Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: lens flares

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Bradbury
    Hi Ryan, ... necessarily about immersion for everybody, then what is it about? I thought the idea behind immersive media was, well, to immerse. Sorry, I
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 20, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Ryan,

      > I would ask Aaron a different question, though: if the dome "isn't
      necessarily about immersion for everybody," then what is it about? I
      thought the idea behind immersive media was, well, to immerse.

      Sorry, I should have said 'isn't necessarily about reality for
      everybody'.

      The idea that we shouldn't have lens flares because they detract from
      reality suggests that domes should only be used to represent real
      environments. I found myself immersed in an incredible world of
      tripnotic 2D fractals just a couple of weeks ago for a Domeheads event
      at Think Tank in Birmingham. I would have given anything to have been
      pulled back into reality after being sucked into the inescapable vortex
      of the Mandelbrot, I'm not sure a lens flare would have helped me. ;)

      This doesn't mean I'm against real environments, everyday we're pushing
      the team to create more believable environments, this is what most of
      our shows require... and... occasionally we use lens flares. Perhaps
      some people overdo the lens flare effect in places where it isn't
      appropriate. My suggestion would be to use them if they add to the
      believability of a scene if that's what the scene requires.

      Regards,

      Aaron Bradbury

      -----Original Message-----
      From: fulldome@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fulldome@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Ryan Wyatt
      Sent: 20 October 2011 17:54
      To: fulldome@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Ryan Wyatt
      Subject: [fulldome] Re: lens flares

      I agree with Rob: lens flares in the dome are not for me. But hey,
      kids, knock yourselves out!

      That said, don't kid yourself by claiming that you're enhancing the
      "reality" of the image. You're making use of a trope, a CG shorthand
      that feels "real" only by training. By using a lens flare, you're
      providing a visual cue to your audience that actually doesn't occur with
      most modern camera equipment. To me, the visual cue screams, CG trying
      to look "real."

      (On the other hand, if you're talking the lens flares in the latest
      "Star Trek" film, those rock! As Abrams said, "I love the idea that the
      future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame.")

      I would ask Aaron a different question, though: if the dome "isn't
      necessarily about immersion for everybody," then what is it about? I
      thought the idea behind immersive media was, well, to immerse.


      Ryan, a.k.a.
      Ryan Wyatt, Director
      Morrison Planetarium and Science Visualization
      California Academy of Sciences
      55 Music Concourse Drive
      San Francisco, CA 94118
    • Ryan Wyatt
      ... Just to be clear, I never stated that we as fulldome producers “shouldn’t have lens flares,” nor did I state that fulldome should only depict
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 20, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Tom Casey wrote:

        > So what I am saying is that in reality, our reality in the fulldome environment is quite unreal... Sometimes called suspension of disbelief, the immersive quality we aim for is just one more trick our audiences have learned to leap into and accept as "reality."

        And on Oct 20, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Aaron Bradbury wrote:

        > The idea that we shouldn't have lens flares because they detract from reality suggests that domes should only be used to represent real environments.

        Just to be clear, I never stated that we as fulldome producers “shouldn’t have lens flares,” nor did I state that fulldome should only depict reality.

        I simply wanted to point out that a) one should not rationalize the use of lens flares by suggesting they enhance the “reality” of the scene and b) I and presumably others will find the use of lens flares sad, tacky, and distractingly bogus.

        I just don’t want y’all reading too much into my statements. That’s all. :)


        R.
      • Amr El-Laithy
        I agree with you tom , and i think the reality issue can be defined just by the audience experience . i remember a situation from Jurassicpark Visual
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 22, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree with you tom , and i think the "reality" issue can be defined just by the audience experience . i remember a situation from Jurassicpark Visual effects supervisor ( Mark Christiancen ) said about the dinosaur scene they made that Steven Spielberg ask them to change it more than 20 time or more just because he can't feel the DINOSAUR is " REAL " , i don't think Steven have ever seen one " mark said " . i think that is the same . what was in steven head or imagination to introduce to the audience is what we can call the STORY REALITY . there is a contract signed between the filmmakers and the director says that the film is not really happened but you gonna believe that .


