For clarification, I busted out my fanciest crayons and hired the most expensive Microsoft Paint artist to make these. Here's an example of a particular shot, focusing on the mountain in the background:
Notice that the mountain and the person are deformed; they are stretched horizontally. The aspect ratio is 2.35:1
Then the camera changes focus to the person in the foreground, and this happens:
The aspect ratio is still 2.35:1, but now everything is stretched vertically, so you can see more crap at the sides and less crap at the top and bottom (like the peak of the mountain).
These examples are, of course, exaggerated to illustrate the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessS
Katie, if I pissed you off, I'm sorry, really, was not intended.
|
Nope. Your bollocking happened before I read your comments. I have no idea what's going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB
the director sometimes wishes to emphasize the difference in size or distance between objects in the foreground and the background; he may wants to make nearby objects appear very large and make objects at a moderate distance appear small and far away. To shoot these scenes, specific lens that cover the angle of view between 64° and 84° are used, and they translate to 35mm lens in 35mm film format. Unfortunately, one of the "side effect" of these special lens is the apparent perspective distortion when the camera is not aligned perpendicularly to the subject, which is the "issue" you noticed. In other words, with normal lens, parallel lines converge at the same rate, but with these particular lens, they converge slightly more due to the wider total field.
|
That doesn't sound at all like what I was describing :\