4 ms·
The technical quality of Netflix originals is really high. One thing that annoys me though is for some reason despite having rigorous standards for the camera i
by Tomdarkness 5y ago
The technical quality of Netflix originals is really high. One thing that annoys me though is for some reason despite having rigorous standards for the camera it seems a common trend through numerous Netflix Originals to use the Vantage Hawk V-Lite Vintage '74 line of anamorphic lenses. I guess it's a stylistic choice but it results is some (for me at least) annoying image distortion that can really distract from the show. They are literally described at claiming the flaws are a feature: "The Vintage’74 version has certain gentle aberrations and other characteristics that might be considered flaws by others but are welcomed storytelling tools for cinematographers"
You can see this is some example footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbRkoeNb9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbRkoeNb9U
Note the distortion and blurred top and bottom of the image.
- chrisseaton 5y agoCinematographers almost always want part of the image blurred - an entire image in sharp focus would make it difficult to perceive depth and would take away the ability to direct the gaze of the audience.
- galago 5y agoIn this case the OOF points of light are actually vertically oriented ovals. The idea being its reminiscent of "1974" style anamorphic lenses. Its an affectation not unlike digital retro photo filters, except that its the physical lens. Its not unlike musicians who use vintage equipment because they want to reproduce something as it was done in the past. Its gets a bit dissonant if the movie is set in the present though.
- xuhu 5y agoI just imagined sitting for a photography course test and the first question is "why do anamorphic lenses not produce round out-of-focus points of light, since the in-focus parts are not stretched". Naturally the course material didn't cover any of this.
- nullc 5y agoThe out of focus spots are an 'image' of the aperture mask. So they'll take on whatever shape the aperture has... not its physical shape, but its optical shape. In an anamorphic lens the image is squeezed, so the effective aperture is squeezed... well, in most of them. There are anamorphic lenses with the anamorphic part behind the iris, and for those you don't get the oval shaped oof highlights.
- nullify88 5y agoMight be related but I'm finding recent TV shows and film to have a really narrow field of focus while the rest of the screen is either blurry like your example or a depth of field effect. My eyes generally wander to look at the surrounding scene or detail but I get the feeling I'm not supposed to be looking there.
- xuhu 5y agoTo some degree the DoF feels like a trend, there will probably be movies in the 50's made in the Netflix style of the 20's.
- staticautomatic 5y agoMaybe, but crazy shallow DoF goes back at least to Kubrick famously shooting parts of Barry Lyndon at f0.7.
- cialowicz 5y agoBarry Lyndon was shot with an f/0.7 lens because Kubrick wanted period-correct lighting: candlelight, which required a super fast lens with the film used. To my knowledge he wasn’t going for shallow DoF.
- staticautomatic 5y agoBe that as it may, the DoF is unavoidable unless every shot is insanely tight.
- gannonburgett 5y agoYou are correct. This wonderful article taken from American Cinematographer goes over this very topic in great detail: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
- germinalphrase 5y agoThat kind of distortion is naturally common to most anamorphic lenses, but especially apparent in older glass. See: Soderbergh’s vintage anamorphic choices in No Sudden Move. In the old days, they would mostly restrict anamorphics to locked off shots/specific compositions to minimize how visible these type of distortions can be.
- alias_neo 5y agoI don't know a whole lot about camera lenses, but it's this the reason shows like Sabrina have that extremely annoying distortion/aberration near the edges of the frame but covering almost everything not in focus at close range? I find it extremely jarring. Edit: grammar
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoThey toned that down by the end of Sabrina season 1. I think the idea there was to make a sense of otherworldly spookiness.
- philistine 5y agoAnd yet they gave her that thirsty wig. I stopped watching the show with Season 2 solely based on the poor wig work.
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoI’ll take terrible wig work over ‘oh shit, am I about to get a migraine?’ camera work any day. Nevertheless, I think my wife and I quit watching around the beginning of season 3 when it was clear the show had utterly jumped the shark.
- philistine 5y agoThe show jumped with the wig I tells you! That accursed wig! Ah!
- aaronbrethorst 5y agothanks for the laugh, seriously XD
- turdnagel 5y agoIt looks pretty cool during a rack focus, but I agree, it's definitely used to give a filmic look but gets tired quickly.
- 101008 5y agoOh thanks. I thought I was crazy because I could notice the blur on the bottom and top of the screen but not anywhere else. I thought "Maybe they did this so the subtitles have a better contrast" but I found it stupid. At least it was done for artistic motives...
- anarayanan31 5y agoA lot of cinematographers don’t really like the extreme resolving power inherent to 4K+ sensors, and optics that diffuse that sharpness (for instance, a lot of anamorphics) are VERY much in vogue as a result.
- sydthrowaway 5y agoAre you kidding? They look very cheap
- Joeboy 5y agoI had a quick google and found a set for rent at 13900 SEK per day, which is apparently about $1500.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoOh wow, I've noticed that a lot of Netflix Originals blur out regions of the frame that aren't front and center and it bugs the hell out of me. I assumed it was some weird post-production attempt to mimic depth of field, I didn't realize it was a lens choice.