It's kind of the nature of film. A real film camera, and indeed real life, blurs the background optically by nature . Nature .

In your meat suit, you can only notice the blur. If you make yourself aware of your peripheral vision. You've actually tried to look at the blur. Your eyes refocus .

But in the movies you can look at the blur, and once you become aware of it it can become a compelling thought.

3d movies have the exact opposite problem. They provide different depths but everything is in focus at the same time. It ends up making everything look like it's being acted out by cardboard cutouts at different distances.

There is no correct third option. If everything is in focus, everything looks flat.

The real problem you've got is that you're used to video games where everything is in focus at every depth, but it's being seen on a true 2D surface.

If you look at a lot of games and monitors that don't have proper depth blur, and like no first person shooters or whatever know where you're going to look so they have to keep everything in focus, then real life gets tricky .

Hold your phone comfortably up in front of your face with the wall in the distance. Stare at the phone and pay attention to what's just past the side of the phone and you'll discover that that annoying blur is what the rest of us called life.

It is a terrible thing to suddenly notice life.

[deleted]

A camera can be focused on one point but still have a wider depth of field depending on the aperture. So your snarky comment is inaccurate.

[deleted]

thank you for the long explanation, but in real life, camera or not. everything is sharp. i can look in the middle, i can look outside of it. it is sharp. 3D has nothing to do with that. a movie can be 2D but still feel 3D. for example revenant with leonardo is a good example. it is beautiful shot. foreground sharp, middle ground, background. so it gives an immersive view. even cheap 80ties movies can look very good. i recently watched razorback from 1984 and it looked incredible.

also if you look at for example taxi driver from 1976. it also has little blur on the background sometimes, but also complete sharp shots even when talking or close up shots.

but in new movies there is something else. the background blur is way to excessive. maybe it has to do with the SFX shots. because no detail is of course faster and easier to make. also compression for streaming movies get less in size. how less detail how less size the movie or series takes. so streaming costs and HD space goes down.

there is definitely something going on, because those big budget movies still take a lot of money to make, yet you see it less and less on screen.

Prior complaints about blur/focus on Netflix.

There is something to be said that a whole slew of netflix series seem to abuse vignetting and selective focus, or whatever correct term applies here. When I first noticed it while watching You, I started seeing it everywhere.

Physics says that you're lying to yourself. The Relevant term is "depth of field". By heartedly recommend you google the term and do a little reading before you continue reading this reply.

In movies, the director and the cinematographer deliberately decide how much is and is not in focus.

This amount changes from scene to scene and is deliberately altered depending on what the director wants the audience to see and feel.

In the real world, as you move your eyes from point to point your eyes quickly refocus and your brain blocks out the transitions. In order to truly understand this phenomenon, you have to hold your thumb about 8 inches in front of your face stare at the tip of your upright thumb and do not move your eyes, but pay attention to what's behind your thumb .

And it can't be something 6 in away behind your thumb. Try it when you're 12 feet away from a bookcase and move your eyes back and forth between looking at the bookcase and looking at your thumb but always pay attention to the one you're not looking at.

And no it's not different for you, this is physics.

The blur that's motion blur comes from the fact that film only takes so many frames a second and the film can be fast or slow film, meaning fast film is more sensitive to light and so the aperture can be open for shorter amount of time and so there's less motion, blur, etc.. The blur that's focus blur is a combination of available light and what you're focusing on. The more light, the longer your depth of field because you're irises have shrunk down to be more pin prick like.

And then there's like the deal where you change the focal length of the lens while you move the camera closer or farther away from the person and it changes how much of the surroundings you can see. This film technique is used when they want to Make the audience feel a moment of disorientation or surprise. It has a very specific name like a push pull or something like that, but it's been a long time since my cinematography classes.

One of the reasons that you can get more out of a big and complex camera than you can get out of a phone camera is that the artist taking the picture can control what is and isn't out of focus. Be very small lens in the phone. Camera makes much more of the world being focused by default, and it makes a picture. That's much harder to screw up. That's why someone can be a very bad photographer with a good camera. But everybody is an okay photographer with their phone.

And then there's that effect, I think it's called tilt-shift, it's the thing where it makes everything look like it's tiny even though it's a picture of the real world. This is done by drawing a imaginary line through the image and keeping everything on that line in focus including the thing you want the person to be looking at (that line can't be horizontal or vertical) and then blurring everything above and below that line. You can take a picture of a city street and make it look like it's all made out of miniature models. This is because when something is close the depth of field takes things out of focus at shorter distances. So when the picture is deliberately blurred that way your brain tells you it's close and small.

Your brain restructures the image due to the forced alteration of focus.

I don't remember taxi driver that clearly. But when you got wide and establishing shots of interiors the camera is usually fairly far away and the depth of field can make the entire room look like it's in focus. But when you come into a two shot , or a close-up where the point of action is on one of the left or right third light of the screen. Your eye is naturally drawn to that and ignores the fact that everything on the other third-line is blurry. And virtually nothing is focused behind a near objective in an exterior scene.

The reason it's different from scene to scene is because the cinematographer wants your eyes to be in certain places and wants your brain to blot out certain signals. So they choose lenses and settings to tell your brain what to see. That may not actually be what you would see in real life.

