RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,573
Posts: 5,514,520
Members: 25,151
Currently online: 474
Newest member: slarlac249

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 23 2014, 08:01 PM   #1
JJohnson
Captain
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
ST: TMP blurry film

When Spock enters the bridge, and it cuts to Admiral Kirk, the entire left side of the frame is completely blurred, save Kirk. Is there any explanation for that? Was it to cover something up, or intentional?
JJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 08:16 PM   #2
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

It's a split-diopter shot, an effect Wise used repeatedly in the film to approximate deep focus (it also shows up in other films he directed, including The Andromeda Strain). Basically, it allows the two halves of the frame to have different planes of focus.

Frankly, I find it distracting and far overused in TMP, but others may disagree. The blurry background behind Kirk eradicates any illusion of deep focus (which means that everything in the frame is in focus, an effect most famously used by cinematographer Gregg Toland in Citizen Kane and The Best Years of Our Lives).
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 08:43 PM   #3
{ Emma Snow }
Where you lead...
 
{ Emma Snow }'s Avatar
 
Location: ... I will follow.
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

What did they do in later movies then to avoid a too shallow depth-of-field?
Light it more to get a high f-stop? Use more wide-angle lenses?
Different film stock with higher ASA?
__________________
"If it was physically possible to make love to a hot beverage, this would be the one."

It's { Emilia }.
{ Emma Snow } is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 08:50 PM   #4
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

I thought the reason for the tight focus in the bridge scenes had something to do with the dim lighting that was required so the film-reel "monitor" images would be visible. I'm not sure how lighting and focus are related, but that's what I seem to remember reading.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 08:53 PM   #5
{ Emma Snow }
Where you lead...
 
{ Emma Snow }'s Avatar
 
Location: ... I will follow.
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Christopher wrote: View Post
I'm not sure how lighting and focus are related, but that's what I seem to remember reading.
Less light means you need a wider lens aperture which means you have a shallow depth of field. Generally that's fine because the shallow depth of field look is what makes movies look cinematic. They even use filters to take away light so they can use large apertures to achieve that look.
But in a dim place you obviously run into issues when you need lots of depth of field. That's often avoided by using wide angles lenses because depth of field is also related to focal length. Or you know... adding more light or a more light sensitive film.

Anyway, you probably didn't wanna know all this. I'm just glad I learned something about photography while modeling.
__________________
"If it was physically possible to make love to a hot beverage, this would be the one."

It's { Emilia }.
{ Emma Snow } is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 09:24 PM   #6
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

{ Emilia } wrote: View Post
What did they do in later movies then to avoid a too shallow depth-of-field?
Light it more to get a high f-stop? Use more wide-angle lenses?
Different film stock with higher ASA?
That would be a question for somebody with more technical knowledge than I have.

I do know that the production switched from projected film loops (in TMP) to CRT displays (beginning in TWOK). Would that have played into the sequels?
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 10:25 PM   #7
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

The later films use really different lenses, and the bridge looks much smaller in many shots as a result.

I'd have to look up the tech specs of each film to really comment on the why of each look, but as { Emilia } correctly says, the DOF is related to the lens, aperture, shutter speed, ISO (film speed) and light levels. For instance, the DOF is frequently the giveaway on miniature shots, so when filming models you tend to really pump the light levels waaaaaay up to compensate. There's even a formula for it.
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 05:03 AM   #8
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

The whole thing that makes the diopter approach work is having the delineation on a line in the set and having hard light ... the relatively mushy look of TMP's softlight doesn't make it work nearly as well as say, Wise's HINDENBERG, where you can see it used inside the superstructure in scenes with Atherton and Scott. Also not overusing it helps, but that is something TMP is seriously guilty of.

