The weightless cameras in the computer environment.

[Don Bluth]

The opening scenes in Bambi were shot on the highly publicized Multiplane Camera. Publicists touted the fact that it took four camera operators and six months to shoot that scene. With today’s computer software, Multiplane is no big deal. In fact, the ability of the camera to move in and around the artwork has given us breathtaking cinematic results. Sometimes the camera moves, for me, seem to be overkill and distract from the emotional impact that a good story could be trying to convey. Does anyone feel that the camera upstages the actor (characters) these days? I wish the camera would hold still and let the actors do their jobs.

[Alexandra Poston]

A part of the thrill of CG is that there is a wider range of Camera abilities, more than pans and trucking is available to the virtual camera, which makes copying live-action films easy. I agree and think that too many animated films are trying to copy live action shots and distract from the main content with unnecessary movement. But, then again, it could get easy for the audience to fall asleep if there isn't enough, visually, going on on the screen. Even if Kurosawa was a master, many people today would find his films (like Dreams especially), too slow to pay all their attention to- a variation in angles and camera movements could tune them back into it.

[Draconis]

Personally, I love Camera tricks, they add alot of personality to an animation like establishing shots and shots that pan into frame using parallax. I think ultimately it may be subjective, but I personally enjoy the creative use of the camera in animation. Take a look at the anime, "Tekkon Kinkreet", it uses some wonderful camera techniques to enhance the action of the film. The use of motion blur was *very* effective with the standard 5fps style of anime.

[zanekohler]

I think it is case by case... but I have certainly have seen some crazy camera angles that had no rhyme or reason. When you mention letting the actors do their jobs could be part of the problem. If the acting or story is bad they quite possibly are disguising it through camera angles and tricks?

[Don Bluth]

I think it is case by case... but I have certainly have seen some crazy camera angles that had no rhyme or reason. When you mention letting the actors do their jobs could be part of the problem. If the acting or story is bad they quite possibly are disguising it through camera angles and tricks?

Touché... I've often covered up bad animation with an overlay.

[barleylegal]

The opening scenes in Bambi were shot on the highly publicized Multiplane Camera. Publicists touted the fact that it took four camera operators and six months to shoot that scene. With today’s computer software, Multiplane is no big deal. In fact, the ability of the camera to move in and around the artwork has given us breathtaking cinematic results. Sometimes the camera moves, for me, seem to be overkill and distract from the emotional impact that a good story could be trying to convey. Does anyone feel that the camera upstages the actor (characters) these days? I wish the camera would hold still and let the actors do their jobs.

I agree one billion percent. It's even more a problem in live action that's composited in CG, in my opinion. Any one remember glass shots?

[dmgctrl]

glass shots? i, for one, and i hope im not alone, have now idea what that is!

[barleylegal]

glass shots? i, for one, and i hope im not alone, have now idea what that is!

That's where they would get an artist to paint scenery on a pane of glass, and then shoot through it. Sort of like a live action overlay.

[jeremyhopkins]

Yes I do feel the camera work today upstages the actor at times. Sometimes it works in a quirky way like, Amelie, where I would be aware of the camera but it added to the experience. That said, at the end of the movie Jean Pierre Jeunet knew when to keep the camera still and let his actors.. well, act.
*spoilers (ending)
l4SJD-DWM1A

A bigger problem for me is constant cutting which hurts my eyes and mind.
UYT6-ATmeHw
I feel the same and wish the directors and editors would just let the action play out. This type of rapid fire cutting doesn't bother me so much if its very short and for a reason but to make a whole show around this style is a bit much.
I do like how we're adding more live action style cinematography to cg animation and from about Incredibles/Cars there was a huge improvement in feeling of camera weight, variety of shots, editing and lense choices. It's something that is very special to cg and I don't necessarily feel that traditional animation needs to lean on realistic camera work. Sometimes its nice to enjoy the diversity and enjoy that hand drawn animation is graphic. Sleeping Beauty really stands out for me as a balance between traditional storytelling and beautiful flat design.

[skellener]

I think it depends on the situation, but I do agree. There seems to be a tendency to want to keep the camera moving constantly these days. I like the question "Are you trying to tell a story or creating a ride?" ;)

If you look at something like the first Toy Story, you will be amazed at how much the camera DOESN'T move! It's fantastic! But then again, the "door chase" at the end of "Monsters Inc." would have been very boring without a moving camera.

It's always the director's call as to how to go about setting up a scene. I think too many times the camera gets moved because it can. IMHO it lessens the impact of when it really needs to move for dramatic effect. But again, that's the director's call and it's ultimately up to the viewer as to how well it worked which will always be subjective.

[GdeSouza]

I think it is very easy to be indulgent with a computer whether using gradients and effects on everything in photoshop, a million fonts on one page in desktop publishing or swinging the camera around willy-nilly in an animation program. It's easy to forget the camera is a part of the communication, not just recording it. I think the saying "just because one can doesn't mean they should" applies here. Brad Bird had something wise to say about how to treat a camera in cg as if you were doing it in live action. I think the gist of it was if one treated it as if they were shooting live action, they might rethink that gratuitous fly-through which couldn't be done as easy in live action.

Also for CG, especially mostly in student work, they forget the camera and character work together; theirs (camera & character) should be a mutually complimentary relationship. Pixar gets this. Some animation looks as if it were done independently from the camera and then camera is added. Silhouetting and eye directions are lost if they ever were considered in the first place.

As for live-action the hand-held look is getting tiresome. I think some of these Tv shows are going for a cinema verite look but they ain't fooling us into that we're watching a documentary.

"just because one can doesn't mean they should"