I just watched Encounter at Farpoint last night (it's on Space daily). In part one, when Picard, Data, Troi, and Yar are in Q's courtroom and Picard speaks in close-ups, there is a weird dark shadow at the top of the screen. It's like you're squinting your eyes as you look at him. In other shots of the crowd, Q, etc. this heavy black blur is not present. I've always wondered what that is at the top of the screen. It even covers the top of Picard's head like a defect in the film. Am I nuts?
Black shadow above Picard's head in Encounter at Farpoint?
- Thread starter eepruls
- Start date
Yes! That's it! That's awesome that you found a picture. What the hell is that? It shouldn't be there because it's not just a shadow from an overhang or something. It covers Picard's head and it's really obvious in that scene.
I think this is a fairly common artifact you see when a particular shot has too much bright light, and the camera must close it's shutter a bit to block some of the light out. It can be seen in many movies, particularly older ones, and usually in outdoor shots, where it shows up as black shadows in the corners of the frame. It's possible that's what is happening here.
It's rare to see this effect in TV shows, particularly when shot on a sound stage (which this almost certainly was) since they have so much control over the lighting. But maybe someone just made a mistake, or they were in a rush.
Another possibility - maybe there was equipment visible in the shot (like a microphone) and this was a simple way to block it out by adding a black filter afterwards.
Final possibility - the smoke monster from Lost!
It's rare to see this effect in TV shows, particularly when shot on a sound stage (which this almost certainly was) since they have so much control over the lighting. But maybe someone just made a mistake, or they were in a rush.
Another possibility - maybe there was equipment visible in the shot (like a microphone) and this was a simple way to block it out by adding a black filter afterwards.
Final possibility - the smoke monster from Lost!
It's only on the camera angle with Picard's close-up so indeed the lighting from above and behind might have been too bright for the camera. But you're right, it's on a sound stage and so is everything else in TNG and it shouldn't have been a problem. It's strange how just that one shot would cause a problem when it's not overly brighter than anything else on the show (heck, it was brighter in Chain of Command when the camera was aimed right at the 'four lights' and there was no problem there!) I think it was incorrectly shot with the wrong lens or something and it was too late to fix it because all the scenes were shot. They probably just decided to leave it in.
I doubt they were blocking out a mic boom or something because TNG is famous for leaving them in! You can see them everywhere in other episodes. The boom would probably look better than a huge black shadow blur above Picard!
The island moved to the 24th century!
It's funny, I've noticed it for years and I've always wondered what it was. I finally decided to post it in the forum. I'm glad I'm not just crazy and have a bad TV! LOL
Never noticed this, but if you want to explain it "in-universe," it's several other Q peeking in and failing to make themselves completely invisible, casting that shadow on Picard's dome. -- RR
Its the "anti-lens flare".
Yeah, instead of lens flares in the next movie, J.J. should add these weird black blurs at the top of random shots that cover peoples' heads. Each film should contain something that annoys the hell out of the audience.
TMP - the pyjamas
TWOK - too militaristic
TSFS - they killed the Enterprise
TVH - too much humour
TFF - it sucked
TUD - books on the bridge
Gens - Kirk's death
FC - The Borg Queen
INS - the lame jokes
NEM - everything
XI - lens flare
I remember there was a problem with some of the footage on one shooting day in Q's courtroom. It was some kind of "vingnetting" problem with shots made with a long lens, which is why the dark area is out of focus. The real issue is that the shooting schedule didn't allow for time to redo the shots. Some shots were redone, but others were deemed acceptable, even though they were less-than-perfect.
-Mike
-Mike
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I guess I'm the only one who thinks it looks better this way. A little bit of obscuring draws the eye more strongly to the stuff that ain't obscured (how many of you look at the binocular shaped matte as opposed to what is enclosed within it?) It's the opposite of the moron approach of TheAbramsThing lens flares, which distract or blind viewers from seeing what is in theory important (characters and actions.)
Then again, I also like the first TNG DP better than the one that started diffusing things increasingly heavily from season 3 onward. It was a rougher look early on, occasionally amateur, but more honest and less DYNASTY-softslick.
Then again, I also like the first TNG DP better than the one that started diffusing things increasingly heavily from season 3 onward. It was a rougher look early on, occasionally amateur, but more honest and less DYNASTY-softslick.
Yeah... it's an intentional camera effect, used sometimes to create a "weighty" or "dramatic" effect. I happen to like it, but I guess the fact that we never saw it again, means that the PTB hated it, as well as you guys.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Yeah... it's an intentional camera effect, used sometimes to create a "weighty" or "dramatic" effect. I happen to like it, but I guess the fact that we never saw it again, means that the PTB hated it, as well as you guys.
To my mind, it is exactly the kind of thing that sets off Berman's taste meter in the wrong direction. Don't know if you know it, but there was a dictum to never use handheld (presumably from him) and Rob Bowman had to get special dispensation just to use steadicam ... the old AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER article on early TNG mentioned that the thought (such as it was) behind this is that the future is a smooth and fluid place, so you can only move the camera on dolly tracks or keep it still. I think the article suggested Justman was to blame, but I doubt it ... Justman was just against smoking up the sets (God bless him!), not quashing the dramatic end of things.
Hadn't thought of that ... Berman as the AntiJustman ... wow, that really REALLY fits for me.
Similar threads
