New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek 2 - Page 2

post #31 of 555
9/16/11 at 6:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Little help here..... I hate to ask this question, but ask it I must: just what exactly is "lens flare"?

It's when the director hangs necklaces, pins, mardi gras beads, etc. on the end of the camera. You know...lens flare.

Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 555
9/16/11 at 8:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

There were a few HUGE plot holes in the film. Just big giant plot holes.

Can I ask for the giant plot hole?
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 555
9/16/11 at 8:25am
Thread Starter 
I think he meant "black" hole... in which case, yes, the movie was full of them.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 555
9/16/11 at 8:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Little help here..... I hate to ask this question, but ask it I must: just what exactly is "lens flare"? I know what a "focus pull" is - they used it all the time in BSG and it added to the realism of CGI spaceship shots. They also used "shaky-cam" - I know what that is - but they were judicious about it to the point that it wasn't distracting (too many feature films and TV shows haven't learned that lesson yet, obviously). But I'm at a loss to describe what this "lens flare" is and how it's been overused. Thanks.

Lens flare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 555
9/16/11 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Little help here..... I hate to ask this question, but ask it I must: just what exactly is "lens flare"?

It's basically when the sun, or a bright enough light, hits the lens in a certain way that it refracts and leaves either a hazy sheen or visual artifacts on the film.

It's this sort of thing:

http://www.rioarts.org/Video/LensFlare_72.jpg


It used to be undesirable by filmmakers, and they took steps to avoid it. In Easy Rider, they didn't put them in deliberately, but that production was so fly-by-night that they couldn't avoid them, so they just left them in. Somewhere along the line people thought it was a cool effect and started adding them deliberately.

Nowadays you can do it digitally, and Photoshop and other image programs even have the effect that you can drop in to ordinary photos, giving the JJ Abrams in all of us an outlet for our flaws carefully calculated and intentional visual stylings.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 555
9/16/11 at 11:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

It's basically when the sun, or a bright enough light, hits the lens in a certain way that it refracts and leaves either a hazy sheen or visual artifacts on the film.

It's this sort of thing:

http://www.rioarts.org/Video/LensFlare_72.jpg


It used to be undesirable by filmmakers, and they took steps to avoid it. In Easy Rider, they didn't put them in deliberately, but that production was so fly-by-night that they couldn't avoid them, so they just left them in. Somewhere along the line people thought it was a cool effect and started adding them deliberately.

Nowadays you can do it digitally, and Photoshop and other image programs even have the effect that you can drop in to ordinary photos, giving the JJ Abrams in all of us an outlet for our flaws carefully calculated and intentional visual stylings.

LOL - you know it has become popular when you see 100% CGI content using lens flare.

I don't know what the fascination is. IMO - it disrupts the "magic of Hollywood" because we as humans do not get lens flare with our eye lenses. It only happens when using a mechinacal lens. Why remind me there is a camera involved? It just ruins my suspension of disbelief. Might as well show me the mic boom or the green screen as well.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 555
9/16/11 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I don't know what the fascination is. IMO - it disrupts the "magic of Hollywood" because we as humans do not get lens flare with our eye lenses. It only happens when using a mechinacal lens. Why remind me there is a camera involved? It just ruins my suspension of disbelief.

Just like that B.S. shakey-cam.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 555
9/16/11 at 11:59am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Just like that B.S. shakey-cam.

Wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 555
9/16/11 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Just like that B.S. shakey-cam.

If you are shooting a movie about an earthquake it will be necessary. No earthquake . . . . . No Shaky Cam!

The one I really hate is the vertigo inducing, multiple times 360 degree pan Cam. I call it . . . the Vomit Cam . . . because I always get the urge when they haul that sequence out. Like in real life I am going to run around someone in circles two or three times.

Might as well add . . . the Jump Cut . . . while we are at it.

You know - now that I think about it . . . . . . Hollywood is just trying to make 2 hour music videos and call them movies.

"If you can't dazzle them with brillance . . . baffle them with Bull*&^%" - W C Fields
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 555
9/16/11 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

If you are shooting a movie about an earthquake it will be necessary. No earthquake . . . . . No Shaky Cam!

+1


Quote:


The one I really hate is the vertigo inducing, multiple times 360 degree pan Cam. I call it . . . the Vomit Cam . . . because I always get the urge when they haul that sequence out. Like in real life I am going to run around someone in circles two or three times.

It doesn't bother me much IF it is one revolution, but it has to be slow.


Quote:


Might as well add . . . the Jump Cut . . . while we are at it.

You know - now that I think about it . . . . . . Hollywood is just trying to make 2 hour music videos and call them movies.

+2
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 555
9/16/11 at 2:26pm
Can shaky lens flare be far behind?
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 555
9/16/11 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

It's when the director hangs necklaces, pins, mardi gras beads, etc. on the end of the camera. You know...lens flare.

No, no. That's lens flair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smudge981 View Post

Can shaky lens flare be far behind?

In 3-D?
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 555
9/16/11 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


The one I really hate is the vertigo inducing, multiple times 360 degree pan Cam. I call it . . . the Vomit Cam . . . because I always get the urge when they haul that sequence out. Like in real life I am going to run around someone in circles two or three times.

Bay is good at that one. "Good" being a relative term.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 555
9/17/11 at 9:42pm
I thought I was going to read something new about ST2 in this topic. :l

...and technically, it isn't a reboot. It's a multiverse-boot. It actually shares the same "universe" with the original Star Trek. I mean, the original Spock was in it...there's your clue right there.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 555
9/17/11 at 10:21pm
Mr Hanky, just be pleased that it doesnt contain so much information on ST2. The less we know the more we enjoy the actual movie.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 555
9/18/11 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

I thought I was going to read something new about ST2 in this topic. :l

...and technically, it isn't a reboot. It's a multiverse-boot. It actually shares the same "universe" with the original Star Trek. I mean, the original Spock was in it...there's your clue right there.