The low-lighting is partly stylistic, partly driven by the projectors not putting out enough light (the monitors in the sequels did a much better job, obviously.) The idea of using soft sidelight in what the DP called a contrasty way is basically a ticket to making sure faces look bad (I always go to the way Kirk looks when McCoy is telling him to back off, pre-wormhole), but if we start talking TMP aesthetics we'll be here till the 23rd century, and beyond.

I'm pretty sure TWOK was shot using (at the time) highspeed AGFA stock. I think the rest were all Kodak. Using more light on the sets, especially focused lights, creates pleasant-to-the-eye dramatic contrast (think of McCoy silhouetted on the bridge after everything shorts out in SFS.)

The detail I remember from AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER about TMP was that most of the bridge scenes were shot at 20 foot-candles, which is just crazy small amount of light, downright insane given they shot anamorphic (which exacerbates the issue.)

If you used this approach today and shot digital, there would probably be no issue at all, as Alexa can see in the dark. Unfortunately that is why movies are starting to look like home videos, because less light is being applied artistically (to tell the truth, the best way to deal with Alexa is, I think, to use negative fill, reflecting black into the shadow areas to increase contrast, and yeah, I'm getting way too technical now, sorry.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 05:58 AM   #9
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

How does one "reflect black"?
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 07:44 AM   #10
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

It is a weird concept, one I first heard used for lighting the ship miniatures in ALIEN REZ. You use black foamcore -- not white -- to bounce light off of. When you do it real-world, you're essentially subtracting on the fill side, creating more contrast from what is naturally falling on the key and fill sides. It is used a lot when TV shows are working on location interiors and shooting digital, since otherwise you're just seeing too much detail on all sides. You're basically capturing the location as-is a lot of the time without doing conventional movie lighting at all, but sculpting or molding it slightly ... the difference is that instead of molding it by adding a rim light or some punch to the eyes, you're taking away.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 08:18 AM   #11
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

So you're not reflecting black, you are blocking fill light.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 08:59 AM   #12
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

The "taking away" part doesn't make sense since as described you're still reflecting light, you're just doing it off a surface with a much lower albedo. One can't project dark any more than you can generate cold, since both are actually subtractive processes (block light and dissipate heat).
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill

Last edited by MauriceNavidad; February 24 2014 at 08:28 PM.
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 11:49 AM   #13
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Maurice wrote: View Post
The "taking away" party doesn't make sense since as described you're still reflecting light, you're just doing it off a surface with a much lower albedo. The can't project dark any more than you can generate cold, since both are actually subtractive processes (block light and dissipate heat).
I understood it this way: let's say there's a white wall bouncing off light you don't want. So you put a black board between the actor and the wall, so he doesn't receive any of the bouncing light. So you are "taking away", even though it's not a physically correct term.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 12:17 PM   #14
Tiberius
Commodore
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Actually, a wider angle lens does not inherently have a deeper depth of field.

If I take a photo with a 50mm lens at f1.4 and then take a photo of the same subject with the same aperture but a focal length of 10mm, I can then crop both pictures to have the same framing, and the amount of blurring in each will be the same.

The reason the wider angle lens appears to have a deeper depth of field is because any blurring is proportionately smaller in the frame and thus harder to notice. It's the same reason that an out of focus picture still looks sharp on the back of your camera. Make it smaller and it looks sharper.

SOURCE: A decade of experience as a photographer.
Tiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 12:25 PM   #15
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Tiberius wrote: View Post
Actually, a wider angle lens does not inherently have a deeper depth of field.

If I take a photo with a 50mm lens at f1.4 and then take a photo of the same subject with the same aperture but a focal length of 10mm, I can then crop both pictures to have the same framing, and the amount of blurring in each will be the same.

The reason the wider angle lens appears to have a deeper depth of field is because any blurring is proportionately smaller in the frame and thus harder to notice. It's the same reason that an out of focus picture still looks sharp on the back of your camera. Make it smaller and it looks sharper.

SOURCE: A decade of experience as a photographer.
If you crop it, yes, but not if you move the camera closer to the subject, isn't it?
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.