Why and what is this effect

[Joel Arvidsson]

I wonder why some filmakers love using this effect so much. Im talking about the blur wich sometimes looks like an post effect to create more layers of depth to the image. The picture is taken from an great peace of work so no offense to the filmaker. Some times it works out but other times this get overused and even the hero of the shot gets washed out and out of focus.

I think this effect can look weird alot of times, almost that you got your fingers out of focused in the frame, but other times I guess it would make reading text easier.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Glass prismas infront of lens and or short dof. Done well it can look really nice and concentrate the focus of the image.

Here is one exmaple I worked on where more obscure prismas where used... ignore the render glitch in the middle of the frame.. did just see that that was there, hope this was not the final render

https://vimeo.com/28303240

 

[Bob Gundu]

Purely stylistic. These examples look like in camera effects as well.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

You can achieve this (or similar images) by holding a glass (like a wine-glass) in front of the lens.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Isn't that open lensing?

 

[Björn Benckert]

Isn't that open lensing?

Yes, I think you are right.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Thanks Björn, always nice to read your posts )

Yes, I think you are right.

Edit: reading through, perhaps: http://lensdistortions.com/aftereffects/
/edit

 

[Shane Kelly]

It's a prism or piece of glass in front of the lens, purely a stylistic choice to concentrate the eye, much in the same way as a post vignette.
Bruno Aveillan is the master of this technique

 

[Lakis Amarantithis]

There are endless ways to do that. As long as you manage to hold something white in front of the lens. A simple piece of semitransparent piece of paper or a spray on a glass will do it.

 

[Russ Fill]

http://www.filtergallery.com/Image_Devices.html
Probably done with the single element holder and the split diopter filter. Works well... Kind of like a lens baby for grownups...

 

[James B.]

Isn't there a related technique, loosely referred to as 'lens whacking' ?
http://philipbloom.net/2012/02/01/the-art-of-lens-whacking-real-lights-leaks-and-ones-done-in-post/

 

[Nick Morrison]

Isn't there a related technique, loosely referred to as 'lens whacking' ?
http://philipbloom.net/2012/02/01/the-art-of-lens-whacking-real-lights-leaks-and-ones-done-in-post/

Yes, Lens Whacking or "Free Lensing" is a related, but different technique. Tilt Shifting probably falls into this category too (while also being unique).

All three methods create an IN-FRAME distortion of some kind that can be very beautiful and compelling. However as each are a little different, I suppose they're worth breaking down? I'll do the best I can:

1) PRISMS/GLASS: Placement of prisms or fragments of glass (shards, bottles, whatever) "in frame" (esp very close to camera in foreground) can cause unusual aberrations and twinkles we would not ordinarily find shooting through a lens. The refractive quality of the glass you place "in frame" can cause very unique, compelling FX.

2) FREE LENSING/LENS WHACKING: This involves literally taking the lens OFF the camera, and creatively "moving" it -- unnattached --- infront of the MOUNT in creative ways. The further away you move it, the more out of focus you get. If you "tilt" the lens to one side only (while often still "touching" the mount), you in effect get a "TILT SHIFT" FX while also letting LIGHT LEAKS into the camera. Can render very organic and beautiful imagery if done the right way. But as opposed to refractive pieces of glass creating the FX , it's the odd displacement of the lens, the "tilting" this causes, and the light leaks streaming in...which do most of the magic.

3) TILT SHIFTING: As opposed to Lens Whacking, where the FX is completely hand-held with little or no control, Tilt Shifting often involves Lenses or adapters that give you PRECISE control over the displacement of the focal plane. Instead of simply adjusting focus IN an OUT (ie Deep or Shallow), tilt shifting allows you to swing the focus over to any corner or part of the frame. You can make the LEFT side in focus, and right side OUT. It can be very creative and rewarding. Tilt Shift lenses are often used for landscapes to correct perspective, but on longer lenses can be very interesting for portraits too!

Hope this helps.

 

[Mike McMillin]

Real crystal wine glasses or bowls work great

 

[Matt W.]

I've tried all the stuff listed above (except the strip diopters), nothing gets this look.

What specifically is he using in the two-minute spot posted on vimeo? For the shots with a little shred of frame with weird almost anamorphic highlight gobs? I must know... That spot is INCREDIBLE.

