• Sundray@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Everybody talks about the lens flares, but what about the chromatic aberrations? The spacial distortions? The vignetting? There’s so many other things that lenses can do wrong!

  • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    At some point there was an explanation that the lens flares were supposed to be subtext, a visual representation of the old phrase “bright future” and for a microsecond it almost made sense…until you realized how stupid that sounded and unbelievably annoying it was on screen.

    • otto
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Yeah, because the first thing that a 13-year-old would listen to when taking his dad‘s antique car for a joyride is some classical music

      That would be like your kids stealing your car today and blasting out Brahms.

      So bad ass!

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Honestly at this point it’d be your kids stealing your car, then blasting the Beastie Boys.

        Shit’s old, and so are you, sorry for the bad news. <3

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          No you’re right. It could have been worse. It’s just funny he put it in two of the movies.

        • otto
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          Watch out everyone, we got Kendrick Lamar here!

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    The lens flares aren’t enough to make me hate Star Trek 2009.

    But… there’s one frame I accidentally paused on that’s at the very end of the movie when Kirk is looking around the bridge. And there’s a mirror reflection of an off-camera crewmember looking back at Kirk.

    Except it’s not a real reflection. In addition all the optically-damaging direct lighting on the set, Abrams felt the need to add more in post processing. And not just more lens flares, an actual optical wipe that flashes the image of someone sitting somewhere else on the bridge across the frame while the camera (which never stops moving) circles Kirk. With all the glass and reflective surfaces on the bridge, your brain thinks it’s a real reflection. But if you pause at that exact moment, it’s clearly just digitally inserted. It’s hovering over a white backboard of a standing console, in fact it’s partially overlapping another crewmember who is in the frame!

    Like… image flares or something. I have never seen anything like that before and I cannot understand what it adds to the scene other than visual noise.

  • usernamefactory@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    Aw, I dig the lens flares. Abrams may be a pretty lousy storyteller at times, but he always gets points from me for style.