my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Zooming in movies - useless and annoying or not? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Zooming in movies - useless and annoying or not? Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 02-07-2004 06:34 PM                     After watching Miracle I think I have just about had it with this "style" of photography. I have already made my comments on this thread, but after seeing I am not the only one who detests unnecessary zooming, I felt the discussion needed it's own thread. Please read the comments at the link above, then reply on THIS thread.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-07-2004 06:36 PM                        What link above? Oh wait! You edited! I will read and then comment.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 02-07-2004 06:39 PM                     Taking your time, eh?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-07-2004 06:40 PM                        Now I will reply: Zooming sucks. So does the "I can't hold the camera still" type of "cinematography". NYPD Blue or whatever it's called drives me nuts with its amateur camera work. Anyone who does any camera work on NYPD Blue sucks ass and should be skinned, set on fire, and then sprayed with acid. It's that simple. I see it in a lot of commercials too.  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-07-2004 06:40 PM                     ZOOM...ZOOM...ZOOM,ZOOM,ZOOMMMMMMM If you over use special effects, they are no longer special.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-07-2004 06:42 PM                     I agree with your point. It is the main reason why I never watched "NYPD Blue" very much at all. It is cinematography from the school of Shakes: The Cameraman. I wish I was there on the set of one of those shows when the camera operator started shifting his handheld shots all over the place. I'd smack him on the back of his head and bark, "cut it out already! Get a damned tripod!"  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-07-2004 06:43 PM                        quote: If you over use special effects, they are no longer special. YES THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!111!!!!!! Zooming is not a special effect. A special effect is something that is rendered on a computer. Look at how awesome Van Helsing looks! It will be the best movie ever made because of all the CGI. Hopefully it'll have zooming as well!!  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 02-07-2004 07:35 PM                    I can't stand not only zooming but also when the camera operator feels compelled to move around left.. right.... up... zoom in... left... quick zoom out... I see this a lot in interviews that I guess are supposed to be somewhat trendy looking or something. Instead it looks like the guy has one leg shorter than the other, and he can't get an angle he likes on the person talking. "Hey buddy... HOLD THE F*CKING CAMERA STILL ALREADY!!"  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 02-07-2004 08:38 PM                     Anyone who has taken a basic cinematography 101 class knows that ZOOMING IS AGAINST THE LAW. So many times when watching Miracle, I wondered how much more awsome the movie could have been if they moved the camera across the ice following the puck, as opposed to cameras around the perimiter, zooming on the action. Stylisticly, I'm allright with one or two zooms, as long as they support the story. But they have to be used with care & moderation.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 02-07-2004 09:03 PM                     Haven't seen Miracle yet, but that NYPD Blue style of zoom does get a little annoying. However, anyone ever notice in AOTC how Lucas slowly does some zooming on certain characters in certain shots? I never noticed the first couple times I saw it, but it became evident. I didn't find it annoying, but rather asked why he was doing it. AJG  |  IP: Logged Ron Lacheur Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 650 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-07-2004 09:09 PM                     Mark Said: quote: I can't stand not only zooming but also when the camera operator feels compelled to move around left.. right.... up... zoom in... left... quick zoom out... I noticed this happening in quite a few films. Cheaper By The Dozen, Freddy Got Fingered, Unfaithful and Legally Blonde 2 all have this " style " of cinematography. Notice the first 3 are from Fox. Few of these films were shot by experienced DP's ( Mark Irwin & Peter Biziou ). Can a studio dictate how a film looks?  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 02-07-2004 09:13 PM                        I think I know why there were all those slow zooms in Attack of the Clones. I saw a Digital Cinema presentation last year at the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas. They were showing a trailer for Attack of the Clones and the first few minutes of Ice Age. I must have watched the loop about four times. Whenever there was a static shot that stayed on the screen for very long, your eyes immediately started to notice the pixels. There were some shots like that in Ice Age where some little character was moving around in front of a huge, static background and, bang! There were those pixels. However, in the Attack of the Clones footage there was always movement all over the screen, even if that movement was due to a slow, deliberate zoom. And, presto! The pixels were virtually invisble.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-07-2004 09:27 PM                        Zooming is especially annoying in "period" films, since high quality zoom lenses are a fairly recent development. A film set in, say, the 1930s really shouldn't use zooms at all. As for the "gratuitous handheld shot," I really don't see how this is any worse than the "gratuitous steadicam shot" that was popular in the early to mid 1990s. They're both annoying, but handheld camerawork is OK for sports and action. It also works for getting the "claustrophobic" (sp?) effect; check out the opening scene in "Bonnie and Clyde" for an example of an effective handheld shot (which would never have been shot that way in a film made today). As for effective use of zooms, check out the one in Vertigo and a similar zoom/dolly shot in a semi-obscure French film called "La Haine" (which is great). There's also one in The Graduate that works nicely. Probably others, too, that I just can't think of right now. Was anyone else annoyed that the fake 16mm game films that the coach in Miracle was watching included zooms and were even edited as if shot from multiple cameras? Completely ridiculous. At least he had a Kodak Presstape splicer in his desk. Edit: what's the earliest film to feature a zoom shot? I can think of "It" (1927), but I can't believe that it was the first one.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-07-2004 09:34 PM                     The original Judgement at Nurenburg had a lot of zooming in on faces  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-07-2004 10:25 PM                     quote: Zooming is especially annoying in "period" films, since high quality zoom lenses are a fairly recent development. A film set in, say, the 1930s really shouldn't use zooms at all. So a film set in the 18th century shouldn't use cameras at all? (and shouldn't this be in Yak?)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.