I say it looks much better than the Jj Abrams Lens flare feast.

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/lens-flares-into-darkness.jpg

Which is what directly comes into mind if I hear the word 'lens flare'.

VMP

It's all on the viewers interpretation. Bothered your wife, didn't bother me in the slightest.

As the ARTist, do whatever you like for your "ART".

To me it's all about context. It works for me in the context used, although it's a medium-wide shot and the sun "flare" only takes up a small percentage of the well-exposed frame. Could be that's whats throwing your wife. If I were to have a go at that shot, I'd make it a bust shot of you and really let the sun fog the frame out when it pokes through. If you have an artistic idea, commit to it and go for it.

Thanks everyone! I REALLY appreciate your input:).

Cheers!

Ken

It's annoying, the shot even without it is annoying, the camera is too low.
Eyeline is important, if you're going to break it there has to be a reason.

Bob.

Happy wife, happy life.

Good God man, get rid of it!

Just kidding, sort of.

I find it distracting because every time the flare flares my eye goes to it (away from the face). So to me it is an artifice rather than artistic. In any case I'm not a great fan of lens flare and "lens whacking", but occasionally the effects do contribute to a shot.

screencast appears to be really, really bad - slow loading, erratic playback, etc., so can't comment.

btw. tried in chrome, ff, and even ie. all useless.(no problem with video from other sources)

I would find the flare less annoying if 1) it appeared only once, and 2) it appeared well away from your face, perhaps over in the up-left quadrant.

Jack

+1 ushere.

Tried to view it, but Screencast crawled at one frame per 30 secs, so I bailed. Never have any similar viewing problems with Youtube or Vimeo.

I got it to play OK down here however what there is, is confusing. There's less then 1 second of the previous shot, a cut, the shot in question, then another cut to a different shot also less than 1 second long.

I'll sick to my original opinion that it's annoying, I actually paused it mid shot to evaluate it as playing it repeatedly was messing with my stomach :(

Bob.

+1 on Screencast, playback is appalling, you might consider posting your clips to one of the better known sites like Vimeo.

I believe the answer to your question must come from your own intentions. Was the decision to add a visual effect to the scene intended to enhance the appeal of the music or musician? Or was it simply a device to throw into the mix?

I've seen many movies where broken sunlight shining through tree leaves was intended to give a sense of disconnection or confusion to the plot. In an old episode of the 1960's TV show Combat!, they shot a scene where a badly wounded soldier, being carried through the woods on a litter would drop in and out of consciousnesses. In the moments he was awake, he'd see the broken sunlight along with being jostled as he was moved. It made the viewer feel like he was seeing daylight for the last time.

a lens flare can definately be cool although its against normal protocol to shoot into the sun. I think its fine how you done it through the trees. I am am a sport film maker and do it a lot with a moving object. you'll see waht I mean in this link :

Lens Flares and light leaks can be a nice touch. Here, it would work better if the sun were a little further along in the golden hour and your aperture was open wider to show some bokeh.

I'm not an experienced film and video maker but I have fun and enjoy what I create. As for the flare messing with someone's stomach....well that just seems silly to me and almost like a comment from a person that's just grumpy altogether.

I'm an avid reader of this forum but I hardly post here for fear of being ripped apart and made to feel dumb by the "pro's".

So, my 2 cents...I don't find it annoying,,,create what you feel is artistic or just seems right to you.

Doug

Doug, as far as I'm concerned, all "opinions" are welcome by me.

Welcome aboard!

Grazie

[I]"As for the flare messing with someone's stomach"[/I]

I never said it was. I was referring to the way the clip was presented with cuts from/to other very shot clips. Playing it all in a loop was unsettling and it would have been so lens flare or not. The core point here should be read as [I]if you're going to ask for peoples opinion of a clip, give them enough of what comes before and after to put it into a context.[/I].

Bob.

I really liked the flare in the motorcycle video. The flare is part of setting the mood. Flares fit some times and some times not. To me, and that is entirely personal, flares fit in the typical "sci-fi" movie looks, particularly the desolate, Mad Max, desert kind of scenes where the flare enhances the feeling of dry desert heat. For me the "typical" flare is a band of "survivors" shot from down low, high sun, sweaty brows. The "hero" wipes his forehead and the flare comes in from behind his head and for a short second overexposes parts of the frame. In that setting, to me, the flare enhances the mood that is trying to be conveyed.

I was unable to watch the clip discussed here due to the terrible quality of the service through which it was published, but to me it looked like the flare came in what looked like green and lush settings, and if that is the case, to me (again) it would not enhance the intended mood of the shot.

To me, any effect or prop or whatever, should enhance the shot and re-enforce the mood of the shot. If it doesn't add anything (even if it doesn't detract) it should not be there. No effects for the sake of the effect, ever, in my opinion (which inevitably will be at odds with other peoples opinion). Even effects that are "natural".

If the clip was posted to a service able to actually show the clip I would be able to opine more though.

+1 for farss. The clip plays OK once loaded but I keep trying to check how the clip cuts into the sequence. Of course I can't see that, so taking only this clip I don't like the position of the flare and fail the shot. I would have composed tighter and paid attention to the 3rds rule. We were asked to resolve a difference of opinion about the flare and it doesn't help much to say "it's fine if you like it". In the sequence it is probably a small matter but, for all that, deleting the clip might well enhance the sequence.

so, i waited, and waited, and waited, then waited a bit longer.... is screencast serious, or just another wannabe. it's still appaling...

and finally, having waited even longer, i got to see the clip....

+1 bob and serena.

no idea where it's meant to fit into the scheme of things.....

frankly, and i am prone to generalising, lens flares and most other fx generally (told you i generalise) are attempts to liven up boring material. a lot of mtv (showing my age) clips consist solely of strung together, in your face fx trying desperately to enliven what would otherwise be droll, mundane, boring music.

mind you, it's thanks to them (and the wedding crowd) we have such toys as bbc, genarts, hit films, etc.,

I just right clicked and downloaded it and it played fine in VLC