Why all the camera flares? It makes the film almost painful to watch at times!
Seriously...why?
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
You're sitting too close to the screen.
All the camera flares and shaky-cam made it difficult to see what was going on, but if it's painful you should probably move your seat further from the screen.
ALLF: Abrams Loves Lens Flare.
They never bothered me in the slightest. In fact, I didn't really notice them until I saw the feature on the DVD about how they were done. As JJ says, they do a good job of creating the illusion of movement off-screen. When a flare appears on the bridge, it's like some busy crewperson opposite the camera stepped from in front of the many lights at a perimiter station.
Who knows... Modern photography has strived and succesfully removed such irritations. So I don't know why he went through the trouble to artificially replicate old filming issues.
Especially if you look at it from the in universe perspective that in the 23rd century, that there would be no technology that would prevent such bad photography.
I guess some people are new, or haven't read every single OLD thread, or just plain care. If they didn't care, they wouldn't want to talk about it.
It's silly and useless unless they were trying to replicate filmography from the 20th century. Which is inself just dumb for a film taking place in the 23rd century.
But really- it was just because he like the silly New Battlestar Galactical style.
Zoom in quickly! Zoom out quickly! Zoom back in a little (oooo dramatic!)... Shake the camera a bit for added mid 20th century realism that they really didn't want back then... Dramatic!
:PThey should also film it all in black and white. That's also very gritty and real, mimicking a time when colour film was cost prohibitive.
Here's something from the Wikipedia entry for 'Lens flare':
"A lens flare is also useful when added to an artificial or modified image composition because it adds a sense of realism, implying that the image is an un-edited original photograph of a "real life" scene."
So it is meant to 'trick' the viewer's brain, I guess. I think it was an artistic/creative choice made in creating a film in the 21st century, not meant to approximate what an "actual" recording of images captured by 23rd century devices/technology would look like. It was overdone in a few spots, I would agree, but I thought it gave the film a neat feel and I had no problem with it. Hopefully they will tone it down in the next film.
Maybe the slightly different physics in this alternate universe lead to more lens flare:
Kirk: "Scotty- I need LESS lens flare!"
Scotty: "I'm doin' the best ah cahn, Capt'n! I canna change the laws of physics!"...
"A lens flare is also useful when added to an artificial or modified image composition because it adds a sense of realism, implying that the image is an un-edited original photograph of a "real life" scene."
So it is meant to 'trick' the viewer's brain, I guess. I think it was an artistic/creative choice made in creating a film in the 21st century, not meant to approximate what an "actual" recording of images captured by 23rd century devices/technology would look like. It was overdone in a few spots, I would agree, but I thought it gave the film a neat feel and I had no problem with it. Hopefully they will tone it down in the next film.
Maybe the slightly different physics in this alternate universe lead to more lens flare:
Kirk: "Scotty- I need LESS lens flare!"
Scotty: "I'm doin' the best ah cahn, Capt'n! I canna change the laws of physics!"...
Ahh- wikipedia is a good stepping off point for sourcing information. But the problem with its definition is somewhat inaccurate.
There's nothing realistic about lens flare in how the human eye sees. It's only realistic in photography.
So to put my point in perspective. If we're watching Star Trek, are we to assume that there are camera with the characters in the show? Are they being followed and we're actually watch the movie through that persons perspective?
Or are we seeing everything as they would be seeing it? With the naked eye- and therefore we wouldn't have that lens flare.
When i watch a movie, i'm under the impression that the camera people are invisible- They're not there documenting the events of the movie. Unless the point is that. Like in Star Trek Generations, when at one scene we see through the camera of a reporter, it's a little shakey (but not too much, because that would be silly with even modern day image stabilization), but it's realistic.
Also, unless it's for artistic purposes, film makes and photographers don't want that lens flare, so again, JJ's use of it was purely for artistic purposes, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not there for realism, unless he's trying to mimic antiquated filmography or for artistic purposes.
I vastly prefer lens flares to the weird double-focus lenses in TMP:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=341&page=5
Check out any of those images with Kirk's face. Now that makes my eyes hurt.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=341&page=5
Check out any of those images with Kirk's face. Now that makes my eyes hurt.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I had no problem with the lens flares in the film. I didn't even realize it was a problem till it was brought up here on this board. THE DRAMA!
Greg Cox said:
number6 said:
LOL, yeah, we get it, I think.doubleohfive said:
I don't buy Abrams' claim that it was a specific choice for this movie, because he has the same lens flares in all of his movies.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Fuck, it's something the guy likes to put in his films. None of us are really in any position to say "Hey STOP DOING THAT IT" as we aren't the ones making the films.
I get the constructive criticism, but focusing so much energy on this one singular element from the film when there are other, complex and thought-provoking topics and issues the film broaches and suggests that we can be discussing instead is just the height of nerd rabble-rousing. No wonder people don't take Trekkies seriously.
I get the constructive criticism, but focusing so much energy on this one singular element from the film when there are other, complex and thought-provoking topics and issues the film broaches and suggests that we can be discussing instead is just the height of nerd rabble-rousing. No wonder people don't take Trekkies seriously.
I don't sit close to the screen when watching any film. 
But I was watching it again last night and the number of them just bug me. Once or twice when on something big and shiny I could understand, but they seem to be everywhere, and I find them distracting.
I know some won't mind or even notice them, and I really shouldn't let it bother me, but it is one of the few things that keep me from really enjoying the film, and I just needed a moan about them.
Moan over, life has continued...well for now at least...
But I was watching it again last night and the number of them just bug me. Once or twice when on something big and shiny I could understand, but they seem to be everywhere, and I find them distracting.
I know some won't mind or even notice them, and I really shouldn't let it bother me, but it is one of the few things that keep me from really enjoying the film, and I just needed a moan about them.
Moan over, life has continued...well for now at least...
I do see what you mean, and agree to some extent. But we really aren't seeing what the human eye would see in these movies and television shows, anyway (especially when we leave the interior of the ships). If so, I suspect -in the depths of space far away from any stars- the brightly lit vessels that we are watching would be very dark shapes dotted with some windows and a few blinking formation lights.
Fair enough and good point... We wouldn't see anything even up close unless in full sunlight! Man, all those space battles would have been pretty boring.
Similar threads
