Understood, and I agree.
When I set up my first home theater, with the RS400, on a 160" 2.35:1 screen, it was a very impressive experience. But what was really unexpected was how so many scenes were clearly out of focus! I had assumed that with the huge budgets these blockbusters often had, that each and every frame would be close to perfect. But some were so bad that it had me shaking my head.
I find this relevant to the discussions about "Director's Intent" as if this is something almost sacred in the films they create, and violating that intent is somewhat of an affront to their creativity! Clearly, these out of focus scenes are simply errors in how they were shot, and not because the director intended them to be out of focus. That makes me wonder how many other aspects of the picture quality we're ultimately seeing on our screens are the direct result of director's intent, or simply the result of the inevitable imperfections in the entire process.
Just a little food for thought, and that's just the way my mind works! 
Some may be intentional to hide something in the background that did haven't all the detail they could afford. This is just a guess on my part, but I know this first film they were looking to cut costs, if I remember correctly.
16 Replies
3936 Views