StarTrek: the Wrath of Fake Lens Flare

[Bruce Watson]

I have to ask: what is the appeal of vast quantities of fake lens flare?

Modern cinema (at least in the US) is using more and more to the point of absurdity. Are directors blind? Do they want us to be? Or are they just trying to hide imperfections (low budget) of sets and wardrobes by making it difficult if not impossible to see?

The new StarTrek film is a good film. But Abrams went completely insane on the fake lens flare to the point that the Enterprise bridge scenes are difficult and sometimes physically painful to watch. Not only is it annoying, but it gets in the way of the story he's trying to tell. Unless of course the story he wants to tell is: Look, I Got a New Toy!

Maybe I'm just being picky. But if I had a tenth of the lens flare these guys seem to want I'd put down my camera and walk away from photography and never look back. I'm sure many on this forum would do the same. Or at least you might try cleaning your lenses!

So help me understand. What kind of fool pays that kind of money for modern multi-coated cine lenses then pays way more to add fake digital lens flare back to the film as a special effect? Flare that is way worse than any uncoated lens from a century ago would produce? What's up wi' dat?

[Kirk Gittings]

Dude.......it was just fun.......not art.

[Bruce Watson]

Dude.......it was just fun.......not art.

Close, but you miss my point. My point isn't that it's art. My point is that much fake lens flare gets in the way of the fun.

[Jeremy Moore]

Lens flare is really popular now which isn't a reason why it should be there, but may be an explanation for its presence.

Looking through most magazines, especially in the music scene, and there's a prevalence for lens flare in the photography I haven't ever seen before.

[Gary Beasley]

Probably from the sales of so many cheap cameras with cheap lenses the artist thinks it looks "gritty". Then again I was watching the astronauts getting ready to work on the Hubble Telescope and those cameras mounted outside the shuttle were pretty bad about flaring when anywhere near the sun or any other bright source.

[Nathan Potter]

Bruce, good point. But I have a theory. IMHO I think it may be partly driven by what the public is getting used to. The proliferation of handheld devices that deliver incredibly poor image quality has begun to condition the public to both accept and like jerky, fuzzy, hazy and poor image quality. It is beginning to become a fetish and as such will continue to become mainstream. The move to digital cinema projection will also gradually degrade in resolution so as to make the handheld freaks feel comfortable and satisfied. It's all about marketing to a mass media clientele at the lowest possible cost.

Well I didn't mean to be quite so negative but I miss good old fashion craftsmanship.
Thank god for the LF genius of those on this forum.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[monkeymon]

Stating the facts is not being negative, even if the facts might be negative.

Plastic lenses on low quality digital cameras sold to us, as they were mighty achievements of modern science.

Modern miracle of marketing maybe, nothing else.

[Paul Ewins]

This is a pet hate of mine, but the worst example I can recall was in an animated feature. I can't recall the title as it was rubbish and more than 10 years ago.

[Michael Chmilar]

They are not fake lens flares.

The director and DP actually shone flashlights into the camera's lens, from just out of frame. They were not added digitally.

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-tells-us-why-star-trek-has-so-many-lens-flares

Fifth paragraph.

[Steve_Renwick]

This is in the same universe wherein ships operating in a vacuum have to bank into a turn like an airplane. It's all done because somebody thinks it looks cool.

[Richard M. Coda]

I think I'll point a flashlight into my next 11x14 image! Maybe I'll sell one! :)

[Vaughn]

This is in the same universe wherein ships operating in a vacuum have to bank into a turn like an airplane. It's all done because somebody thinks it looks cool.

Yes, and one can hear the photon topedoes zooming through space!:D

[Bruce Watson]

They are not fake lens flares.

The director and DP actually shone flashlights into the camera's lens, from just out of frame. They were not added digitally.

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-tells-us-why-star-trek-has-so-many-lens-flares

Fifth paragraph.

Holy cats! This is even worse than I thought. It all comes down to Abrams' warped since of aesthetics. Mr. Gittings, it really *is* intended to be art.

[GPS]

It's just a kind of equivalent of a soft focus lens effect... So what?

[Brian Ellis]

It's the "new thing." "New things" don't have to be good or fun or even tolerable, in fact it's better if they're aggravating. The previous "new thing" was having the camera quickly leaping from one point to another to another, giving the impression that the cameraman had some sort of nervous disorder. But that's been so overdone that it's now an "old thing" (not to say that "old things" disappear, they're still around but they cease to be the "new thing"). Excessive flare is the "new thing."

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Holy cats! This is even worse than I thought. It all comes down to Abrams' warped since of aesthetics. Mr. Gittings, it really *is* intended to be art.

Well, $150 million later, you can call it whatever you want to. Abrams is the sh*t right now and he can do whatever he likes.

Btw - you'd enjoy this article.

http://screenrant.com/sr-picks-video-jj-abrams-lens-flares-meets-original-series-rob-8618/

[Renato Tonelli]

Lens flare is the flavor of the month. The Red camera is also the flavor of the month.

[Kirk Gittings]

Holy cats! This is even worse than I thought. It all comes down to Abrams' warped since of aesthetics. Mr. Gittings, it really *is* intended to be art.

Ok then, I choose to not view most cinema as art. That way I don't feel like I need to look at it critically and can just sit back and enjoy it or not. Most of my friends are artists who pick films apart till they bleed (sometimes during the film!), which to me ruins the fun. Sometimes I just want to be entertained and I was by this film.

[Bruce Watson]

Ok then, I choose to not view most cinema as art. That way I don't feel like I need to look at it critically and can just sit back and enjoy it or not. Most of my friends are artists who pick films apart till they bleed (sometimes during the film!), which to me ruins the fun. Sometimes I just want to be entertained and I was by this film.

That's what I want too -- to spend a couple of hours in the dark being entertained. The vast majority of the time I can do just that but sometimes the camera work is just so irritating that I can't get past it. This was one of those times I guess. An internal failing to be sure.

[gari beet]

Yeh, a bit toooo picky I think, My impression was that it was fantasy rather than a documentary. I have to admit to viewing it as such, sorry.

Gari

[Sevo]

The new StarTrek film is a good film. But Abrams went completely insane on the fake lens flare to the point that the Enterprise bridge scenes are difficult and sometimes physically painful to watch. Not only is it annoying, but it gets in the way of the story he's trying to tell. Unless of course the story he wants to tell is: Look, I Got a New Toy!


The story he wants to tell is: This is a cheapo 70's TV production. The real flaw is that he expresses that by applying postpro fake lens flare to his otherwise shiny, if not slippery CGI production with far too many wide views, where he'd have got much closer to the original effect (at one tenth of the budget) by doing it all head shots in a coarsely painted and lit cardboard set, filmed in reversal and cut directly off the original in a somewhat dusty room, with the tech crew as stoned as the actors.

Sevo

[jhogan]

The story he's trying to tell: It's a grim future for cinematographers in space- no coatings, no aspherical elements, no matte boxes...

[PenGun]

It's not a good movie. I give it 3 BE or 3 times as good as Battlefield Earth.

Just aquired an HD version of the Lawrence of Arabia restoration. A wonderful movie full of good acting and amazing photography. Nothing recent even comes close.

[Mark Sawyer]

This is in the same universe wherein ships operating in a vacuum have to bank into a turn like an airplane. It's all done because somebody thinks it looks cool.

You know, I think you're onto something. I'm beginning to suspect that these Star Trek movies are just made up, and all that stuff never even really happened...

(I think it's about time somebody put a lens-baby or Holga lens on a movie camera...)

[dsphotog]

[QUOTE=Mark Sawyer;469290]You know, I think you're onto something. I'm beginning to suspect that these Star Trek movies are just made up, and all that stuff never even really happened...



Just like the Moon landing !

[AFSmithphoto]

Lens Flares? Did it not bother anyone else in this forum that Leondard Nemoy was well out of focus in the "I am not our father scene?"

[Kevin Crisp]

I liked the movie well enough, and I've been watching Star Trek since the original episodes were aired for the first time. The lens flare didn't irritate me so much, but there were certainly a lot of shots where things were out of focus in a context that made it look like a mistake. Faces were out of focus many times in the movie.

[nathanm]

That's nothing, I hear the next movie is going to have wicked cool effects like Drop Shadow, Beveled Edges and Page Curl! Sweet!

[Kevin M Bourque]

I'll take paper mache rocks over arty lens flare any day. Just don't beam down in a red shirt.

Dammit, I'm a doctor, not a cinematographer!

[Glenn Thoreson]

Haven't seen the movie but the effects couldn't be any worse than some certain TV series' where everything was shot in the dark.

[Steve_Renwick]

You know, I think you're onto something. I'm beginning to suspect that these Star Trek movies are just made up, and all that stuff never even really happened...


Now that's just talking silly. If it weren't all true, why is the model of the ship in the Smithsonian?

(it's been a long week)

[rdenney]

Lens Flares? Did it not bother anyone else in this forum that Leondard Nemoy was well out of focus in the "I am not our father scene?"

After reading this thread, I had to go see the movie over the weekend. I was actually quite happy with it, and the lens flare didn't bother me even though I had it in my mind going in. Towards the end, I was thinking I'd also missed the scene you mentioned, and then there it was. But my wife, who was blissfully unaware of this discussion, didn't notice it.

Rick "amazed by how close one can be to a black hole!" Denney

[venchka]

The same discussion is going on at the Rangefinder Forum. Complete with second party confirmation of the flashlights and intentional flare adding per the director!

[venchka]

It's not a good movie. I give it 3 BE or 3 times as good as Battlefield Earth.

Just aquired an HD version of the Lawrence of Arabia restoration. A wonderful movie full of good acting and amazing photography. Nothing recent even comes close.

Except possibly other works by David Lean. "The Wild Bunch" comes to mind as well.