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-tel...ny-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.