Why the fuck would anyone use split-diopter focus? It looks fucking terrible
Why the fuck would anyone use split-diopter focus? It looks fucking terrible
>It looks fucking terrible
That's what your parents said when you were born.
...
>It looks fucking terrible
Only when Tarantino does it
forgot pic
Wait, is this a meme? I just watched this and it didnt look blurred at all.
Watched it where? Saw in it in a theater and it looked just like that
Jesus Christ
>people looking at stills of something that is supposed to be a quick shot
>quick shot
It lasts for 10 seconds
But none of these are quick shots
Doesn't matter. The point is it looked fine when watching it, and only stands out when you go back and analyze the freeze frame.
I mean, just going by this thread alone, a lot of people seemed not to notice in either RD or H8.
>The point is it looked fine when watching it
I've noticed it every time I've seen it in a film
>going by this thread alone, a lot of people
There are 6 posters ITT, 5 excluding you
I didn't remember this in Reservoir Dogs.
However I remember exactly this when seeing H8 in theaters.
I think webms would have worked better for your argument OP
depalma has tons of these
Calm down Quentin go back to your foot fetish cuckold porn
Because he wants to imitate DePalma and Alan J. Pakula but doesn't know where it is actually appropriate to use it in a way that helps the storytelling organically.
should have gone to film school a little
Why? It doesn't look any different in motion
Usually the "seam" caused by the diopter is hidden by something in the frame, like in this shot from All President's Men (red line is where the "seam" is).
>split-diopter focus
what are you talking about?
it really looks great
it really does look terrible, why not just edit it better so all the blurry shit is erased and only the foreground object is shown? I could do that frame by frame in photoshop for free
>in photoshop for free
welcome to the 90´s
Non-filmmaker here, is the reason for doing this because he couldn't get a proper focal distance for the camera without tearing out a wall of the warehouse?
that's some damn fine filmmaking
can cameras not focus on something in the background and something up close?
how does this technology not exist today either
there were a ton in star trek the motion picture
is this for real
If used well you really can't notice it because it's used pretty much all the time, the shitty films are the ones where you really notice it
ANYTHING RETARDED KUCKANTINO DOES IS EXCUSED BY >>>HOMAGE
BECAUSE HE IS THE ULTIMATE CINEMA AUTIST AND IS KNOWINGLY COPYING SOME OBSCURE FAGGOT DIRECTOR WHO DID THE SAME SHOT IN SOME RETARDED MOVIE
I actually liked this.
That's pretty impressive.
wtf I hate good movies now
Does it ruin your enjoyment of the movie? Cunt?
you should watch the scene in motion, it's actually even more impressive that way. there's a slow zoom in the scene which is almost impossible to do when you're using a diopter, gordon willis himself moved the diopters during the zoom. he basically invented a new camera move for the scene. and it's not flashy, most people don't even notice it consciously, but it is one of the most crucial scenes of the film subconsciously and a very subtle, elegant example of great visual storytelling.
I've always liked this shot because the blur reminds me of the gas fumes coming off of Marvin.