It makes me very dizzy and I have to look away.
That, to me, spells a failure to use the camera properly.

Think you have hit the nail on the head with your last sentence.

As they say, "never mind the quality, feel the ratings."

That's all the BBC cares about.

You're like a broken record, all you do is bash the BBC. Nothing better to do?

Me too.....I have to close my eyes or immediately turn bilious (literally). It's the same with the flashing lights, especially in the results part before the camera zooms in on the contestants.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Yes this is true, "as long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's."

You get a few of 'em like that, on DS, particularly new contributors, the accompanying "sweeping statements" in their posts just makes me smile. Sadly, some can't detect humour unless there's a naffin' smilie included.

"They've obviously got nothing better to do."

They've not got the ability to scroll down if they read an opinion on a programme with which they don't agree.

Every thread you post on you find a way to bash the BBC. It's hardly funny, either.

Oh, and OP, I just rewatched one of the dances from Saturday. Seems you can see the footwork 90% of the time, and the other times it's focused on their faces. (Don't you want to see the acting in the performance?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBJG5bjLOcM

See for yourself.

You've picked a good example

Actually I believe the camera work so far has been much better than last year where Outsize monstrous props often got in the way, or the year before that where the dancing couple completely disappeared from screen. It's mostly in the Pro dances where the swirling camera does my head in and that, I think, is down to someone having more time on their hands with those big production numbers.

Generally, I think the contestants' dances are easier to appreciate when you can see the whole of each dancer -- though choreography doesn't always allow that -- and when close-ups are kept to a minimum. But it ain't so bad.

What do you think, btw, of the technical wizardry in the Pro dances we've seen this time? The big screen and the backward flying dancer?

The pro dances I'm loving, especially because they're using technology to tell a story or to make it more technically exciting! It took a couple of hours in the office on the Monday morning to work out how they'd done the backwards flying dancer!

Ah, I wasn't sure how you'd take that. Could have gone either way:

a) technology taking away from the reality of the moment and denying the camera operator's skill and eye
or
b) … what you said…

It's kind of ghosts in the machine!

Haha! In all honesty I'm up for technology improving everything because, whilst to some extent it is down to the camera operator, a lot of the mechanical things like focusing are done via radio control now because it's easier to put data into a computer than to rely on someone's measurements.

But yes, I'm all for the big video projections, they allow for something that couldn't be done otherwise (e.g. making the dancefloor a frozen tundra, etc.)

Stop. Giving. Them. Ideas

Ola will be dancing with a polar bear next week

As licence payers we should do; we continue in the vain hope that our complaints will one day be listened to, since we are all people who pay for the BBC. I don't get cross about programmes on other channels because they are paid for by advertising or subscribers. The BBC are, allegedly, free from having to chase viewing figures- that's why it's so depressing to see them diminishing the quality of programmes in order to do so.

This is how to film a dance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7_ZLN9NLOk

No whirling dervish on acid cameraman and always show the feet. Panning and zoom should always be smooth and anticipated and never follow jerkily.

The cameraman's work should never be noticed by the viewer.

Completely agree with this, even on a show like strictly less can be more, just because they 'can' do things with cameras etc doesn't mean they have to. As pointed out we rarely get to see spins because the camera spins with the dancers and whilst it's not a pro dancing show in that sense i also agree the feet are out of shot more often than they should be.

mind you, maybe camera men/woman are generally becoming less skilled? Either that or they're sometimes poorly directed. I noticed this watching gymnastics the other evening. When vaulting, the camera often panned in slightly too much, resulting in not being able to see the entire gymnasts body during the move.

another bug-bear of mine is when they switch cameras so much you actually miss some of the dramatic effect e.g. cooling towers being blown up and as they collapse the camera continually switches from one to another. Result? You miss the overall effect of the tower dropping!

Sorry off on tangent and no i'm not saying we should return to the static camera setups from decades ago but as i say ... less can sometimes be more.

You've a simple solution, put me on "ignore."

I'd have no difficulty ignoring you if you stop quoting my posts with your uninformed opinions. You can have any opinion you like on any programme, why should I care?

I think the audience wants to be entertained but many who have long watched the show are more informed about dance than they were at the outset and want to try their hand at watching out for the things the judges look for in terms of technique. It can be difficult to do this when, for example, the couple is whirling in one direction and the camera in the other Compare and contrast with ice skating- I would not want the couple to glide around the floor following the dancers in quite the same way they do ice skaters, it would not be appropriate as the dancers do not have to use the floor in quite the same way as skaters are required to use the ice. That being said, I don't really find some of the angles useful in seeing the footwork, body movements, etc. on SCD.

Well said.

I feel that the concentration by producers/directors has moved too closely to "show" now, than it is to "dance."

Thank you for that clip- it was absolutely beautiful. But much as I appreciated the one camera angle, even I think that would be too severe for a wider audience. I have counted the number of camera changes in a dance before (tragic, I know) and there are usually around 20-25. Surely just halving that number would satisfy both the chest-beating tech-y camera bods and the folks at home?

ETA: We ought to give the current series credit where it's due though- the camera-work in the first three series was so bad I genuinely stopped watching. Hard to believe, but it's actually a bit better now.

Perhaps the director, they do all the camera switching, is more used to making pop videos where girl singers "dance" whilst they sing. The object to not show them taking more than three steps in any one segment. More steps shown in the clip would reveal that they actually can't dance.

As most believe, all this camera switching on Strictly, is unnecessary and annoying.

It's not unnecessary, but then I wouldn't expect you to understand art, so your comments are just ridiculous.

I completely agree with the BIB- I think that's the aesthetic they're going for. And if I ever got to meet the director/camera supervisor I'd make them watch Beyonce's "Single Ladies" hu-u-u-gely popular video which uses minimum camera shots- about 4 IIRC.

You can't compare the two at all. It's like comparing a silent movie to a modern film and saying "All films should be silent, because this one is and I liked it". It's silly and baseless.