Can everything be in focus in a movie?

Discussion in 'Computer Science & Culture' started by Syzygys, Mar 29, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,944
    You aren't supposed to see everything. I heard David Lynch complaining about shooting in HD, where even the wood screws in the set would be visible (on a panel that is supposed to represent metal).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    I did not direct my comment to any specific person, and it was not for technical ignorance.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Movies have always been HD. 35mm film is about 4096×2160 pixels. Most digital cinema projectors are below this at 1920×1080. Modern HD movies are now mostly viewed at lower resolution then film.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    In computer graphics the "translation" of an object in regards to a Z axis goes through a number of processes that are applied to a Matrix Mathematics array. These processes are termed by Scale, Rotation, Transposition which are all applied to an array before being executed. Since the Z axis is artificial in creation it undergoes various methods to represent distance, such as "Mipmapping" for textures, or for the actual translation of an object you could perhaps look at the Inverse Square Law

    In the instance of CGI films however, the actual engines used to create the worlds that we see aren't one singular system. In fact the way CGI is used is through "Compositing", this is why it works so well when merged with real world footage, but compositing is also used in complete CGI films. The character models are rendered with their own lighting within their own "bluesceen" set, the modelled world in which they exist is also rendered in the same way. Particle effects like dust or smoke, fire and lighting is then applied on top by a more convention 2D method of application.

    (Guassian) Blur effects can be used for artistic effect, or for like was specified for applying greater detail to what is relevent. It can also be used to blur over lesser model/textures so the actual systems modelling don't have to be as high spec as they would otherwise be required to be.

    As for wanting an image sharp or full of clarity, this would be a personal preference, when you see a film you are having a directors representation of how they want the story to be told forced on to you. That is in fact what you pay to see, and why so many people argue that reading a book is better than watching a film adaption because your imagination and therefore mind is the director, even if the writer carefully constructed a plotline for you to follow.
     
  8. wsionynw Master Queef Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    If a 100% CGI film was made with no depth of field, in other words every object close to or far away from the camera was in perfect pin sharp focus then it would be nigh on unwatchable.
    I say this because the human eye does not see the world that way, despite what some people have said on this thread (sigh).

    Watch the original Toy Story, even back then the subject matter in the foreground is clearly in focus, but objects in the background (for expample trees seen through a window) are out of focus. This is as it should be.
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,944
    But Lynch has been shooting in digital lately, not film.
     
  10. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    I still would like to see one with everything in focus, so I would know if it is really better or not.
    By the way I am sitting outside and I see pretty damn well everything up to 50 yard...

    There are 2 gnuts fucking about 30 yard away...
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,944
    Actually, the only thing in focus is a small area in the center of your field of vision, that's how the eye works.
     
  12. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    So you want someone to spend shitloads of money on a film experiment the rest of us know will irk us, before you decide? How about you make that movie if you are so interested.

    So? What you are failing to recognise, is that while you can focus on distant objects, you can only selectively focus; while you are looking at objects at 50m, foreground objects are out of focus to you. Similarly, when you look at close objects, background objects are out of focus. John failed to grasp this too. I guess it's because we concentrate on what we are looking at, and kind of ignore the rest, and when you go to look at something at a different distance, it suddenly snaps into focus, so you could kid yourself it was in focus all the time. Again, a few hours into sniper school and you'd soon realise and understand the limitations of your eyesight, the value of your peripheral vision, and how to maximise what we have within it's limitations.
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Thats right, and you hardly see anything else.

    In film (or anything with a real camera) the majority of the time, if not all the time, this technique puts an object in the corner (left\right of center) of the screen in focus and the background out of focus. Not how a human eye works at all but this is exactly what can be done with a camera lens, with the help of zooming in, something else the human eye does not do. Having shot hundreds of documentary films i think i should know the technique CGI is copping. The human eye and a lens are very different in how they work, two things are the ability to zoom in and out and the f-stop and both are used for this effect with a camera and cgi is either rendered full frame like that or composited like someone already mentioned.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2010
  14. wsionynw Master Queef Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    It wouldn't be better, trust us. It would look like an optical illusion, or perhaps give you a head ache. Either way it would be ass.

    As noted before you cannot focus on an object a few feet away and another object 50 feet away at the same time. You must shift your focus from one to other....try it.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Its what peole call 'filmic'. Basically the director of a CGI scene is simulating a camera and not a human eye to add realism and depth to the scene. And of course, no matter what it is always a 2d image the only thing making it look 3d is blur and shadows.
     
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    It wouldnt be 'ass'. often times a director hopes to have a lens good enough to KEEP the whole scene in focus, regrdless of the distances involved. An example is when the subject is standing in the foregournd (say 20-25 feet from camera) and waaaaaayyyy in the distance is a mountain range AND the whole scene is IN focus. This is known as the 'John Ford look' and requires expensive equipment BUT it is done and often times EXTREMELY desirable.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Hell, whn i was shooting if i had a lens that good to see detail in a distant mountain or forest AND have my subject (foreground) in focus i would be ecstatic.
     
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Heh, another thing to be cognizant of is that the human eye ball (for lack of a better term) moves in a socket and to switch focus between foreground and background needs to move in the socket even just a little. a camera does this another way.
     
  19. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    um, our eyes can't have everything in focus, so the same is for the screen per se.

    but i think the op means being able to pause the movie and focus your eyes at different parts in the screen and have them all in focus.
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Expensive? No. Depth of field relies on the aperture, or f-stop of the camera, and the f-stop is determined by the shutter speed, and amount of available light.

    Simply, more light=smaller aperture=more depth of field.

    John, you are making a fool of yourself here. Stop posting until you've read and understood some optics.
     
  21. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Ideally in film or video you would not even adjust shutter speed. That is in a properly lighted and set up scene. Available light shooting and i would never touch the shutter because it will just degrade the image. Dont confuse video cameras with a still camera because they are very different.
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Well for ten years of my life i made my living shooting video for distribution. Documentaries and music videos (no pornos) so i thnk i should know what i am talking about.

    I never shot film, too expensive and really hardly anyone does anymore. It isnt 1975....lol.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    In fact the only time i would adjust the shutter speed is if, for example, i was shooting a water fountain where the drops of water shoot high in the air and i wanted to make the drops appear like they where in slow motion of maybe for an effct at an auto race. Extreme sunlight is another time but it really doesnt look natural with a moving image (i mena film speed-24fps-25-30, not the object in the frame moving) so best to leave it alone. But, like i said i never shot objects moving faster than a human so shutter speed had no bearing and would just look like crap anyway.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page