Jerky Camera work makes movie goers sick - Cloverfield

[kevinmeyer]

Hopefully directors will take this to heart and stop this jerky camera work stuff...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20080124233048589C203022

[VideJo]

Another example of pro's demonising homevideo-ers.
Also note, that on tv they tend to put a blinking red dot in the image of footage, that is not shot by a bradcast cam. Nomatter how good the footage is. I hate it.

[tehellet]

Quite honestly, I really loved this movie. Apart from a few dramatic clichés, it was excellent. I have never been so thrilled and excited by watching a film in a theatre.

[Sean Richwine]

Quite honestly, I really loved this movie. Apart from a few dramatic clichés, it was excellent. I have never been so thrilled and excited by watching a film in a theatre.
Ditto.

Honestly, the whole "make you vomit" cinematography (if we want to call it that) is what made the movie work. If someone can't stomach it, they probably should have paid more attention to the trailer.

I can't imagine this movie without the visual cacophony. If it made someone sick, sorry. But it was different and I happened to like it. :hv20-smilie15:

[tehellet]

Ditto.

Honestly, the whole "make you vomit" cinematography (if we want to call it that) is what made the movie work. If someone can't stomach it, they probably should have paid more attention to the trailer.

I can't imagine this movie without the visual cacophony. If it made someone sick, sorry. But it was different and I happened to like it. :hv20-smilie15:

Yes. Maybe it's because I'm less vulnerable to motion sickness, or because I got really good center seats at a reasonable distance... but I enjoyed it thoroughly with no sickness.

I also really like films like The Idiots and Festen (in the dogma 95 vein) which are inherently handheld, so maybe it's just because I'm not prejudiced against that sort of cinematography.

[blueback]

I don't think the motion sickness was caused by the shaking camera. I've ridden out huge turbulence in airliners, flowin in acrobatic airplanes, read novels in moving cars, etc and never had a problem with motion sickness. Oh, and I've watched a lot of footage with shakes in it without it ever bothering me.

That being said, I was sick the whole way through Cloverfield. I have two theories. The first is that the 30 degree tilt of the camera caused it. I don't know why they held the camera at that same angle for the entire freaking movie, but it definitely bothered me more then the shakes. The second theory is that I was sitting too close to the screen and it took up enough of my field of view to confuse my eyes. If I had sat back further, and the screen was proportionally smaller, it wouldn't have bothered me.

I want to watch it when it comes out on DVD to see if I can prove one of those theories correct.

[zlagger50]

The first is that the 30 degree tilt of the camera caused it. I don't know why they held the camera at that same angle for the entire freaking movie, but it definitely bothered me more then the shakes.

blueback, thats an interesting theory. I didn't really think too much about the shooting angle when I watched it. Now I am going to have to rewatch it to catch it.

[cinemasteve87]

Bunch of crybabies haha! I had no problem watching the movie in theaters. But I guess that just depends on the person.

[musicjules]

for thos interested in how clover field has been made :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x43du5_cloverfield-the-making-of-part-1_shortfilms
http://www.dailymotion.com/related/6876365/video/x43duv_cloverfield-the-making-of-part-2_shortfilms

enjoy !

[w.pasman]

The second theory is that I was sitting too close to the screen and it took up enough of my field of view to confuse my eyes.

The angle of coverage is a known and important contribution to motion sickness.