I could have written this!

Here speaks io9.com - an opinion I've had for a long time:

Movies that use the shaky camera technique strive for a realistic approach to better "connect" with the audience. Sure, in theory it's realistic. People move and so do our eyeballs. But our eyes are so well adapted that trying to replicate them is useless. No camera even comes close to capturing the details our eyes can.

Although I would have said "But our brains are so well adapted...." because it's the visual cortex that sorts out the eye-shake and makes everything look crisp and clear.

But what the hell, I'll let them have that one.

And they follow-up with something I've felt since paying 10 zillion pounds to see Star Trek in Imax:

If this camera feature is supposed to be so authentic and realistic, how come I always feel like I'm missing so much of the action? Action movies are great; the adrenaline, the jumps, the fights. But with a shaky cam, I feel as though the movement detracts from the pivotal action. I want to see the bad guy getting his face kicked and during car chases; I want to see the car we're supposed to be chasing; I definitely want to see the monster I've been waiting for all movie.

Here, here.

Labels: movies

posted by Blakey UK @ 11:56 pm