Is quick rack-focusing a new trend?

P

Pete

Hi everyone!

I just recently watched two new movies that came out (Super 8 and Xmen: First Class), and I couldn't help but notice the heavy use of rack focusing in these movements. Super 8 was the biggest culprit, but it was very noticeable in both films. And the change in focus was distinctly fast and rather jarring in my opinion.

So my question is, is this a new trend in movies? Has anyone else noticed this happening more and more?

And begin discussion...now.
 
Pete said:
So my question is, is this a new trend in movies? Has anyone else noticed this happening more and more?
Click to expand...
Not a new trend.

Hawks and Hitchcock used it all the time. Look at the Leone
films shot by Massimo Dallamano and Tonino Delli Colli - they use
it often. The amazing Gordon Willis used rack focus all the time as
does Roger Deakins.

I notice it - just not more and more.
 
directorik said:
Not a new trend.

Hawks and Hitchcock used it all the time. Look at the Leone
films shot by Massimo Dallamano and Tonino Delli Colli - they use
it often. The amazing Gordon Willis used rack focus all the time as
does Roger Deakins.

I notice it - just not more and more.
Click to expand...

Hmm... well, it's obviously an old technique, but for some reason it's been standing out to me in more recent movies. Thanks for the input!
 
A big part of the reason it's more noticable in super8 than some other films is because super 8 was shot with an anamorphic lens. Because of that it's not just focus that shifts, the image kind of pinches and pulls as well as things go in and out of focus.

Of course this happens with other lenses too, but because of the anamorphic distortion, it's more pronounced with an anamorphic lens. That's been my observation anyway.
 
Cassavetes loved to film conversations in long takes where he'd rack focus all over the room as each person spoke, so old technique for sure. You may notice it more because you know what it is and it sticks out to you.

I have a very sweet rack in my new film that I love, pretty classic use. We are over character A's shoulder focused on character B's face. Character A turns right into the camera to exit we rack to his face and catch his expression before he exits frame, then rack back to B for her expression.
 
I'm embarrassed I left off Cassavetes. He's one of my favorites and
used quick rack focus a lot.
 
No. Those flares are done in post.

I absolutely hate them. In "Star Trek" and especially in "Super 8"
it just draws my attention to the LENS. You get a lens flare by
pointing the lens directly at a light source - any lens. Why Abrams
wants the audience to keep noticing the LENS is beyond me.
 
directorik said:
No. Those flares are done in post.

I absolutely hate them. In "Star Trek" and especially in "Super 8"
it just draws my attention to the LENS. You get a lens flare by
pointing the lens directly at a light source - any lens. Why Abrams
wants the audience to keep noticing the LENS is beyond me.
Click to expand...

correct me if im wrong, but i remember watching the making of on Star Trek and one of the ways they got those flares was by shining a flashlight directly at the lens off screen. im sure they did it with Super 8 too. some of it might have been post
 
Abrams claims all lens flares were practical effects. While I also found it annoying and distracting in Star Trek, I can at least understand why he thought it was a good idea for that film. Shiny fancy future with lots of bright lights and things to reflect off of.

But I really don't get it with Super 8...
 
idk im just an Abrams fanboy then. the flares dont really bother me. i watched an interview with him recently about lens flares in Super 8 and he admits its distracting and that he overdid in Super 8, but that hes just having fun. he just thinks they're beautiful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-1DqrgGZiM

at 7:10 he talks about lens flare until about 8:10
 
I sort of get the Lens flare thing...it's like taking a digital recording and making it intentionally low-fi. Drawing attention to aspects of the medium, despite the fact they were limitations and flaws to overcome in the past. A flaw ascended into style? Not unheard of, but, yeah, it annoys me too. So I get it...but I just don't like it.

It was particularly bad in video games. Sometime (around 96-97 I think) they figured out how to do it in games. At first it was a neat, unobtrusive gimmick. In Super Mario 64, it was because the game was being filmed by a floating cameraman (you saw him at the beginning, and in mirrors). The flare made sense. But then EVERY game had that, so any suspension of disbelief was tempered by an awareness of an unmentioned cameraman.
 
Ponty301 said:
correct me if im wrong, but i remember watching the making of on Star Trek and one of the ways they got those flares was by shining a flashlight directly at the lens off screen.
Click to expand...
I guess you’re right.

I have a collection of effects and one of the packages is “lens
flair”. I thought I recognized a few of them in both films. It
still annoys me if that’s the method of getting lens flare.

Do any of you feel the lens flare improves your enjoyment of a
scene? Do you feel this helps any aspect of the story telling?

I know most of us do not like “shakycam”. I don’t. But I
understand the reason behind some of it. “Cloverfield” for
example. Like it or not, the story relies on the audience
believing this is footage from a handheld camera during the alien
attack. I can see lens flair being added (either in post or on
set) to remind the audience we are watching the events as shot by
a camera. That did not seem to be the case in either “Super 8” or
“Star Trek”

Are we (the audience) watching the events in those film through a
camera? Is that his point?

When I saw "The Wrath of Kahn" or "Goonies" I did not think I was
watching these events through a camera there with the crew of Enterprise
or with the kids from Astoria.
 
Although I definitely notice the flares in the JJ Abrams movies, I'm not distracted by them. The flares are a part of Abrams' "signature" as a director, much like shaky-cam is the "signature" of Paul Greengrass. I think flares used tastefully add a lot to the professional "look" of a film.

Although it's beside the point, I actually like shaky-cam (sorry guys, but I enjoyed Battle LA). Optical flares, in my opinion, are as prone to overuse by amateurs as shallow DOF is from first-time DSLR buyers. There are some low-budget music videos I've seen in which every (and I mean EVERY) shot had at least one unnecessary flare. However I don't they were overdone in Super 8.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed Battle LA in a guilty pleasure, "Showgirls", so bad it's almost good way. The retarded shaky cam calmed down about 1/3 of the way into the movie it seemed and he started using more traditional coverage. That guy has to be one of the worst directors to ever get a chance to make a movie with that big a budget.
 
As a habitual abuser of anamorphic lens flares, I actually like Abrahms look in Star Trek. It was somewhat distracting at times, but he accomplished his stated goal

"to make the future look brighter than ever before"

Using a lot of various lens flare software myself, It appeared to me that he used a combination of real and fake anamorphic flares. The small flares on controll panels, etc would be real ones. The softer full screen ones would be real, but the lens flares over CGI are not real, and the brighter, crisper lens flares (full screen) are not real. Just a guess from what I saw.

At those asking what lens flares add to a story, you might as well be asking what sunglasses do for your leg. They don't do anything for the story. Some filmmakers like to get visual on top of a great story, that's not flawed thinking, it's just another style. I like JJ's style, but I'm not happy that I'll never get to film the Dark Tower series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top