote:Originally posted by simonphw:
the content of the subject was the important thing so if a shot is slightly out of focus or shakey then it doesnt matter.
i know some poeple will disagree but there you go...
Yup. I'm one of those who disagree. Certainly the content of the programme should be the most important thing, but if you feel ill whilst watching, the content of something else is likely to become the main subject. This is likely to detract from the programming somewhat !!
------------------
Regards
Keith
I think that sometimes you have to make decisions when your editing and if you can see that the content of the shot would never be able to be replaced then if its a bit shaky or out of focus then you would use ,it could be someone’s reaction or a look and you don’t use it...I would in and in a documentary I defiantly would.
At the end of the day this will always be a divided camp of thought and we could all go backwards and forwards with the argument.
simonphw
Simon,
I'm with Keith on this one. The reason why the show looked so amateurish is because that is how they planned it. If the show had been incredibly slick with one badly shot, but essential piece of footage then I would agree with you.
There was a debate recently on IOV qualification standards and these shows would fail miserably. If I as a wedding videographer am supposed to control my camera properly then the BBC certainly should be.
It has become very trendy to have camera wobble and ultra fast in yer face zooms and I don't understand why. The worst offender I can think of recently was Ainsley Harriets cook show. I felt ill watching it and for a change it had nothing to do with the food.
SIFI