Getting so it's almost as bad as the DC comic book multi-verse...and we know how bad that's going for them. That's why Mr. Abrams is going to have to step up his game, plot-wise, in the next one.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 555
9/19/11 at 5:32pm
I LOVED the lens flares and general look of this Star Trek movie. Totally with J.J. on this one - it gave it a cool textured "sense of other things off camera" thing. Reminds me of the scene in Alien right after the ship lands and there is momentary hell breaking loose as the lights go out except for emergency lights. The crew are mostly back lit with tons of camera flair. Feels simultaneously verite and artistic.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 555
9/19/11 at 6:11pm
I loved everything about the first one, not to mention the audio track on the blu ray is probably in my all time top 5.........amazing! Looking forward to part 2.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 555
9/21/11 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No, no. That's lens flair.

Haha, got me thinking of office space:

Joanna: You know what, Stan, if you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy over there, Brian, why don't you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: Well, I thought I remembered you saying that you wanted to express yourself.
Joanna: Yeah. You know what, yeah, I do. I do want to express myself, okay. And I don't need 37 pieces of flair to do it.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 555
9/23/11 at 11:09pm
Thread Starter 
All you lens flare complainers must hate Close Encounters then, huh? The lens flare there looks 10x as bad or "distracting".





Reply
Reply
post #51 of 555
9/24/11 at 8:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

All you lens flare complainers must hate Close Encounters then, huh? The lens flare there looks 10x as bad or "distracting".

Not necessarily the film itself, but yes, the flares there look annoying as hell.

Is it so hard to accept that the effect you clearly love isn't loved by everyone?
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 555
9/24/11 at 8:55am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Is it so hard to accept that the effect you clearly love isn't loved by everyone?

I don't "love it". I'm just making sure the dislike is equally applied!
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 555
9/24/11 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

I don't "love it". I'm just making sure the dislike is equally applied!

To be honest I didnt notice them as much in Close encounters. Maybe because they wernt used that much.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 555
11/27/11 at 11:12am
Saw this about the 3D sequel being moved back...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/454363.../#.TtKKkGPNlGV
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 555
11/27/11 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It just ruins my suspension of disbelief. Might as well show me the mic boom or the green screen as well.

Please don't suggest that or I am sure they will try that next. When it comes to film making these guys definitely look like amateurs instead of professionals IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 555
11/27/11 at 6:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVonse View Post

When it comes to film making these guys definitely look like amateurs instead of professionals IMO.

Oh brother, really? Then I guess, as shown above, that would mean Spielberg and CE3K are amateurish in your opinion too?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 555
11/27/11 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Oh brother, really? Then I guess, as shown above, that would mean Spielberg and CE3K are amateurish in your opinion too?

REALLY?
You are equating Abrams with Spielberg??
Super 8 with CEot3K????


http://www.slashfilm.com/film-interv...g-mystery-box/

Peter: So many people wonder this, so I hope you don’t think this is a negative question or anything, but why so many lens flares? What’s your obsession with lens flares?

JJ: Well, say that there’s a…there’s no question that I overuse lens flares on occasion. I know that there’s a sort of…

Peter: It’s funny because some scenes have none, but then other scenes are filled with them.


JJ: Yeah, it’s a weird thing. To me, it’s a little bit like on a scene for scene or shot for shot basis where I’m looking for something like there’s an opportunity to not necessarily put a [xx 10:49] up in front of a light. The kneejerk reaction from the director of photography is usually…it’s usually, “OK, we’ve got to flatten that light because it’s going to flare.” I think it’s one of those things that you want to make sure that, obviously, it’s…To me it’s such a cool beautiful image, the light through the glass. There are times that I feel like it sort of adds another kind of smart element, and it’s hard to define. But it is a visual taste that I do like. I think there are a couple shots in Super 8 where I just think I should definitely pull back here or there, but I can’t help myself sometimes.

Looking at his work and his OWN words, isn't it safe to say: Abrams is a frickin' idiot...who just so happens to have a camera.

Seriously, does he sound like someone you would trust $100m with????
The guy's comments could be confused with a 5th grader's....
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 555
11/28/11 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

Saw this about the 3D sequel being moved back...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/454363.../#.TtKKkGPNlGV

A whole thread dedicated to lens flare, interesting. Anyway I don't like the news that Trek 2 is being pushed back to May 2013! Don't they realize that old people, like myself, may not live long enough to see it.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 555
11/28/11 at 9:08am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

REALLY?
You are equating Abrams with Spielberg??
Super 8 with CEot3K????

Equating? No. Comparing? Yes. Especially considering it is an intentional love-letter to films like CE3K and was Produced by Spielberg himself.

Quote:


Looking at his work and his OWN words, isn't it safe to say: Abrams is a frickin' idiot...who just so happens to have a camera.

Seriously, does he sound like someone you would trust $100m with????
The guy's comments could be confused with a 5th grader's....

Hardly. He sounds like a guy who is enthusiastic about a certain look\\feel in his image, and realizes he goes a bit overboard with it at times, and laughs at himself for it. If this was some beloved filmmaker from your beloved past glory days of film, you'd laugh right along with him and give him the benefit of the doubt.

And his work speaks for itself, he is nothing like an "idiot with a camera".
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 555
11/28/11 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

And his work speaks for itself

I agree.
While much is good, nearly all of it is flawed in one way or another.


Quote:
he is nothing like an "idiot with a camera".

If I didn't know he was a filmmaker (and after reading his words from that interview), I wouldn't give him a job pumping gas.

I guess we will have to disagree concerning the IQ of Mr. Abrams.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread: