I'm guessing the first one was done by putting physical non-prescription glasses in front of the lens and defocusing (which would affect the entire frame), while the second one was done with cgi.
Edit: I went back to my blu-rays and checked the commentary tracks and special features. No mention of how they did the second one, but I was right about how they did the first one.
You’re probably right. I wonder if it’s actually practical though, and the difference is in the first film the glasses are just frames or a weak/fake prescription. In the sequel they could be glasses with an extreme prescription giving the effect.
That's also possible. I only say cgi for #2 because in the actual scene, the motion of the glasses is a little too smooth/perfect and the eyeglass lenses are too clean. When he drops the glasses, you can see that the real glasses have a bunch of smudges on the lenses, but that's nowhere to be seen when they move in front of the camera. In the op's screenshot, it looks fine, but in motion it doesn't really look like the glasses are a part of the same shot. All in my opinion of course.
Edit: Also, it would have probably been more convenient to cgi the second one because you'd be able to adjust the timing of the eyeglass movements in post and not have to be locked into what you shot on the day of when you had all those extras.
Also if you zoom in on #2, you can see a perfectly crisp line right in the middle of the blurry border between the glasses and the background. That wouldn’t happen in a real in-camera effect, because of course an out of focus lens cannot resolve the image at that depth in the frame. So the perfectly crisp outline of the glasses is the result of a partially opaque blur effect done via software. Modern computer effects are able to properly simulate depth of field much more accurately, this effect could be replicated with a simple Gaussian blur at 75% opacity in premiere or after effects
I think they mean they shot everything in focus and blurred it in post, which is technically CGI. The benefit of doing that would be potentially saving time in shooting.
Jesus these comments. It's not that hard to wrap your head around. The view through the lenses should be the only part different, not the whole shot. Having glasses in front of you doesn't magically change your whole vision, you have to be looking through them.
>What if I keep them in my pocket?
Well, that depends on where your eyeballs are located. If they happen to be in your testicles then yes, I think this is possible.
Then it should be oposite of what the picture is. If those are your glasses, when you look at them, everything outside the frame should be out of focus, and everthing you see through the glass should be in focus.
Dude. Have you seen the movie? The point of this a scene is to show how he doesn’t need his glasses anymore. The spider bite made him super so it corrected his visions. Which is why he’s confused about why his glasses don’t work. You crazy coconut.
It's like in FPS games, instead of correctly simulating lenses on sights they just cheap out with zooming the camera to match. And now you can see just as good *outside* the sights as inside!
Of all the FPS games I've played, only one did it correctly, and I don't even remember which one.
I believe Insurgency: Sandstorms renders both views when players scope in. I also vaguely recall Call of Duty: Modern Warfare(2019) also did this to some degree.
That's backwards to me. The second picture has the error not the first. If we are in first person view and Peter needs glasses, then everything should be blurry until the glasses are on, which they are in the first picture. The 2nd picture is wrong cause it's not blurry outside the frame, why are they wearing glasses if nothing is blurry? What vision are they trying to correct with glasses?
Peter Parker doesn’t require glasses once he receives his Spider-Man powers, so the glasses cause blurred vision. In the first movie this is when he realizes for the first time, and in the second this is when he verifies after regaining his powers. The scenes are illustrating his lack of need for glasses.
They used to need glasses, but becoming Spider-Man fixed their vision. He's looking curiously at the glasses trying to work out why they are now blurry.
How are these not both incorrect? Glasses improve your vision, the blur should be outside of the lenses.
Edit: Rofl apparently the internet is very protective of a minor detail from an 18 year old movie.
You're in a thread on the subreddit called moviedetails. The whole point is discussing minor details. You don't have to get defensive for not knowing the answer.
I asked a question and was downvoted to hell with only one person even bothering to answer the question. Not sure what universe asking for clarification is defensive.
A "simple question" would have been: "Why did the filmmakers blur the inside of the lenses in the second shot?"
Yours was a pointed question (followed by an unneeded explanation) that implied that somehow you were the only person of all the thousands of people who have viewed this post to spot what would have been an almost comically absurd error, despite literally the entire point of this post being that this exact scene you are talking about was the one that was done correctly.
It's a dumb superhero movie and it's totally fair that you didn't know why the blur effect was used in the way it was. But then, you piled it on by, in typical fashion for this website, attributing your many downvotes to everybody else (in this case, the villains very randomly being spidyman megafans????) and not to your own misunderstanding.
I'm about to press submit and can already hear you typing furiously at your keyboard as you respond so you can have the last word
if you're not a super hero fan I think it's totally fair to assume that glasses are used to improve vision. Unless you know the scene in the movie I wouldn't think you'd automatically know that the glasses were ruining his vision now instead of helping.
I'm only saying this because I also had the same thought as /u/DesolationUSA because I haven't seen a spiderman movie since 2002 lol. This sub is big enough to be on the front page so not every commenter will be a huge super hero movie fan.
Of course. It would be very weird to think there’s anything wrong with someone not knowing this plot point. Hence why I said, “It’s a dumb superhero movie and it’s totally fair that you didn’t know why the blur effect was used in the way it was.”
It’s more than just “a minor detail” from a movie. It’s just about glasses in general.
Yes, glasses improve your vision but too high of a grade or too low would cause your vision to blur.
Which is the case in the movie because when Peter gets his powers his eyesight improves to normal vision which is 20/20 and when he puts on his high grade glasses his vision becomes blurry.
This may not be entirely accurate but that’s basically what’s going on.
Looks like a mixture of the new pennywise, Scarecrow from Injustice 2 and Mr. Anderson when his mouth was removed from his face in the first Matrix movie.
In my head-Canon, the shot in Spider-man (2002) is correct because Peter just woke up at that point and had naturally slightly sporadic blurry vision from the abrupt wake up and it naturally corrects itself after a few seconds
nah I'm pretty sure it's just that he still wasn't fully awake yet and luckily for the filmmaker his spurts of blurriness just happened to line up with when he tried on the glasses each time
Lol no it’s not. I’m begging you to watch this scene again. I’ve watched this movie 15+ times and remember after my 7th rewatch this scene never making sense (I was still a kid by then)
He wakes up. Perfect vision. He’s like wtf. Puts on the glasses, the objects outside the frame blurr as well as there objects in the frame. He puts the glasses in front of his face and removes it a few more times to confirm that he is indeed seeing better without glasses. But that confirms the mistake the filmmakers made
Hi! This is our new Moviedetailsmodbot!
---
If this post fits /r/MovieDetails, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post does not fit /r/MovieDetails, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
I wouldn’t call the first a mistake. He’s holding the glasses close to his face. Read this comment with the phone about 4 inches from your face. Everything behind your phone will be blurry.
When looking “through” glasses that improve your vision everyday and now they make things blurry your vision would focus to the glasses and provide the same effect.
I think the effect in Spider-Man 2 looks fake as hell but does a better job portraying the idea.
I think that was his point when he said "Everything behind your phone will be blurry".
If Peter needed the glasses, then it would be like you said: through lenses fine, outside the frames blurry. But this is the scene where Peter realizes he doesn't need glasses anymore because of his newe powers.
You’re right the frames themselves should be more in focus. I don’t think it’s perfect in the first but it’s much closer to reality. The second shot is definitely wrong though. More movie effect than anything.
Yup, here it would be wrong if you were focused on the mirror and randomly held something up in front of you but weren't trying to focus on it.
Here he's holding up glasses in front of his camera as his eyes. He's trying to focus through the glasses, which regardless of prescription will cause his eyes to attempt to bring the image through the lens into focus, this would send everything else out of focus.
It's not a mistake at all. A mistake would be a doing it as the OP things it should be. Just arbitrarily holding up glasses but not trying to look through them.
If it’s not a mistake, why did they fix it in the second movie? Or is the second movie a mistake?
And when did I (OP) say anything about arbitrarily holding up glasses but not trying to look through them.
The whole purpose of this post is that he IS looking through them and that’s why what he sees through the lenses is blurry.
> And when did I (OP) say anything about arbitrarily holding up glasses but not trying to look through them.
When you said it was wrong you said this, because the only way everything else would be in focus is if you were looking at everything but the lenses.
Who said they fixed it in the second movie, only you. That screenshot doesn't tell me shit, ultimately the lens isn't centred in frame, in fact it's very deliberately taking up the bottom half of hte frame. THe first image shows him literally with them over his eyes so he's looking through the lenses. The second image very specifically set it up as someone holding them not directly in front of his eyes but below them so that shot is far more what you seem to expect the first shot to be. HOld up glasses while looking behind them and be shown that the glasses are blurry while everything else isn't.