          Amr


          ________________________________
          From: Tom Casey <tom@...>
          To: fulldome@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 7:42 PM
          Subject: [fulldome] Re: lens flares

          Since I'm just sitting here waiting for a final last few frames on an eight month project to finish, I thought I would further this thought...

          Although I will agree with Ryan on most of his post, examining things further really brings up a lot more questions about what we are trying to do in fulldome.  Yes, we are immersing our audience in an environment, but to say it is "just like being there" is far from a true statement except for the marketing folks.  There are so many "learned" processes going on in the minds of our audience that they may say they feel as if they are immersed in a real scene, but it's really a huge lie. 

          I remember reading about a study years ago where researchers went to African tribes who were so removed from civilization that they had never seen any sort of captured imagery.  When the researchers set up small movie screens and projected moving imagery, the viewers could not connect, recognize or identify that the people seen on the screen were even people... all they saw were moving textures.  Their reality had no way of making the jump from real to movie-real.

          So if you consider what we are doing in our domes, the only reason we have any sort of "realty" is a long process of learning from watching film, television, etc.  There is the ongoing debate of wether one continuous camera move as opposed to cutting between scenes is appropriate.  Where should the viewer be looking in fulldome is a learned process from traditional theaters, just watch how most people don't turn their heads during a show. The speeding up of time to do a powers of ten move out into the cosmos, the narrator's voice booming out from nowhere, and any scene transitions we need to make are a few other learned storytelling techniques.  Just dimming the lights and fading up our first scene is a learned process.

          So what I am saying is that in reality, our reality in the fulldome environment is quite unreal... Sometimes called suspension of disbelief, the immersive quality we aim for is just one more trick our audiences have learned to leap into and accept as "reality." 

          Tom



          On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Ryan Wyatt wrote:

          > I would ask Aaron a different question, though: if the dome “isn’t necessarily about immersion for everybody,” then what is it about?  I thought the idea behind immersive media was, well, to immerse.

          ************************************************
          H o m e  R u n  P i c t u r e s

          Tom Casey
          President & Creative DIrector

          100 First Avenue - Suite 450
          Pittsburgh, PA  15222
          Studio: 412-391-8200
          mailto:tom@...
          http://www.homerunpictures.com
        • Rob Spearman
          Bob: I was talking about gratuitous lens flare special effects. That is not the same thing as blooming , which is a familiar and natural technique for
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 22, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob: I was talking about gratuitous lens flare special effects. That is
            not the same thing as "blooming", which is a familiar and natural
            technique for showing bright objects in HDR scenes.

            I just wanted to get people thinking twice about taking extra effort to
            add something that can clearly detract from the experience. Ryan put it
            well when he wrote:

            "I simply wanted to point out that a) one should not rationalize the use
            of lens flares by suggesting they enhance the reality of the scene and
            b) I and presumably others will find the use of lens flares sad, tacky,
            and distractingly bogus."

            The discussion of audience expectations and social norms is interesting,
            but it seems rather limiting to intentionally dumb down this medium to
            meet all the received 'wisdom' from cinema when it could be so much
            more.

            Rob


            --
            Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. tel 360.616.8915
            P.O. Box 2976 fax 360.616.8917
            Bremerton, WA 98310 http://digitaliseducation.com
          • Aaron McEuen
            Some thoughts. From day one, motion picture was defined as repeated illusion that happens every 24th of a second. It has always been an illusion . That is the
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 24, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Some thoughts.

              From day one, motion picture was defined as repeated illusion that happens every 24th of a second.

              It has always been an "illusion". That is the business we are in.

              One might think that Radiosity might be an exageration of our reality, or Raytracing to 16 steps of reflection can mislead our reality. It is all exagerated when we need to push levels to 1000% in our digital world, just to get the "edge" when we need to illude what we think the reality should be.

              One of the challenges that I think about is, how do we "teach" our viewers to watch a recreation of their world, of their "3D" environment that they have first hand experience living in? People are accustomed to seeing our world reproduced on a flat 2D screen, that in turn keeps getting bigger. This is what people have been trained to see as a recreation of their reality. I feel that a mold needs to be broken and that is, again, what we are up against.

