←back to thread

252 points CharlesW | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.121s | source | bottom
Show context
jrm4 ◴[] No.44457127[source]
Yup, yet another example of the thing I'll never stop finding fascinating:

ANY noticeable percieved "flaw" in any creative media will eventually become an aesthetic choice.

replies(5): >>44457212 #>>44457310 #>>44457427 #>>44460230 #>>44463298 #
1. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.44457212[source]
For an example, watch Shogun. Director apparently thought that most of the screen being out of focus was a positive. Quite distracting.
replies(2): >>44457957 #>>44459775 #
2. UltraSane ◴[] No.44457957[source]
Or Snyder's terrible zombie movie Army of the Dead where he uses lenses with very shallow depth of field that makes almost everything look out of focus. It is very annoying.
3. jccalhoun ◴[] No.44459775[source]
I've noticed this in a few things the last few years. The top and bottom of the shot are out of focus and it is super distracting to me. Maybe it is meant to draw the eye to the middle of the frame.
replies(1): >>44461656 #
4. Mashimo ◴[] No.44461656[source]
Yup, notice that as well. A blurry vignette. Needle sharp in the center, but objects that are the same distance are blurry at the edges of the frame. At first I thought they use vintage lenses, but it's probably done in post.

I sometimes do something similar on photos, where I darken the edges a bit.

replies(1): >>44463308 #
5. account42 ◴[] No.44463308{3}[source]
> I sometimes do something similar on photos, where I darken the edges a bit.

Which is also an emulation of the shortcomings of older/worse technology.

replies(1): >>44468536 #
6. generj ◴[] No.44468536{4}[source]
Not necessarily, there are still lenses being produced today with vignetting, especially wide open.

Avoiding vignetting is a trade off between complexity, cost, weight, and other optical flaws. That said modern optical design and manufacturing has made it a lot easier to have nearly flawless (clinical) designs.