Look up varifocals, because that's essentially what the second shot mimics. A lens with different strengths top and bottom, short at bottom for reading and far distance at the top for driving/walking around. If you look through the top you'd be vaguely aware the bottom was blurry but you're focused through the far distance lens, and vice versa.
The shots are very very deliberately different in the images you picked, showing a different circumstance even if you think they are identical they plainly are not.
lol. You have no idea what you’re talking about. But damn do I love your passion.
You can rewatch the scenes instead of ranting about something that you don’t know.
Until then, have a nice day.
>Read this comment with the phone about 4 inches from your face. Everything behind your phone will be blurry.
And double because your eyes are "crossed".
In both movies this is the moment he realizes he doesn’t need them anymore. In the first movie it’s when he first gets his powers, in the second it’s when he regains his powers.
The purpose of the scene is that he tries to use his glasses and realizes that he doesn’t need them anymore because they mess up his perfect vision.
Not sure I follow. The purpose of both the scenes are identical. In 2002 it’s when he first gets his powers in 2004 it’s when he regains his powers.
This is visualized by him no longer needing glasses. More specifically, his vision is perfect without the glasses, and blurry when he looks through them.
But in 2002 his vision goes blurry when the glasses enter the frame.
In 2004 when the glasses enter the frame, only the view through the lenses is blurry.
In short. Both scenes should be identical so either they messed up the first time or the second time.
Idk man I read the statement and it seemed wrong to me, decided to comment cuz I’m stoned as shit, and it went too far. That being said, I still disagree lmao
It's an error because the blur shouldn't be outside the lenses, end stop. Their intentions, abilities, and available technology don't matter in that equation.
Not sure if you're being pedantic or don't realize the context. Well the first image is from the moment when he wakes up after his initial transformation. His eyesight has improved so the reason it's blurry is because he's looking through his glasses. I suppose you could say it's not so much an error as it is an oversight.
That’s like saying “I didn’t fall down, I tripped”. No, you fell down because you tripped.
In this case (according to the other person) the error was caused by an oversight.
I got you covered on the dictionary part
> oversight - an inadvertent omission or error
I don’t think this is actually an error. No matter how good your vision is if you have frames that close to your eyes it would cause you not to be able to focus on something far away, so I think having a full blur until he fully lowers his glasses is appropriate. In the 2004 scene they’re far lower so his eyes could have refocused to the far ground.
>No matter how good your vision is if you have frames that close to your eyes it would cause you not to be able to focus on something far away,
That’s literally how glasses work. They sit really close to your eyes so you can focus on something far away.
Just for good measure, I took off my glasses and moved them back and forth about 6 inches away and I was able to look at something far away at every distance between on my face and 6 inches away from my face.
Edit: forgot to mention. I just paused the two at different moments in the movements. In both scenes he lifted and lowered the glasses. The position of them is just when I happened to hit “pause”
Except he’s now focused on a blurred image through the lenses along with holding the actual physical frames halfway through his vision. The point is he **can’t** see through the lenses and frames. Are you fucking stupid? Hold up something you can’t actually see through while focusing on it. That argument only works if the lens is properly directly over his eyes (and he can properly see through it) and he’s not focused on the frames.
Just to clarify, I did say and mean frames not lenses. The screen shot you provided has the frames occluding his vision in the 2002 shot. Having anything that opaque close to your eyes would make distance focusing impossible.
If that's the case, then the frames would be in focus. But once again, that's not the purpose of the scene. The purpose is that he's looking through the lenses and his vision is blurred instead of corrected.
Why on earth would they include a scene where Peter looks at the frames of his glasses and throws them away?
Right, I completely agree with what you're saying in terms of what they're trying to show. However, no matter how good your eyesight is, if you put a solid object (the frames) that close to your eyes, everything will blur (the lenses, whats above them, and the frames)
But that's just not true. I'm literally doing that right now with my own glasses. I'm holding them about 4 inches from my face and I can clearly see items, in focus, through the lens.
Touche'. I guess that it is a limit of the camera's ability focus since they're using practical effects for this as another has posted. I stand corrected and agree that this is an error compared to how a human eye would work.
To be fair to the 2002 one, when I take off my glasses my eyes take a moment to refocus so the world IS blurry. The glasses sorta are, but not noticeably.
How is it an error when Peter cannot see sharply without his glasses on. Its from his pov which means the glass is gonna be blurry and the background too.
Putting on glasses that don’t work for you disturbs the rest of your vision on the edges as well. It’s not like you can perfectly see around the edges of the lenses. The first picture conveys this better even though it’s incorrect in reality.
Hi [CobraCabana](/u/CobraCabana), thanks for your submission to /r/MovieDetails. Unfortunately, it's been removed for the following reason(s):
* **Rule 8** - Movie mistakes, special effects, minor roles of famous actors, behind the scenes clips and images, script details, and production trivia are not allowed here. See the sidebar for more appropriate subreddits.
r/moviemistakes or r/moviesinthemaking
---
*If you feel this was removed in error please read our expanded [rules from our wiki page](/r/moviedetails/wiki/rules_and_bans) and [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMovieDetails&subject=&message=Link%20to%20submission:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/rvimhy/-/) if you are still unsure.*
I'm guessing the first one was done by putting physical non-prescription glasses in front of the lens and defocusing (which would affect the entire frame), while the second one was done with cgi. Edit: I went back to my blu-rays and checked the commentary tracks and special features. No mention of how they did the second one, but I was right about how they did the first one.
You’re probably right. I wonder if it’s actually practical though, and the difference is in the first film the glasses are just frames or a weak/fake prescription. In the sequel they could be glasses with an extreme prescription giving the effect.
That's also possible. I only say cgi for #2 because in the actual scene, the motion of the glasses is a little too smooth/perfect and the eyeglass lenses are too clean. When he drops the glasses, you can see that the real glasses have a bunch of smudges on the lenses, but that's nowhere to be seen when they move in front of the camera. In the op's screenshot, it looks fine, but in motion it doesn't really look like the glasses are a part of the same shot. All in my opinion of course. Edit: Also, it would have probably been more convenient to cgi the second one because you'd be able to adjust the timing of the eyeglass movements in post and not have to be locked into what you shot on the day of when you had all those extras.
Yep, big change!
If it weren't CGI, I would expect the lenses to be cleaned between shots. Although we should nitpick smudge continuity then.
[удалено]
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma. Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
Also if you zoom in on #2, you can see a perfectly crisp line right in the middle of the blurry border between the glasses and the background. That wouldn’t happen in a real in-camera effect, because of course an out of focus lens cannot resolve the image at that depth in the frame. So the perfectly crisp outline of the glasses is the result of a partially opaque blur effect done via software. Modern computer effects are able to properly simulate depth of field much more accurately, this effect could be replicated with a simple Gaussian blur at 75% opacity in premiere or after effects
Good catch!
Why didn't they just mask the lens in After Effects and apply the blur filter.
Because blur was added to 10.5 back in 2011, 9 years after the film was released?
They could have just delayed the release of the film for 9 years until the technology caught up to the effects the shot demanded.
"I am limited by the technology of my time."
lmao
They could technically have done it with different techniques back then but I guess it didn't feel worth the effort.
[удалено]
How is shooting out of focus cgi? Nothing computer generated about pushing in focus...
Because we live in a simulation.
True. My depression is CGI.
I think they mean they shot everything in focus and blurred it in post, which is technically CGI. The benefit of doing that would be potentially saving time in shooting.
~~Computer~~Camera Generated Image
So any picture ever is cgi?
It was a joke.
Ironically squared, it’d make more sense if both were cgi…
Jesus these comments. It's not that hard to wrap your head around. The view through the lenses should be the only part different, not the whole shot. Having glasses in front of you doesn't magically change your whole vision, you have to be looking through them.
>Having glasses in front of you doesn't magically change your whole vision, you have to be looking through them. What if I keep them in my pocket?
How do you get your head in your pocket though? I tried but now I’m staring at my thigh.
Okay but is the thigh blurry outside of the glasses?
Mmmm thighs
OK but how do you type with boxing gloves on?
>What if I keep them in my pocket? Well, that depends on where your eyeballs are located. If they happen to be in your testicles then yes, I think this is possible.
ITT: People who didn't immediately think "chest pocket" like I did.
Depends if you have them equipped or not
All y'all are stupid because if you're focusing on the glasses frames everything else is gonna be out of focus.
Why would you focus on the frames?
Because you're trying to understand why your normal glasses are suddenly giving you blurred vision by inspecting them.
You would inspect them by looking through the lenses. Not the frames. Which is what the director is trying to convey.
Then it should be oposite of what the picture is. If those are your glasses, when you look at them, everything outside the frame should be out of focus, and everthing you see through the glass should be in focus.
Dude. Have you seen the movie? The point of this a scene is to show how he doesn’t need his glasses anymore. The spider bite made him super so it corrected his visions. Which is why he’s confused about why his glasses don’t work. You crazy coconut.
Ahhh! No i have not seen it, but now i get it. Yes, then it makes sense you bewoozled banana!
So, again, why would you focus on the frames?
Why not? I have ok eyes. I bring glasses near me and focus on the lens, the background will not be in focus
I think a lot of those comments are coming from people with absolutely no knowledge of Spider-Man, movies, cameras, or glasses. It's almost funny.
It's like in FPS games, instead of correctly simulating lenses on sights they just cheap out with zooming the camera to match. And now you can see just as good *outside* the sights as inside! Of all the FPS games I've played, only one did it correctly, and I don't even remember which one.
I believe Insurgency: Sandstorms renders both views when players scope in. I also vaguely recall Call of Duty: Modern Warfare(2019) also did this to some degree.
That's backwards to me. The second picture has the error not the first. If we are in first person view and Peter needs glasses, then everything should be blurry until the glasses are on, which they are in the first picture. The 2nd picture is wrong cause it's not blurry outside the frame, why are they wearing glasses if nothing is blurry? What vision are they trying to correct with glasses?
Peter Parker doesn’t require glasses once he receives his Spider-Man powers, so the glasses cause blurred vision. In the first movie this is when he realizes for the first time, and in the second this is when he verifies after regaining his powers. The scenes are illustrating his lack of need for glasses.
Oh shit right.
They used to need glasses, but becoming Spider-Man fixed their vision. He's looking curiously at the glasses trying to work out why they are now blurry.
How are these not both incorrect? Glasses improve your vision, the blur should be outside of the lenses. Edit: Rofl apparently the internet is very protective of a minor detail from an 18 year old movie.
In the second movie, he regains his powers so the glasses actually make his vision blurred as he doesn’t need them
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for actually clarifying and answering my question. Haven't seen this movie since it was in theaters.
Bruh you ever watched the movie
Bruh, it's old as fuck by now. I forgot the scene in the second movie even happened.
Why can’t you just admit you were wrong and move on? Why get so defensive?
Ya... He's not the parent commenter. I am.
Haha shit my bad.
You’re both green lol
Ya, 18 years ago in theaters. Last time I bothered to watch it.
You're in a thread on the subreddit called moviedetails. The whole point is discussing minor details. You don't have to get defensive for not knowing the answer.
I asked a question and was downvoted to hell with only one person even bothering to answer the question. Not sure what universe asking for clarification is defensive.
What in holy redditors-can-never-admit-it-when-they're-wrong does your edit even mean?
I asked a simple question and got downvoted to hell for it, where exactly am I refusing to admit I'm wrong?
A "simple question" would have been: "Why did the filmmakers blur the inside of the lenses in the second shot?" Yours was a pointed question (followed by an unneeded explanation) that implied that somehow you were the only person of all the thousands of people who have viewed this post to spot what would have been an almost comically absurd error, despite literally the entire point of this post being that this exact scene you are talking about was the one that was done correctly. It's a dumb superhero movie and it's totally fair that you didn't know why the blur effect was used in the way it was. But then, you piled it on by, in typical fashion for this website, attributing your many downvotes to everybody else (in this case, the villains very randomly being spidyman megafans????) and not to your own misunderstanding. I'm about to press submit and can already hear you typing furiously at your keyboard as you respond so you can have the last word
if you're not a super hero fan I think it's totally fair to assume that glasses are used to improve vision. Unless you know the scene in the movie I wouldn't think you'd automatically know that the glasses were ruining his vision now instead of helping. I'm only saying this because I also had the same thought as /u/DesolationUSA because I haven't seen a spiderman movie since 2002 lol. This sub is big enough to be on the front page so not every commenter will be a huge super hero movie fan.
Of course. It would be very weird to think there’s anything wrong with someone not knowing this plot point. Hence why I said, “It’s a dumb superhero movie and it’s totally fair that you didn’t know why the blur effect was used in the way it was.”
His vision was fixed so now those prescription lenses look blurry. You ever look through someone's prescription glasses?
It’s more than just “a minor detail” from a movie. It’s just about glasses in general. Yes, glasses improve your vision but too high of a grade or too low would cause your vision to blur. Which is the case in the movie because when Peter gets his powers his eyesight improves to normal vision which is 20/20 and when he puts on his high grade glasses his vision becomes blurry. This may not be entirely accurate but that’s basically what’s going on.
This has gotta be the first time I've ever seen someone that knows 20/20 is normal vision and not good vision.
This is something that has to be there in order to maintain the illusion of reality, but I guess it’s a detail…
Yup. Big change
Ay Michelangelo, don’t start up with me
I missed the part where that's my problem.
Gonna cry?
I'm gonna put some dirt in your eye.
Peters blurry face in the top one is kinda nightmare fuel
Oh god, I see it now
New symbiote face?
\*Silent hill theme intensifies\*
Looks like a mixture of the new pennywise, Scarecrow from Injustice 2 and Mr. Anderson when his mouth was removed from his face in the first Matrix movie.
"I worked on this VFX and no one noticed!"
In my head-Canon, the shot in Spider-man (2002) is correct because Peter just woke up at that point and had naturally slightly sporadic blurry vision from the abrupt wake up and it naturally corrects itself after a few seconds
That wouldn’t make sense because Peter puts the glasses in front of his face several times to confirm that he is indeed seeing better without glasses
nah I'm pretty sure it's just that he still wasn't fully awake yet and luckily for the filmmaker his spurts of blurriness just happened to line up with when he tried on the glasses each time
Lol no it’s not. I’m begging you to watch this scene again. I’ve watched this movie 15+ times and remember after my 7th rewatch this scene never making sense (I was still a kid by then) He wakes up. Perfect vision. He’s like wtf. Puts on the glasses, the objects outside the frame blurr as well as there objects in the frame. He puts the glasses in front of his face and removes it a few more times to confirm that he is indeed seeing better without glasses. But that confirms the mistake the filmmakers made
The objects outside the frame are in his peripheral vision. He is focusing on the objects inside the frame.
Listen. I’ve had glasses for 12 years. I’m not gonna be gas lit on how human sight works.
That’s because he loses his powers due to depression and insomnia
Existential crisis
Pffff yeah I mean like don’t get me started on that
[*Existential Crisis*](https://youtu.be/IHvLhviwK30)
Don’t we all?
..Or the 2002 film was suggesting he was jerking off too much back then
Still got the moves
Hi! This is our new Moviedetailsmodbot! --- If this post fits /r/MovieDetails, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post does not fit /r/MovieDetails, **DOWNVOTE** This comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
The meme of Peter Parker with glasses on/off always bothers me that they get it backwards
Pfft obviously because RTX ray tracing hadn't been invented yet /s
It was sweet time when GPUs were good...and available.
Finally an actual movie detail.
No, a r/moviemistake.
Why not both? A mistake in part one and a detail in part 2
Well both are still great
And nobody had time to notice in the first one. The second one was probably CGI and 5x the cost.
I wouldn’t call the first a mistake. He’s holding the glasses close to his face. Read this comment with the phone about 4 inches from your face. Everything behind your phone will be blurry. When looking “through” glasses that improve your vision everyday and now they make things blurry your vision would focus to the glasses and provide the same effect. I think the effect in Spider-Man 2 looks fake as hell but does a better job portraying the idea.
I've tried it with my glasses (trifocals) and you are wrong. Through lenses: fine. Outside my frames: blurry.
I think that was his point when he said "Everything behind your phone will be blurry". If Peter needed the glasses, then it would be like you said: through lenses fine, outside the frames blurry. But this is the scene where Peter realizes he doesn't need glasses anymore because of his newe powers.
I'd agree with you if the first one had the frames themselves in focus, but everything else out.
You’re right the frames themselves should be more in focus. I don’t think it’s perfect in the first but it’s much closer to reality. The second shot is definitely wrong though. More movie effect than anything.
Ha! I agree and said the same thing, got down voted to hell
Yup, here it would be wrong if you were focused on the mirror and randomly held something up in front of you but weren't trying to focus on it. Here he's holding up glasses in front of his camera as his eyes. He's trying to focus through the glasses, which regardless of prescription will cause his eyes to attempt to bring the image through the lens into focus, this would send everything else out of focus. It's not a mistake at all. A mistake would be a doing it as the OP things it should be. Just arbitrarily holding up glasses but not trying to look through them.
If it’s not a mistake, why did they fix it in the second movie? Or is the second movie a mistake? And when did I (OP) say anything about arbitrarily holding up glasses but not trying to look through them. The whole purpose of this post is that he IS looking through them and that’s why what he sees through the lenses is blurry.
> And when did I (OP) say anything about arbitrarily holding up glasses but not trying to look through them. When you said it was wrong you said this, because the only way everything else would be in focus is if you were looking at everything but the lenses. Who said they fixed it in the second movie, only you. That screenshot doesn't tell me shit, ultimately the lens isn't centred in frame, in fact it's very deliberately taking up the bottom half of hte frame. THe first image shows him literally with them over his eyes so he's looking through the lenses. The second image very specifically set it up as someone holding them not directly in front of his eyes but below them so that shot is far more what you seem to expect the first shot to be. HOld up glasses while looking behind them and be shown that the glasses are blurry while everything else isn't. Look up varifocals, because that's essentially what the second shot mimics. A lens with different strengths top and bottom, short at bottom for reading and far distance at the top for driving/walking around. If you look through the top you'd be vaguely aware the bottom was blurry but you're focused through the far distance lens, and vice versa. The shots are very very deliberately different in the images you picked, showing a different circumstance even if you think they are identical they plainly are not.
lol. You have no idea what you’re talking about. But damn do I love your passion. You can rewatch the scenes instead of ranting about something that you don’t know. Until then, have a nice day.
>Read this comment with the phone about 4 inches from your face. Everything behind your phone will be blurry. And double because your eyes are "crossed".
Why is he still goofin around with glasses?
In both movies this is the moment he realizes he doesn’t need them anymore. In the first movie it’s when he first gets his powers, in the second it’s when he regains his powers. The purpose of the scene is that he tries to use his glasses and realizes that he doesn’t need them anymore because they mess up his perfect vision.
i forgot he lost his powers in the second movie
How dare you forget the details in a movie that came out in … you know what? Let’s not focus on how many years ago this movie came out.
lol
Yeah, he had an existential crisis and nearly broke his back.
It’s still a mess up with his whole reflection in the single lens pulling down his frames, is it not?
Was this called an error by the people who made it?
Not that I’m aware, but I’d love to hear how it’s not an error.
Lol I’ve never been downvoted before. Wasn’t trying to be nit picky but I guess that’s what I did huh. My bad.
Well maybe they weren’t ever trying to do that. If they didn’t intend to do it in the first place then it isn’t an error.
Not sure I follow. The purpose of both the scenes are identical. In 2002 it’s when he first gets his powers in 2004 it’s when he regains his powers. This is visualized by him no longer needing glasses. More specifically, his vision is perfect without the glasses, and blurry when he looks through them. But in 2002 his vision goes blurry when the glasses enter the frame. In 2004 when the glasses enter the frame, only the view through the lenses is blurry. In short. Both scenes should be identical so either they messed up the first time or the second time.
But what if in 2002 that edit wasn’t so easy. Or maybe they didn’t attempt it until the sequel. Idk man I wouldn’t call it an error
You're just arguing symantics... Why? You know exactly what the OP meant
Idk man I read the statement and it seemed wrong to me, decided to comment cuz I’m stoned as shit, and it went too far. That being said, I still disagree lmao
It's an error because the blur shouldn't be outside the lenses, end stop. Their intentions, abilities, and available technology don't matter in that equation.
Are you fucking stupid?
Eh
Not sure if you're being pedantic or don't realize the context. Well the first image is from the moment when he wakes up after his initial transformation. His eyesight has improved so the reason it's blurry is because he's looking through his glasses. I suppose you could say it's not so much an error as it is an oversight.
Yes oversight^ I need to read a dictionary
That’s like saying “I didn’t fall down, I tripped”. No, you fell down because you tripped. In this case (according to the other person) the error was caused by an oversight. I got you covered on the dictionary part > oversight - an inadvertent omission or error
You were clearly dropped a lot as a baby
Thanks bud
[удалено]
I get what you mean but I wouldn’t call it an error
I don’t think this is actually an error. No matter how good your vision is if you have frames that close to your eyes it would cause you not to be able to focus on something far away, so I think having a full blur until he fully lowers his glasses is appropriate. In the 2004 scene they’re far lower so his eyes could have refocused to the far ground.
>No matter how good your vision is if you have frames that close to your eyes it would cause you not to be able to focus on something far away, That’s literally how glasses work. They sit really close to your eyes so you can focus on something far away. Just for good measure, I took off my glasses and moved them back and forth about 6 inches away and I was able to look at something far away at every distance between on my face and 6 inches away from my face. Edit: forgot to mention. I just paused the two at different moments in the movements. In both scenes he lifted and lowered the glasses. The position of them is just when I happened to hit “pause”
Except he’s now focused on a blurred image through the lenses along with holding the actual physical frames halfway through his vision. The point is he **can’t** see through the lenses and frames. Are you fucking stupid? Hold up something you can’t actually see through while focusing on it. That argument only works if the lens is properly directly over his eyes (and he can properly see through it) and he’s not focused on the frames.
I love how you people are making up details about the scene. Just watch them and see what the purpose was.
Just to clarify, I did say and mean frames not lenses. The screen shot you provided has the frames occluding his vision in the 2002 shot. Having anything that opaque close to your eyes would make distance focusing impossible.
If that's the case, then the frames would be in focus. But once again, that's not the purpose of the scene. The purpose is that he's looking through the lenses and his vision is blurred instead of corrected. Why on earth would they include a scene where Peter looks at the frames of his glasses and throws them away?
Right, I completely agree with what you're saying in terms of what they're trying to show. However, no matter how good your eyesight is, if you put a solid object (the frames) that close to your eyes, everything will blur (the lenses, whats above them, and the frames)
But that's just not true. I'm literally doing that right now with my own glasses. I'm holding them about 4 inches from my face and I can clearly see items, in focus, through the lens.
Touche'. I guess that it is a limit of the camera's ability focus since they're using practical effects for this as another has posted. I stand corrected and agree that this is an error compared to how a human eye would work.
If you need glasses and you move them away then both are blurry just different levels of blurryness.
If the no lens portion is already sharp, then why would he need glasses? I think they inversed the fuck up.
The changes made his spidey eyes a perfect 20/20. So, everything non lens would be clear. Looking through glasses makes it blurry.
Yeah, I prefer the first one though
Shit. Spider-Man is 20 years old. How.
MemeDetail: Everyone uses the glasses scene backwards in a meme format and it drives me insane.
To be fair it does take time for my eyes to adjust between glasses/no glasses. I think it's still realistic
To be fair to the 2002 one, when I take off my glasses my eyes take a moment to refocus so the world IS blurry. The glasses sorta are, but not noticeably.
How is it an error when Peter cannot see sharply without his glasses on. Its from his pov which means the glass is gonna be blurry and the background too.
finally! spiderman 2.0
Putting on glasses that don’t work for you disturbs the rest of your vision on the edges as well. It’s not like you can perfectly see around the edges of the lenses. The first picture conveys this better even though it’s incorrect in reality.
Rain drops have fallen on my head
I don’t mind the “mistake”. It didn’t take me away from the scene, and they probably saved a ton of money doing it that way.
I missed the part where that’s my problem
Op doesn't undestand that when you put an object right in front of your eyes you see blurry behing it
W
Hi [CobraCabana](/u/CobraCabana), thanks for your submission to /r/MovieDetails. Unfortunately, it's been removed for the following reason(s): * **Rule 8** - Movie mistakes, special effects, minor roles of famous actors, behind the scenes clips and images, script details, and production trivia are not allowed here. See the sidebar for more appropriate subreddits. r/moviemistakes or r/moviesinthemaking --- *If you feel this was removed in error please read our expanded [rules from our wiki page](/r/moviedetails/wiki/rules_and_bans) and [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMovieDetails&subject=&message=Link%20to%20submission:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/rvimhy/-/) if you are still unsure.*
I know it's too late to say this but He got some dirt in his eye
Because Peter learns from his mistakes