CGI overload, lens flares, same ships but bigger

>>87354600
New Last Jedi trailer released? Doubt it

>>87354600
>lens flair is still a thing
>not that cool "rainbow" effect when light shines through some glass
I always thought that was cool when id see it in an older movie

>>87355681
The lens flare depends on the lens used (or emulated in case of full CG shot). Nowadays Lens manufacters ten

>>87355728
Fuck my post got eaten.

Manufacturers tend to produce lens with less ''big'' and ''distracting'' lens flare.

>>87355728
What the fuck? This guy didn't even say candlejack. I hope everyt

>GUYS WE NEED SOME COOL POST EFFECTS
>I GOT IT LETS SHINE A FLASHLIGHT INTO THE AUDIENCES EYES
>GENIUS

>>87354600
Lens flare is a defect in lenses. Simulating the shittiest lenses possible will not convince me that your CG is real. The great advantage of CG is that you're not restricted by the limitations of real world optics. Why not simulate perfect lenses?

BvS is the greatest capeshit, but it almost lost me at the Batmobile scene because of the excessive lens flare. Lens flare reminds you that you're only watching a movie.

CGI lens flares are the lamest thing invented. Douchebage JJ Abrams put them like a crazy in Star Trek because Encounters of the 4th kind had lots of real flares. And this douchebag is a Spielberg fanboy who keeps copying stuff, even if it's stupid