Petty excuses to bash this film?
I loved the film, but it doesn't mean I loved everything about it. This is a message board. We nitpick. Big deal.
Am I the only person that likes 'lens-flare'?
- Thread starter BorgPhil
- Start date
Petty excuses to bash this film?
I loved the film, but it doesn't mean I loved everything about it. This is a message board. We nitpick. Big deal.
A Hard Day's Night was a mock documentary. The flare was a consequence of uncoated lenses, unplanned shooting angles and uncontrolled lighting. It was not an "artistic decision" of a director with the sensibilities of an 8 year-old.
I don't see how anyone can call THIS:
acceptable cinematically.
It's the cinematic equivalent of having your thumb over part of the lens and still thinking it's good enough for an AP lead photo.
Visually, it's a potentially very interesting movie. Cool props, costumes, sets, and spacecraft -- and some good looking actors and actresses. But I'd like to actually be able to *see* them. It's hard to pull detail out of that miasma of light.
Some of those are fine, some are over top.
(Left to right, top to bottom)
Way over the top: As the light dominated the camera field.
Acceptable: The light isn't too dominating.
Acceptable: Though this is a SFX shot from the tailer and not in the movie.
Over the top: The light dominates the field.
Way, way, over the top. The light dominates to the point of not being able to see what is in the scene!
Way over the top. Again, the light dominates.
A little much, not horrible.
A little much, not horrible.
Perfectly fine.
SFX sequence so no need to worry about lens flares. Nothing at all wrong with this one.
The rest are fine as they're not too far over the top.
I've no problems with lens flares in cameras as I *do* think it can add a certain "artistic and visual element of realism" but using them to pornographic levels and levels where the light and flare DOMINATES the scene is a bit much.
Making screenshots of lensflares "worst moments" is not a good representation of the overall effect, since the flare may just overpower that *specific frame*. Film is a moving medium, folks. They call it motion pictures for a reason. 
And I'd say that more than half of the shots that are above are perfectly fine.
I saw the movie again yesterday, and the *only* scene where I think it was overdone was the scene where Spock argues with Kirk after he beams back aboard. That's the only scene, IMO.
Otherwise it completely blended in with the film experience... And I think it is a neat artistic way to shoot things, if it is done as it was in 99% of the scenes of this movie.
And I'd say that more than half of the shots that are above are perfectly fine.
I saw the movie again yesterday, and the *only* scene where I think it was overdone was the scene where Spock argues with Kirk after he beams back aboard. That's the only scene, IMO.
Otherwise it completely blended in with the film experience... And I think it is a neat artistic way to shoot things, if it is done as it was in 99% of the scenes of this movie.
I noticed them most in the interior scenes on the Enterprise bridge, and loved the ones which whited out the screen to complement Spock's rage against Kirk. Others complemented the shaky-cam You are there with the futuristic feel of the bridge. I either loved the exterior ones or they didn't stand out as negatives for me. I know they can get overdone in FX as prettifying the scene, but with the grittiness of it generally, I didn't mind at all.
The lens flares were over done big time. It got to be annoying.
number6
Vice Admiral
True, but it was left in because it looked cool. No one had done it before because it was considered "wrong." Dick Lester felt it lent to the realism of the scenes. If he didn't think so, those scenes would have been reshot, as pointed out in the DVD commentary. Lester thought the lens flares looked cool.
I can't speak to the cinematic sensibilities of an 8-year old and neither can you. How about you leave the schoolyard namecalling out of this?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I'm one of those who hadn't noticed the lens flares on first viewing. I saw it again last night and only felt it was a problem/distracting in a few scenes. But then, I'm partial to bright glowing interiors and luminous, glowing orbs of light as per my screen name.
Maybe the Enterprise might have seemed overly stark without some of this? They won't get SAD. Anyway, of the shots posted I felt all but the first and the 3rd in the second column are quite beautiful-lovely colors as well. So I like, but sure it could be dialed back a bit here and there.
Maybe the Enterprise might have seemed overly stark without some of this? They won't get SAD. Anyway, of the shots posted I felt all but the first and the 3rd in the second column are quite beautiful-lovely colors as well. So I like, but sure it could be dialed back a bit here and there.
Same here.
I'm thinking the same people whining about the lens flares are the same kind of people who complain about "the black bars" in widescreen movies, "and how they want "the whole picture" on their shitty TVs.
Same here.
I'm thinking the same people whining about the lens flares are the same kind of people who complain about "the black bars" in widescreen movies, "and how they want "the whole picture" on their shitty TVs.
Uhh. No.
Black bars are a natural biproduct of trying to watch a wide-screen movie on a non-widescreen TV (or a movie whos AR doesn't match the TV's) lens flares are a natural biproduct of shitty cinematogrpahy.
The lens flares in this movie, at times, were way, way, too much. There were some scenes where, yeah, I don't think they were all that terrible or bad. But the worst, by far was the scne with Kirk and Spock fighting on the bridge once Kirk reutrns with Scotty.
On the contrary, I much prefer the black bars to the distorted image you get without them, black bars bother me not but image quality is important. Having a bright light covering parts of the image is not something which I consider "quality".I'm thinking the same people whining about the lens flares are the same kind of people who complain about "the black bars" in widescreen movies, "and how they want "the whole picture" on their shitty TVs.
I really liked the lens flares on second viewing when I was looking for them.
When I was in Photography 101 in high school, I learned that taking pictures, whether they're still or moving, is all about one thing: light, light, light, and more light. The film, lens, and your brain are only the tools with which you manipulate and capture light to whatever creative end you aim to. There are two subjects to every picture, one of which is far more important than the other -- the actual item or scene that stands in front of your lens, and the light that surrounds it. Yes, the light is more important. You can take a picture of anything you want to and compose it how you want and have it be a decent photo, but the ultimate defining quality of a great photo is how the subject is lit. For a lot of really great photos, the light is the real subject of the photo.
I love the use of light, not just the flares, almost as much as I love the sound. The atmosphere built by the combination of sound and lighting effects the filmmakers used is incredible.
I almost want to start a thread about the sound effects, but my first thread tanked so I dunno if I'm up to it.
When I was in Photography 101 in high school, I learned that taking pictures, whether they're still or moving, is all about one thing: light, light, light, and more light. The film, lens, and your brain are only the tools with which you manipulate and capture light to whatever creative end you aim to. There are two subjects to every picture, one of which is far more important than the other -- the actual item or scene that stands in front of your lens, and the light that surrounds it. Yes, the light is more important. You can take a picture of anything you want to and compose it how you want and have it be a decent photo, but the ultimate defining quality of a great photo is how the subject is lit. For a lot of really great photos, the light is the real subject of the photo.
I love the use of light, not just the flares, almost as much as I love the sound. The atmosphere built by the combination of sound and lighting effects the filmmakers used is incredible.
I almost want to start a thread about the sound effects, but my first thread tanked so I dunno if I'm up to it.
Making screenshots of lensflares "worst moments" is not a good representation of the overall effect, since the flare may just overpower that *specific frame*. Film is a moving medium, folks. They call it motion pictures for a reason.
And I'd say that more than half of the shots that are above are perfectly fine.
Exactly. Most of the frames up above are single frame oddities - its not like the whole scene was shot all whited-out like that. They've just selectively picked the frames wit the most intense flare. As you say, film is dynamic - in motion, the lens flares work very well at increasing the realism of the scenes - I really felt that this was actually happening and someone had captured it first hand for me to watch - and the cinematography, lens flares and all, was a good part of why that was. In particular, they liven up the VisFX shots and prevent the 'flat' look that CGI spaceships can so easily have.
Similar threads
