Jon

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5485#msg5485 date=1337383990] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=738.msg5484#msg5484 date=1337380811] [quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5477#msg5477 date=1337366303] [quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=738.msg5476#msg5476 date=1337366002] Maybe "misunderstood" would be better.  It's hardly lazy.  [/quote] I'm just saying that, for the most part it takes way less effort to do something hand-held, as opposed to setting up an equivalent sequence of static shots, pans, and dolly shots.  But that's not to say that it can't be just as effective. [/quote] You are not understanding this. It isn't about effort, it is about choosing the style for the scene. [/quote] You mean making art involves choosing styles? No way?! I got it. I was informally digging on handheld shots because another poster called it the lowest-budget method of all. The truth is, a lot of people use hand held shots because it's a hell of a lot easier (in most cases), and not because it's the best style for the scene.  [/quote] Whether you shoot handheld or on a tripod/dolly does not make something harder/easier. It is all about the right style for the story. Handheld when done properly takes incredible skill, just watch some of Barry Ackroyd's work. Lazyness is bad visual storytelling, it has nothing to do with handheld. I think you very much underestimate the difficulty and skill required to create great visual storytelling whatever the style.

.

I think Andrew got embarrassed and deleted it. Wasn't a great look really was it... Certainly was an interesting and lively debate though, shame it's gone. Some of the comments made were so conspiracy-geek-world-view it was funny!