The reason some movies feel cheap while you're watching them is because of bad cinematography. Too much in focus or too much out of focus At the same time Cheapish feeling movies are also a result of a whole bunch of terrible soun design as well.

Once you're sensitized to it, you can tell whether something was filmed with actual film or videotape or whatever. It becomes super obvious, and for the first year after you take a cinematography course, it's really hard to watch any sort of movie at all.

Lenses, iris size, amount of available light, these are facts of physics. In talented hands, you can be easily deceived. In inexperienced hands. You can miss everything.

Life is weird once you notice it. Movies are extra weird once you learn all the tricks.

The complete absence of field in an extremely zoomed in image can lead to some truly bizarre experiences. One of the more famous pictures in this area is an extreme zoom in to the distant end of a stadium. There are a bunch of students randomly positioned on a set of bleachers on a sunny day, but they look like they're directly on top of one another instead of on a surface that slants back away from the camera.

If you think I'm full of crazy well you can think that all you'd like. But if you take a course and cinematography you'll learn what to look for and life will look completely different to you.

I know you're saying to yourself that I'm wrong for you're different but the physics of lenses and refraction mean that you're not.

And if you take about half an hour of Google time and pursue focus and depth of field in cinematography, you'll discover many fascinating things.

Never been annoyed by this. It’s a creative and pragmatic choice with the photography. But apparently doesn’t suit everyone’s preference.

Someone suddenly discovered the laws of physics and hates it. What a mess.

thank you again for the explanation,

just as you said bad cinematography leads to this. but when you create a 200 million+ dollar movie at least i expect great cinematography. look at for example shape of water from Del Toro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFYWazblaUA

look how beautiful it is shot. very little blur. so again it is possible. but it simply depends on the director.

another example the chariot race of ben hur a movie of 1959 looks better then modern day movies in terms of cinematography.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frE9rXnaHpE

just look at that link. there is also some light blur in some scenes which is fine, but most shots are sharp. so if it is possible in 1959 you tell me it is not possible in 2023?

also in animation movies mostly all scenes were sharp, like for example in the movie Akira

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA8KmHC2Z-g

however these days we get blurry backgrounds now as well in animation movies. for example in the new mario brothers movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnGl01FkMMo&t=21s

you can see mario fighting kong. and i am like why? why do you do that? just because you can should not be the reason why.

if a director chose for a close up shot and blurs out the background fully without any detail left. it is done on purpose. take note that i make a difference between light blur and so much blur you can not see anything anymore from the background. and that is what upsets me, because you on purpose destroy the scene while that is not necessary.

it is the same as you have 2 people standing still and the camera is lightly shaken which lagues so many tv series these days. like andor for example.

and very well i understand depth of field, but that all depends on camera work on how much you want depth of field or not. that is what it comes down too. in the end it is a directors choice.

that is why i firmly believe if your a good director you can let every scene breath and let the viewer decide what they want to watch in the scene.

thank you for your input einstein and clearly you completely missed the point.

You’re complaining about an important storytelling tool that has been in near ubiquitous use for over a hundred years.

that is a very bad point. if we would have cars driving on 4 wheels that are square and suddenly someone comes around with round wheels. everybody would think fuck why did we drive 100 years on square wheels. round wheels are so much better. same case with extensive use of blur.

a good director does not need shaky cam or extensive blur to get his point around.

that is why James Cameron is so important. he shows us what is possible if taken the time and commitment. he does not need cheap tricks like extensive motion blur or shaky cam. he is like the tom brady, gretzky, messi, tiger woods of movie making. he is so far ahead of everyone else. and every time i think does no one else understand it? it is not just the special effects, it is the way how he shoots his movies.

Would that be the Jim Cameron who has used all of these techniques to great effect?

It’s a bizarre take really. I’d like to know your credits for you to be claiming that Cameron is the only good director. I have to assume this is a troll because it shows a stunning lack of literacy in film and television language which undercuts the sheer confidence in their opinions as fact.

ever heard of evolution? that is what james cameron does. he improve himself constantly. sure he used blur before like in some scenes of terminator 2 for example. but he keeps improving himself, going to the next level where everybody else just stays in the past or worse goes even further behind.

just tell me how much blur or shaky cam is there in avatar 1 and 2?

You’re complaining about something being in focus? What? Why, when someone is talking, would you want to be looking at the background behind them?

this is simple.

when i am bored of a conversation or do not find interesting i can look at the background to find different details. i love this with kubrick movies like clock work orange or with the usual suspects. that when you pay good enough attention you can figure out clues. remember star wars episode 3 when E.T. was on the background. there is lots that you can do with background if you actullay want to. i love this in the orginal blade runner as well. there is so much detail in the background.

if your a good director you give people the freedom of choice what they want to see or not. but when you focus only on 2 faces or 2 half bodies and blur our the background complete there is nothing left to see. your destroying the scene. then why not just add a blank screen behind and be done. because in real life when i am bored of a conversation i also start looking around me.

I have to say, this is the worst take I’ve ever read on this sun. And that’s really saying something