 

[vstachu]

Hi,
Im taking from my experience that lighting is very important in this situation, i mean position and if light illuminates the glass you are holding ,
[ when i use term "glass" i mean all thing you put in front of lens ]

If you wanna create look like Joel Arvidsson shown in his first post then you need illuminate that piece of glass and use about f/2 ( it depends what kind of glass you are holding )
You can illuminate it by light on set or you can use flashlight and light only that piece of glass (you can add some gels on that flashlight in order to balance color of that flare/glare with rest of composition )

On the other hand
if you want to create look like Bruno Aveillan ( i noticed that he use glass more for distortion rather that for glare/flare ) than you want to block all light from illuminating that glass and then you can see through
and dont use aperture like f/1.4 or f/2 because you will achieve big smudge. Very very important is what kind of glass you use i mean how much it blur image by it self


For me Glasses works the best, why ? because glass is curved and i know how much they blur (they are cheap)

This is a picture I created with glasses ( 3 pictures merge together btw)
I have about 30 glasses and only 1 gave me this effect because i have only one glasses +1 rest of them are +4 or +5 or -5 i dont know
I thought that the most powerful glasses are the best but they are the one that will give you the smudge what you want are weak glasses like +1 and use like f/5.6
for this one i use probably 135 or 200 mm and around f/5.6

And dont take lens from frame , use this that you have 2 lenses with gap between them and often in that gap you have 2 see through rubber something for your nose that will add to your effect some random flareish look
You can break lens and put it back and edges will reflect light differently

The key is to spin around , place that glass in different position look at my photo same settings same setup same glasses I just angle them differently

I figured it by my self because i didnt find any useful information out there

check out Ruben Latre' vimeo and flickr he mastered this look

Sincerely,
Stan

 

[Shane Kelly]

If you prefer doing it in post, there's always http://lensdistortions.com

 

[Björn Benckert]

If you prefer doing it in post, there's always http://lensdistortions.com

or you go a bit more organic and shoot your own lens distortions against black and use transfer modes like screen, add or softlight get them onto your footage. But try to do it in camera there is referactions and stuff that would not be the same if comping on additive stuff.

 

[Matt W.]

Hi,
Im taking from my experience that lighting is very important in this situation, i mean position and if light illuminates the glass you are holding ,
[ when i use term "glass" i mean all thing you put in front of lens ]

If you wanna create look like Joel Arvidsson shown in his first post then you need illuminate that piece of glass and use about f/2 ( it depends what kind of glass you are holding )
You can illuminate it by light on set or you can use flashlight and light only that piece of glass (you can add some gels on that flashlight in order to balance color of that flare/glare with rest of composition )

On the other hand
if you want to create look like Bruno Aveillan ( i noticed that he use glass more for distortion rather that for glare/flare ) than you want to block all light from illuminating that glass and then you can see through
and dont use aperture like f/1.4 or f/2 because you will achieve big smudge. Very very important is what kind of glass you use i mean how much it blur image by it self


For me Glasses works the best, why ? because glass is curved and i know how much they blur (they are cheap)

This is a picture I created with glasses ( 3 pictures merge together btw)
I have about 30 glasses and only 1 gave me this effect because i have only one glasses +1 rest of them are +4 or +5 or -5 i dont know
I thought that the most powerful glasses are the best but they are the one that will give you the smudge what you want are weak glasses like +1 and use like f/5.6
for this one i use probably 135 or 200 mm and around f/5.6

And dont take lens from frame , use this that you have 2 lenses with gap between them and often in that gap you have 2 see through rubber something for your nose that will add to your effect some random flareish look
You can break lens and put it back and edges will reflect light differently

The key is to spin around , place that glass in different position look at my photo same settings same setup same glasses I just angle them differently

I figured it by my self because i didnt find any useful information out there

check out Ruben Latre' vimeo and flickr he mastered this look

Sincerely,
Stan

Fantastic, thank you. Brilliant write up. How did you get the effect in the first shot? That's the look I prefer where the light catches it. Is that from a broken pair of glasses?

I am going to the 99 Cent Only to pick up some reading glasses. Was trying to pry diopters out of filters but glasses seem better suited for the task based on your results being better than mine. Will look for +1 diopter. I had the same experience with +1 being better than +2, +4, +10, etc...

or you go a bit more organic and shoot your own lens distortions against black and use transfer modes like screen, add or softlight get them onto your footage. But try to do it in camera there is referactions and stuff that would not be the same if comping on additive stuff.

Good advice, I have been flirting with this idea for a while but have yet to really implement it right. There's some Chris Cunningham stuff where he does this. Love your stuff, btw.

 

[Shane Kelly]

or you go a bit more organic and shoot your own lens distortions against black and use transfer modes like screen, add or softlight get them onto your footage. But try to do it in camera there is referactions and stuff that would not be the same if comping on additive stuff.

That's what the lens distortions.com filters are - real flares etc shot against black. I agree that in camera is different but the post route allows some finessing and doesn't scare the client as much. Here's a piece that I shot with a diy swing-shift lens based on a cambo x-2 pro system and some glass in front of the lens.

If you listen to the latest "the rc" podcast Jason Wingrove talks about lensdistortions. http://www.fxguide.com/podcasts/

 

[Bob Gundu]

Just as an aside, I do believe the lens distortion templates offer actual bump displacement adjustments.