When it comes to making a short film, feature, web series, or a music video, typical viewers have a simple bottom line: they want it to look good.

Now, the definition of high-quality video (certain standards aside like the video being in HD and the images not being over/under-exposed, etc.) is a fairly flexible thing. The vast array of stylistic approaches that are possible in terms of shot composition, lighting, and editing is great (though there are a few standards for those too). 

But one aspect I find interesting is the movement of the camera. Very few people take notice of the quality of how the camera moves to create a smooth shot in a big-budget movie. Transformers, Law Abiding Citizen, Lord of the Rings, whatever you want to think of. These movies have incredibly large budgets for their production and the public at large knows this. Therefore, the public assumes a high-quality entertainment experience (at least visually). In movies that don’t have smooth camera movements, it can immediately put people off and negate the story, no matter how good it is; i.e. Cloverfield (at least for me)

When it comes to an indie production though, people who aren’t film majors or extreme hobbyists and the like, just regular people, they’re impressed when a small budget movie/show/series has such imagery. It is because they did not expect it. It is because people have an unspoken assumption in their brain that money = high quality. 

I regard this principal as an unconscious standard. It applies to many other things too in the cinema world, but I find it’s most prevalent in the movement of the camera.