Lens flare in the new Star Trek movie

V

vdonovan

Vince Donovan
Local time
11:33 AM
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
477
A good friend of mine works in special effects for George Lucas. One of his projects was the new Star Trek film (which I highly recommend).

A few months ago, while the movie was still in production, I asked him what he was doing for the movie. He said that he had developed a technique to introduce lens flare, spherical aberration, and other optical distortions INTO computer-generated special effects to make them look more authentic. Now he was spending long hours putting these effects into the many special effects shots. I remarked, of course, that it was ironic that lens manufacturers have spent millions trying to get rid of these lens effects and now directors are spending millions to put them back in!

When finally saw the movie, I noticed that not only were the computer-generated special effects loaded with flare, but the live action scenes were too, to the point be being distracting. It was like they shot the whole thing with uncoated lenses from the 30s!

I called my friend and asked him what the deal was. He said that the director, J.J. Abrams, wanted flare all over the movie. "Did you go in and touch up all the live stuff with CG?" I said. "Oh no," he said. "Abrams just had a grip stand a little off-camera during filming with a flashlight. Every once in a while the grip would shine the flashlight into the camera and bounce some light off the side of the lens. Much cheaper than CG."

By all means go see the movie. It's hugely entertaining and, like me, you might get an extra laugh out of it every time there's some phony lens flare on the screen.
 
Interesting.
I loved the movie, but near the end, I was starting to get a little annoyed with all that flaring. Still doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but maybe that's just me.
 
I too noticed the flare and thought it an anachronistic distraction.

The Nokia phone and the Budweiser product placements near the beginning were also very obvious and stupid.
 
Last edited:
And in six months folks will buy the movie on BluRay HD disk so they can see flare, double images and camera jiggle in glorious high definition! ;)
 
Well, I have the flat screen and hundreds of DVD's. But I'll not venture into BluRay. I'll get HD on Pay-Per-View on my DirectTV or over the internet.
 
It always surprises me how much digital trickery is invoked to recreate tried-and-true processes.

I would think that the man hours spent adding flare, "grain," converting color to b/w, etc., is more than if you just went ahead and used film in the first place.
 
Yeah I thought the flare was pretty annoying sometimes, it was a little too obnoxious being in every other shot.
 
Jeez, i don't even remember noticing the flare. Great story, though, about the flashlight.

I'd like to see ST again, and i'll be looking out for it.
 
I preferred the older style CW Phasers over the new pulsed phasers.

But, it is an alternate reality.

Truly enjoyed the Movie. I'll have to see what the #1 issue of the Star Trek comic book is fetching on Ebay.... Didn't buy a Black SP when new, but spent all my money on 12cent comic books...
 
Thanks for the back story. I have yet to see the movie, way too little time for that much fun in one day.

Fred, I just threw out my laser disks a year ago or so. Not sure where the Beta tapes are. What's this thing you call BluRay, a new style of Phaser or what?

B2 (;->
 
ok, I just came back from seeing Star Trek. I loved it!! The flare definately made it interesting!

Also, I noticed in the credits that Winona Ryder was in this movie, did anyone see her...I didn't!! I gotta know...if I wasnt married........

EDIT: JUST FIGURED IT OUT....SHE WAS SPOCK'S MOTHER!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom