Am I the only person that likes 'lens-flare'?

[Shaw]

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.

It is funny watching people argue against a series of images as having been assembled to show the worst when that wasn't the context for which the image was originally made.

So lets bring back the context of the original posts, shall we...

Originally Posted in The Photoshop Thread, Part IV

After seeing the movie a second time last night, I started wondering how TOS could be altered to be more acceptable by the (non-Trekkie) people who are going to see this film.

I know that CBS just finished remastering TOS, but I was thinking that maybe they should reremaster them to capitalize on the new movie. I mean most people think of TOS as having low production quality, but the obvious answer is make it so that you can't see the production quality (which takes it out of the equation). Over expose (or under expose) the film, throw in an intentional unintentional reflection, and maybe a lens flare or two (or four, or eight), and you end up with a much grittier, edgier Trek that today's audiences can relate to.

This is what a reremastered Balance of Terror might look like...

See, the problem with the philosophy of the last remastering was the belief that audiences would want clearer image quality. That is completely wrong. Audiences want to have to fight to make out what is happening on screen.

CBS could make a ton of money with these reremastered episodes.

^ What do you mean? I saw none of that in the new Trek movie.


J.

And there is the trick... those are still images, but you wouldn't notice those effects in a moving picture any more than you noticed these effects when you saw the movie.

Audiences today like this.

TOS is from a different era... an era where early TVs and bad reception provided the poor image quality. All that is removed when we watch TOS today, and it has most likely hurt it's perception by non-fans.

Fans, on the other hand, are constantly looking for every little detail and so like the ultra clear images. Therefore reremastering episodes in this way would be an attempt to get a wider audience (outside the fans).

I honestly think this would work. And it can be done at very little cost.

 

[Greg Cox]

Am I the only person who doesn't know what lens flare is? I think I've read 3 threads tonight that have mentioned it, so I finally googled the term. How it was used in this movie?

Obviously I didn't notice it even after two viewings, so I'm sure I would only notice its use in future viewings of this movie if I start looking for it. I guess I could say I think that lens flare was well used or it would have caught my attention.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Greg Cox]

I normally don't mind a bit of lens-flare and rarely notice it, but it felt far too excessive in this film. During the most important scene of the movie, Kirk and Spock's conflict on the bridge, I counted at least three times when the lens-flare took over the majority of the screen.

Okay, I have to ask: why are you counting camera tricks during a dramatic scene? Me, I was paying attention to the plot and dialogue.

(I gotta admit, though. That "The More You Know" clip made me laugh.)

I don't know anything about photography. All I know is that the movie didn't look like an old tv episode--and that's a good thing.

 

[FalTorPan]

Having only seen the film once so far, I can't say that the sets left much of an impression on me. I didn't notice the various lights or lens flares on the bridge. The only sets which stood out were the (meh) Enterprise brewery and the (wow) V'ask-es-roks mountain range on Vulcan.

What I noticed most about the bridge were the people, probably because of the boldly colored uniforms of the Enterprise crew. While watching both the theatrically released, remastered TOS episode "The Menagerie" and the latest Trek feature, I realized that the TOS-style colors look great on the big screen. I've begun to question Robert Wise and Robert Fletcher's decision to go with a more desaturated color palette for the TMP uniforms.

 

[TheGodBen]

Okay, I have to ask: why are you counting camera tricks during a dramatic scene? Me, I was paying attention to the plot and dialogue.

Unfortunately this movie failed to pull me in dramatically and I gave up trying to care about what was going on during the monster chase, so by the time it got to the Kirk/Spock confrontation I was in nit-picky mode. The first lens-flare during the scene was a nuisance, the second was irritating and the third was taking the piss.

(I gotta admit, though. That "The More You Know" clip made me laugh.)

Let's never forget that us "naysayers" provide a valuable service.

 

[Lee T]

Since my eyes are quite sensitive to lights I positively hated the lens flares and lightings in the ship. I could deal with them in space or even planetside, where there's sun(s), but not in the ship. I couldn't work effectively in a place with white and chromed smooth surface bathed in light. Should I've been Cpn Pike my first order would have been to dim the lights to save my crew from snow blindness.