              A thought on lens flares, well, they were a reality at one time with generating the 'illusion'. These are the kinds of byproducts by regenerating our reality that we taught people to see. I sometimes look at my world and figure in my own lens flare, or 2D post process plugin, or whatever. Sort of like “I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn’t be contained in the frame.” I like looking towards this brightness. I always thought of how cool it would be to have HDR eyes!

              My 2¢

              Aaron
              www.starlight-prod.com
              http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Starlight+Express+Earth&aq=f

              On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:32:02 -0700, Ryan Wyatt wrote:

              On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Tom Casey wrote:

              So what I am saying is that in reality, our reality in the fulldome environment is quite unreal... Sometimes called suspension of disbelief, the immersive quality we aim for is just one more trick our audiences have learned to leap into and accept as "reality."

              And on Oct 20, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Aaron Bradbury wrote:

              The idea that we shouldn't have lens flares because they detract from reality suggests that domes should only be used to represent real environments.

              Just to be clear, I never stated that we as fulldome producers �shouldn�t have lens flares,� nor did I state that fulldome should only depict reality.

              I simply wanted to point out that a) one should not rationalize the use of lens flares by suggesting they enhance the �reality� of the scene and b) I and presumably others will find the use of lens flares sad, tacky, and distractingly bogus.

              I just don�t want y�all reading too much into my statements. That�s all. :)


              R.
            • Jason Fletcher
              It is balance between personal taste and your mission statement. Some people loved the outer space lens flares in Star Trek (2009), and some really disliked
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 24, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                It is balance between personal taste and your mission statement. Some people
                loved the outer space lens flares in Star Trek (2009), and some really
                disliked them.

                --
                Jason Fletcher
                Charles Hayden Planetarium


                On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Rob Spearman <rob@...>wrote:

                Bob: I was talking about gratuitous lens flare special effects. That is not the same thing as "blooming", which is a familiar and natural technique for showing bright objects in HDR scenes.

                I just wanted to get people thinking twice about taking extra effort to add something that can clearly detract from the experience. Ryan put it well when he wrote:

                "I simply wanted to point out that a) one should not rationalize the use of lens flares by suggesting they enhance the reality of the scene and b) I and presumably others will find the use of lens flares sad, tacky, and distractingly bogus."

                The discussion of audience expectations and social norms is interesting, but it seems rather limiting to intentionally dumb down this medium to meet all the received 'wisdom' from cinema when it could be so much more.

                Rob


                --
                Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. tel 360.616.8915
                P.O. Box 2976 fax 360.616.8917
                Bremerton, WA 98310 http://digitaliseducation.com
              • Tom Casey
                I m glad to see this response! I was disappointed to see words like clearly detract, tacky, bogus, dumb down, etc . in the previous post. We should
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 26, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm glad to see this response! I was disappointed to see words like "clearly detract, "tacky," "bogus," "dumb down," etc . in the previous post. We should not be prejudice towards or limit any creative approach used to do storytelling in our domes. Our medium needs to experiment in all areas of production as it grows.

                  As for all this realism debate... in truth, our domes can never match the HDR of reality since we are reflecting off of a surface. Hence, the need for cinematic tools to create more effective suspension of disbelief.

                  Let's not put any attempts down.

                  Tom


                  On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Jason Fletcher wrote:

                  It is balance between personal taste and your mission statement. Some people
                  loved the outer space lens flares in Star Trek (2009), and some really
                  disliked them.

                  --
                  Jason Fletcher
                  Charles Hayden Planetarium

                  On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Rob Spearman <rob@...>wrote:

                  Bob: I was talking about gratuitous lens flare special effects. That is not the same thing as "blooming", which is a familiar and natural technique for showing bright objects in HDR scenes.

                  I just wanted to get people thinking twice about taking extra effort to add something that can clearly detract from the experience. Ryan put it well when he wrote:

                  "I simply wanted to point out that a) one should not rationalize the use of lens flares by suggesting they enhance the reality of the scene and b) I and presumably others will find the use of lens flares sad, tacky, and distractingly bogus."

                  The discussion of audience expectations and social norms is interesting, but it seems rather limiting to intentionally dumb down this medium to meet all the received 'wisdom' from cinema when it could be so much more.

                  Rob


                  --
                  Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. tel 360.616.8915
                  P.O. Box 2976 fax 360.616.8917
                  Bremerton, WA 98310 http://digitaliseducation.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.