Camera Flares
- Thread starter tranya
- Start date
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I like the lens-flares; they give the VFX-shots a lot of realism.
TMP had a nice lens-effect. I don't know what it is actually called, but it was like a split-lens-effect, one half focused on the foreground, one half on the background.
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I think we had some lens-flare action in STIII when the Bird of Brey is coming in for a landing on the Vulcan surface.
Lens flares look cool, but they take away from the realism, don't they? They scream, 'hey, we're using a CAMERA!', giving the sense that someone's floating out in space pointing a physical camera at these starships or whatever, when we're really supposed to be seeing what's going on through some sort of magical point of view.
Lens flares look cool, but they take away from the realism, don't they? They scream, 'hey, we're using a CAMERA!', giving the sense that someone's floating out in space pointing a physical camera at these starships or whatever, when we're really supposed to be seeing what's going on through some sort of magical point of view.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
How do they take away from realism when they actually scream 'we are using a camera'?
That is precisely why it ADDS realism.
No, because it's a lot more realistic for the viewer to see what's happening in space naturally... rather than seeing it through a magical floating camera in space.
Anyway, I believe the original poster, meant lens flares in non-space scenes. Which work quite well I think.
Although lens flares in general are very cliched and overused. If done incorrectly.
Son of a gun; yet another thing to be divided over and pick endlessly at, will it ever end? Save us Jebus!
With em, without em, makes no difference to me.
With em, without em, makes no difference to me.
No, it's more realistic for it to look like documentary footage or news footage precisely because it'll look more like a practical effect. It's why most TV shows since NYPD Blue and ER use hand-held cameras more frequently. I like the style when it's not too jarring. What's unrealistic is for effects shots to do the other thing they've done since CGI has become dominant: give the camera unrealistic abilities in the way it moves. This is unrealistic not only because cameras can't do that in real life, but also because even if they could, the chances that they'd be able to capture a perfectly choreographed action sequence is completely ludicrous too.
I learned something very interesting when watching the Back to the Future, Part II commentary track: The way they made the special effects involving the same actor in multiple roles work was by shooting the scenes as if all the characters were played by different people. This way, they didn't feel the need to telegraph that there were effects taking place, they could just feature half of one character someone's playing in a shot if that character would normally not be the focus of the scene. The balance of cinematography and special effects requires that foresight.
I learned something very interesting when watching the Back to the Future, Part II commentary track: The way they made the special effects involving the same actor in multiple roles work was by shooting the scenes as if all the characters were played by different people. This way, they didn't feel the need to telegraph that there were effects taking place, they could just feature half of one character someone's playing in a shot if that character would normally not be the focus of the scene. The balance of cinematography and special effects requires that foresight.
True. And on the Attack of the clones commentary as to the big battle, though it was all SFX, they used elements such as a shaking camera to add realism to the shots, though there is no "camera"
I see what you're saying, but with realism in movies I think it's all about the illusion that's created. I'm used to seeing real things caught on real cameras, so seeing imaginary things caught the same way makes them seem more real -- even if a camera may not exist in-universe.
That is, provided the effects are not intrusive. Sometimes when I'm watching BSG, the hand-held camera technique is so dramatic that I do start to invision a camera crew running around the set -- even if the characters are having completely personal or top-secret conversations.
The end result should be subliminal. I didn't notice it in the trailer until I'd watched it a few times, so hopefully the final product will be the same.
It adds realism only in the sense that we're given the impression that there's a 'real camera' being used to film what's going on. However it also sort of 'breaks the fourth wall'. The viewpoint you have when watching the movie, however, is supposed to be some sort of imaginary magical perspective that doesn't really exist, wherein you, the viewer, are actually there. And I've never seen a lens flare in reality.
Of course we can assume that the cameramen are actually there and just using that Romulan phase/cloak technology!
Of course lens flares are accidental and unavoidable in some situations, but I question the notion of intentionally adding them in.
