#videoshots

Drone footage — a gift or a blight? 

Behind this, almost click-baiting title (fortunately I’m not asking you to click anywhere), hides the sempiternal question of content vs form.

Let me start by saying that I’m not against drones or any other vid-shooting technique that is not a static shot, like for instance, timelapses with a dslr, gimbal cam shots, etc.

But I can’t help feeling that more and more videomakers (and to a different extent, photographers) - for better or worse  - can’t do without an obvious amount of fanciness in their shots.

I recently recalled something one of my teacher said, that I consider a personal rule that I hold dear : "the role of the technician is to make the audience forget about the technique" and it makes sense, right? You want the viewer to immerse themselves into your video, effortlessly “ingesting” its message.

To achieve this goal, you can’t have the viewer notice technical elements, such as technical errors, for instance; a boom mic getting into the frame or the shadow or reflection of the operator (happened to me quite a lot in the past, actually). But in my opinion, the same applies with technically correct shots, edited in a manner that makes the intent of showing them off, obvious.

Let’s illustrate with some vid-editing math :

1:30 short vid, divided by an average of 1 shot for every 3 seconds — 5 if you’re feeling slightly contemplative (in the western-sense of the word because for instance Japanese-contemplative in video may give you 10 seconds or longer per shot)

So on average for one and a half minute (or ninety seconds) video you’ll have thirty (30) three-second shots.

Videos of that length featuring 1/4th or more of their shots made by a drone isn’t that exceptional anymore in the amateur/semi-pro world. (Some might also be drone-only, but maybe those would fall in a category of their own?)

In these amateur-semipro (and sometimes even pro) spheres it seems, it’s all about using the cool tools... and showing it.

So logically, you’ll open with a drone shot. You’ll add a few more here and there, perhaps even several in a row because it is such a cool and unusual angle, right? Then you’ll also have to finish with a drone-shot, just because.

The problem with that is that it generates a series of things that are usually pretty detrimental to the goal of making the experience seamless for the viewer.

First it breaks one fundamental rule : “a wide angle shot must be followed by at least two shots at different focal lengths” and since drone shots are all wide-angle, showing several in a row creates monotony and a sense of repetition and boredom.

Second, we could consider the impact of their unnatural angle of (bird’s eye) view. It makes it extremely hard for people to relate to the images shown. We are terrestrial creatures, we live and go on about our days with both our feet on the ground, so, flying around — in my sense — doesn’t help people connect to the content. Come back to earth, get closer, get personal.

For the third point, I’ll just go back to my initial idea and mix it with the previous one : you’ll end up making the viewer think “wow, this is a drone shot” instead of the desired “wow this content, I’m interested in it”.

Drones are perfect when used scarcely : a situation-shot, a shot conveying an emotion through top-shots alluding to danger or confusion, a first-person shot and other creative shots like intriguing travelings using the elements in the foreground and background...

But that’s about it. All in all, on a 90 shots of 3 seconds long production, I might consider using 3 in the project. Yeah, that small amount. Even though to me it’s not a small amount (as it’s 1/10th of the production). Finally, if I can avoid opening/ending on a drone shot, believe me, I will.

The drone shots I love are those shots where, as a technician, I had to ask myself : “was that a drone shot?”. If I am unsure, even for a second, it means that the common viewer will just keep watching without thinking about it, and that’s the goal of almost any audiovisual production.

As a rule of thumb, as a videomaker, I live by this advice about camera movements : “you do not make a camera movement for the sake of aestheticism, movements have functions that need to be respected” 

At one point I realised this piece of advice can be applied to anything in video, movements, but equipment too. If you steer away from the standard/classic static-shot, you have to know why you are doing it.