Kubrick hated - HATED! - lens flare. He thought it showed technical incompetence and laziness. Unless he wanted lens flare, that is. In "2001: a Space Odyssey" there is flare galore in the scene where the monolithic on the moon is examined. Although he could've eliminated it, Kubrick deliberately made sure the lens flare stayed in order to give the scene a more factual, documentary feel. Too, there is lens flare in a few shots in the Jupiter sequence. Ever the wise guy, he left it in. His thinking was, "Well, it would be extremely difficult to move the sun if we were filming on location." Oh, that Kubrick! As always, best wishes from Vermont 🍁
Thank you and I'm pretty much in the Kubrik camp on flare. Pretty much any time I have flare samples in a lens review, I had o try and make them happen. I almost always find them distracting.
Most if not all these can be markedly reduced if not eliminated through careful consideration, even though a great many exploit the effects to create an artsy array of dubious contrivances for wowing the viewer. Most common on field camera's or pancake lenses with little to no precaution for poor framing of subjects.
@@DavidHancock i kinda got bitter comments on the comment i made just poking fun and stuff rest assured that i got respect for you. Having said that. Would it be possible to reverse ingineer a modern dslr to make a Film slr with more focus points. Or use old camcorder technology to make a viewfinder lcd screen to the film camera
@@bryanotero123 If yes, it would take more engineering knowledge than I have. I understand that Ricoh is learning fast just how hard it is to engineer a camera's mechanical components. Electronic would likely simplify some elements, but complicate others.