Since when?
And I've never seen a lens flare in reality.
Yeah, we've never seen one in reality, but real footage shot on real sets has lens flares all the time. In fact, due to the ton of lights all over the new Enterprise sets, there are plenty of flares visible in the live-action shots from the trailer. If all the VFX shots were suddenly missing the flares, it would look very odd.
Of course we can assume that the cameramen are actually there and just using that Romulan phase/cloak technology!
Why apply that standard to the space shots but not to the camera on the bridge of the ship? Are the lens flares there proof that there's some Romulan phase-cloaked cameraman standing in front of Pike?
That's the magic phrase right there, as far as I'm concerned, whether you're talking about subtle effects in CGI, in camera technique, in musical arrangements, in art design or in any of dozens of other areas. An effect can be most effective when it is used sparingly, but as soon as it crosses over into the realm of "Hey, look what we're doing here! See?", it becomes more stylization by virtue of calling attention to itself. The best such effects are the ones you don't quite notice are there... or at least not on the first pass.
Here are the opening credits from TNG (although Berman wasn't around for the very beginning of TNG -- this opening is from the Gene Roddenberry years):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL8nnMpV2Eo
Look a the very beginning of the video, between the :02 to :03 mark. Plenty of lens flare. And since this was 100% CGI, the lens flare was artificially added.
I don't know about you, but I think it looks good with the lens flare and I bet it would probably look "odd" without it.
Great point.
Last edited:
Since when?
And I've never seen a lens flare in reality.
Yeah, we've never seen one in reality, but real footage shot on real sets has lens flares all the time. In fact, due to the ton of lights all over the new Enterprise sets, there are plenty of flares visible in the live-action shots from the trailer. If all the VFX shots were suddenly missing the flares, it would look very odd.
Of course we can assume that the cameramen are actually there and just using that Romulan phase/cloak technology!
Why apply that standard to the space shots but not to the camera on the bridge of the ship? Are the lens flares there proof that there's some Romulan phase-cloaked cameraman standing in front of Pike?
Well, in the 24th century, lenses will probably be a thing of the past, replaced by whatever sensors they use to see through other spaceships at a high enough resolution to beam someone through the walls...
So now we have to accept the fact that 21st century cameramen are phase/cloaked and filming the action
This argument is silly.
Lens flares are a part of the cinematography of just about every movie. In addition to that, Star Trek and other movies and TV shows have been adding fake lens flares to their CGI since CGI began.
Why in the world should Abrams now leave the lens flare out of the CGI for this film?
It sounds to me like the people against the lens flare have a problem with cinematography in general, not just with the lens flare seen in the trailer.
Lens flares are a part of the cinematography of just about every movie. In addition to that, Star Trek and other movies and TV shows have been adding fake lens flares to their CGI since CGI began.
Why in the world should Abrams now leave the lens flare out of the CGI for this film?
It sounds to me like the people against the lens flare have a problem with cinematography in general, not just with the lens flare seen in the trailer.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually arguing either way. It's an artistic choice, and yeah, adding them in space shots so that they match up with the feel of normal footage is completely unobjectionable.
If, however, lens flares are being added into actual planetside footage for some sort of dramatic effect, then that's just silly. Like that stupid Photoshop lens flare effect plugin. Photographers have been trying to avoid lens flares in photography since its inception through the use of lens hoods and careful framing of shots - why would anyone want to artificially include them?
If, however, lens flares are being added into actual planetside footage for some sort of dramatic effect, then that's just silly. Like that stupid Photoshop lens flare effect plugin. Photographers have been trying to avoid lens flares in photography since its inception through the use of lens hoods and careful framing of shots - why would anyone want to artificially include them?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Because carefully framing a shot is not the stylistic element of choice in todays action film.
This might be a tad overkill.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
This might be a tad overkill.
Those flares are created by anamorphic distortion of the image through the lens.
Let the lens flare wars begin!!
Similar threads
