[ SECRET POST #2225 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2225 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #318.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Anatomically-speaking, you're correct. But special effects are entirely about what looks the coolest, and the headlights-of-bad-camera-angle aren't nearly as cool looking as the "incorrect" way. So, yeah, I doubt it's really going to change any time soon.

[(Anonymous)]

OP
As I said to another commenter, they got the eye-shine right for Gollum in the Hobbit and that looked pretty dang cool. There's really no reason to not do it correctly.
(IIRC Blade Runner also correctly used red-eye, which is similar but not exactly the same as eye-shine, to good effect.)

[(Anonymous)]

Anatomically-speaking, the OP is only correct in knowing that cats have a ~tapetum lucidum~ and shows no understanding of the environment needed for it to show up.

Which is way more aggravating than movies focussing on FFX

[(Anonymous)]

OP
Next time I make a secret about anatomical failures in popular media, I will be sure to write an essay on the matter so I don't have you thinking I'm a dumbass.

[(Anonymous)]

When you're nitpicking such a minor detail of movie!SFX anatomy? Yeah you're going to need to write an essay because we'll be just as nitpicky back.

[(Anonymous)]

OP
Assuming you're the same anon going up and down the thread talking about this, you're the only one who seems bothered by the lack of an essay describing the exact details of the exact situation I'm referring to?

[(Anonymous)]

I think I am the same anon you're referring to, maybe. Not all comments are mine. I've come and gone a lot.

I'm going to guess that most people are not hugely familiar with the presence, absence and mechanics of eyeshine. Although I would imagine most people know of it's existence.