RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,692
Posts: 5,431,011
Members: 24,829
Currently online: 469
Newest member: 713brianp27


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 24 2014, 12:42 PM   #16
{ Emilia }
Rear Admiral
 
{ Emilia }'s Avatar
 
Location: a Venetian exclave in the Rhineland
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Like Jarod says you obviously don't want to crop it.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
Actually, a wider angle lens does not inherently have a deeper depth of field.
50mm 1.4
Subject distance 10 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 9.69 ft
Far limit 10.3 ft
Total 0.65 ft

In front of subject 0.31 ft (48%)
Behind subject 0.33 ft (52%)

Hyperfocal distance 305.4 ft
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm

compared to

10mm 1.4
Subject distance 10 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 5.51 ft
Far limit 54.4 ft
Total 48.9 ft

In front of subject 4.5 ft (9%)
Behind subject 44.4 ft (91%)

Hyperfocal distance 12.2 ft
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm


Source: A simple depth-of-field calculator.
Obviously there's other things that matter. Distance to subject being the elephant in the room when it comes to bokeh and focal length.
{ Emilia } is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 03:03 PM   #17
Mark_Nguyen
Commodore
 
Mark_Nguyen's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Remember too that Wise also locked down many of the sets, and especially the bridge set, and filmed those scenes without removing any of the side walls to accommodate camera, lights and crew. I'm sure he wanted to have the sets seem more claustrophobic that way, and tried the dim lighting to accent shadows, but it wasn't easy given the overwhelming greyness of the color palette...

Mark
__________________
Mark Nguyen - Producer
The 404s - Improv Comedy Group

Oh, I like that Trek thing too...
Mark_Nguyen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 08:13 PM   #18
Indysolo
Fleet Captain
 
Indysolo's Avatar
 
Location: Sunny California
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Mark_Nguyen wrote: View Post
Remember too that Wise also locked down many of the sets, and especially the bridge set, and filmed those scenes without removing any of the side walls to accommodate camera, lights and crew.
This.
__________________
"Garret Wang's costume was so 'West Hollywood', I offered to be best man at his wedding."
-Walter Koenig on Garret Wang's Of Gods and Men costume
Indysolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 08:31 PM   #19
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

trevanian wrote: View Post
You use black foamcore -- not white -- to bounce light off of.
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
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.
No. Blocking light is to flag it. Trevanian specifically says the light is bounced off a black surface.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 09:08 PM   #20
dub
Fleet Captain
 
dub's Avatar
 
Location: Location? What is this?
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

To the OP: That always bothered me. I vaguely remember the process was touched on in the DVD extras of the director's cut, but my memory has been known to be wonky. Regardless, it makes no sense to me to have part of the background more blurry than the rest when there is no major difference in distance between the most of the background and the camera. I know it was applied on purpose, but if I didn't know better I would think someone was trying to blur something out of the scene for legal reasons! LOL!



And it happened throughout the film, so obviously it was not a mistake. Here, the background near Uhura is closer to the screen than the viewscreen, yet the viewscreen is not nearly as blurry:



Sometimes the blur is so intense, I find myself oddly focused on what is blurry instead of what is in focus. In this case, it's a chair and some boobies (and the boobies are closer to the camera than the background on the left which is a lot less blurry. The chair is just as close as the people in the background, yet there is a drastic difference in the blurriness. Makes no sense.):



But the award for strangest use of blur is this one. Take a look at the gentleman standing in the background. The bottom half of his body is more blurry than the top part of his body. I wonder if there is some in-universe technobabble explanation for all of this?

dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 10:29 PM   #21
Indysolo
Fleet Captain
 
Indysolo's Avatar
 
Location: Sunny California
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

dub wrote: View Post

Sometimes the blur is so intense, I find myself oddly focused on what is blurry instead of what is in focus. In this case, it's a chair and some boobies (and the boobies are closer to the camera than the background on the left which is a lot less blurry. The chair is just as close as the people in the background, yet there is a drastic difference in the blurriness. Makes no sense.):

It makes perfect sense. The captains chair is the focus of the scene.

