What's up with the camera lenses in this movie? It suffers from horrible fisheye effects throughout.
The Cinematographer appears to have ton of blockbuster experience so why is the camera totally haywire in this?
In a lot of scenes people look fine but when they take a step or two forward suddenly their faces balloon out. This movie is plagued by it!!
seriously nobody noticed this?
shareI understood the movie was shot in 3d... if that is the case (I saw it in 2d) then you would be dealing with a format that has more limited lenses to choose from. Depending on the camera system they used they might not have had a lot of choices in the lenses that were available... I can imagine the movie was kind of cheap and if they had more than 1 crew shooting at a time they might have had to have them use a specific lens because no others were available to that crew.
sharemostly I noticed your miss-spelling of lens (singular), lenses (plural).
sharebut mostly you're a retard, or just an internet noob?
shareah, so it's a sign of l33t-ness to spell 'lens' wrong?>
shareIncredibly unnecessary to comment just to correct a minor spelling error... it's an internet forum... people aren't double checking what theyre writing, I don't know what you're expecting. OH *beep* I FORGOT TO PUT AN APOSTROPHE IN THEY'RE !!! Feel free to point it out!
shareThe movie was filmed in traditional 2D. I'm not sure where you saw your screening. The theater I attended didn't have any fisheye problems. You might want to notify the manager if this problem persists.
They may have had the wrong lens on the projector, If it was for half the movie then the projectionist must have realized and switched the lens, I've been in a cinema where this has happened and told the usher and they fixed it right away..
shareYeah, I noticed it (on my BD). It seemed like most of the time, faces were stretched out horizontally.
shareYeah I know exactly what you mean, I came on here to see if anyone else noticed, I don't think it is the projector because it's not the same with every shot, and it does seem to be to do with the 3D. I noticed it mostly with closeups of people, it was like it struggled with anything that was meant to look nearer to you than the screen actually is.
Also, I think that stuff about changing over lenses on a projector was about anamorphic cinemascope, which is only relevant to film (so, 2D). There's two different lenses in a film projector, one stretches the picture out so that you can have two different shaped pictures on the same type of film. Digital projectors on the other hand don't have the restriction of one film width to deal with so they just crop the picture - there's one lens which moves in and out depending on how wide it should be. So if a digital cinema's picture is stretched it probably means there's a problem with the source file. Especially when, as in this case, the problem fluctuates throughout. (I took that to be what you meant by 'half the movie'? As in, parts of the movie adding up to about half?) And when other 3D movies play fine.
The effect is not there for me in both 2d and 3d. In all honesty maybe you have a scaling issue going on, that's all I can think of.
For relaxing times, make it Suntory time...
don't know about the lens, looked ok to me. but the wrong mic maybe. couldn't understand a lot of the dialogue. another booming movie where i had to run subtitles. sick of the too loud sound effects, too quiet voices.
shareI just watched this movie and I noticed there were some lens issues as well, mostly that all the scenes featuring Maggie Q showed her without any clothes on...Odd, that..
I'm a Pagan. What that means is, my religion was ancient when yours was born.
Ever occur to anyone that it was an artistic decision?
share