Neil
__________________
"Garret Wang's costume was so 'West Hollywood', I offered to be best man at his wedding."
-Walter Koenig on Garret Wang's Of Gods and Men costume
Indysolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 10:38 PM   #22
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Indysolo wrote: View Post
dub wrote: View Post

Sometimes the blur is so intense, I find myself oddly focused on what is blurry instead of what is in focus. In this case, it's a chair and some boobies (and the boobies are closer to the camera than the background on the left which is a lot less blurry. The chair is just as close as the people in the background, yet there is a drastic difference in the blurriness. Makes no sense.):

It makes perfect sense. The captains chair is the focus of the scene.

Neil
I see no real reason to have Shatner's back to be in focus though.

Similarly, I see no reason in the following people to have the random dude at the back of the bridge in focus:





And boobs should always be the focus of a scene.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 10:46 PM   #23
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Location: BizarroStormy
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

That explains all the additional Chekov close-ups...
__________________
Could I interest you in a soothing spoken-word 32-CD set read by Steve Railsback?
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 10:49 PM   #24
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Maurice wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
You use black foamcore -- not white -- to bounce light off of.
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
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.
No. Blocking light is to flag it. Trevanian specifically says the light is bounced off a black surface.
Which is the same thing, isn't it. When you block fill light from the surroundings with a black surface, what you instead get is fill light from that black surface.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 10:51 PM   #25
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

"Boobs"? What is this, 8th grade? Don't answer. It's self-evident.

That's in focus is what the director wants you to see. The chair. The guy's reaction in the background. Etc.

That the split diopter's use here was a bad choice: sure.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 11:18 PM   #26
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Harvey wrote: View Post
{ 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?
They should have done that from TMP in the first place. Even if the displays were just the standard green CRT graphics, that's what they should have done.
Shaka Zulu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2014, 12:07 AM   #27
dub
Fleet Captain
 
dub's Avatar
 
Location: Location? What is this?
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Indysolo wrote: View Post
dub wrote: View Post

Sometimes the blur is so intense, I find myself oddly focused on what is blurry instead of what is in focus. In this case, it's a chair and some boobies (and the boobies are closer to the camera than the background on the left which is a lot less blurry. The chair is just as close as the people in the background, yet there is a drastic difference in the blurriness. Makes no sense.):

It makes perfect sense. The captains chair is the focus of the scene.

Neil
I appreciate the intent you're seeing in the scene. But the fact that the chair in the background is way more blurry than the people next to the chair is the part that makes no sense whatsoever visually. It's very distracting. So my eyes are not going to the captain's chair. Instead, they're focused on the unnatural blurring in the scene. Hey, it's nitpicking I know! But since it was brought up and it's something that has always bothered me, I'm answering the OP.
dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2014, 01:03 AM   #28
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
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.
That's totally counter to my experience, and I think I'd probably be able to find some DoF charts in my old ASC manual to back me up. In Super 8, 6mm (I think it was a 6-72 zoom; maybe it was 7-77, but that's in the ballpark) was roughly the equivalent of a 24mm lens in 35mm, and when I shot live-action AND miniatures with it, I almost could not get anything out of focus, unless I was shooting nearly wide open.

The thing about stuff being smaller in frame only pertains to stuff further back in frame, and if the foreground is sharp and the lines of the set remain sharp (even with curvature from the lens), then you've got seriously large DoF.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2014, 01:07 AM   #29
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Harvey wrote: View Post
{ 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?
They should have done that from TMP in the first place. Even if the displays were just the standard green CRT graphics, that's what they should have done.
I don't think it was an option. Burbank Studios developed the 24fps video system, and I think it was around 1980 when it first started being used. Pretty sure it would not have been made available to a rival studio before it was in general use, and TMP shot in 1978. (the academy cited it for special commendatio in 1981, so that makes it very unlikely it would have been available in 1978.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2014, 01:10 AM   #30
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: ST: TMP blurry film

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Maurice wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
You use black foamcore -- not white -- to bounce light off of.
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
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.
No. Blocking light is to flag it. Trevanian specifically says the light is bounced off a black surface.
Which is the same thing, isn't it. When you block fill light from the surroundings with a black surface, what you instead get is fill light from that black surface.
Most cinematographers have described it as a subtractive effect. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that a colored reflector on the fill side can tinge the image ... that is kind of the principle behind Gerry Turpin's lightflex system, which Freddie Francis employed on DUNE and elsewhere, using it as a contrast control and a way to add color in the shadows. Lighflew was built on the camera, but it had a rheostat to dial a light up & down that gave that tint or tinge to things.
trevanian 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 09:55 PM.

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