About A Boy (2 seconds of unfocused video?) normal?

[defense]

I was just watching "About A Boy" and noticed something very unusual. Something that I haven't seen as of yet and it just goes to prove that there is always something else.

Anyway, I noticed that during the movie, there is about 2 seconds of "blurred" or unfocused video. It happens at the point where Hugh Grant is talking to the kid "Marcus" and Will goes to sit on the couch. During that time, which is exactly at the "45:20" point in the video, the picture is blurred for an instant. About a second or so to be exact.

Can anyone who has the movie as the original or backed up, please go to the (5 seconds) 45:19 to 45:24 point of the video and confirm if they see the same problem. It isn't a real big deal because it's only for a split second or so, but this is something I have never seen, and i'm thinking all copies of this movie have the same issue at that point.

If not, can anyone explain why I may be the only one experiencing this? Meaning, what could potentially cause this to occur?

Thanks in advance. 8)

[Bob W]

I have that movie and didn't notice any blurred parts when I watched it however if it's only two seconds worth I may have just missed it.

[defense]

Bob, if you get a chance could you throw the movie in and go to the 45:20 point in the video and watch it for about 5 or 10 seconds and see if you notice that. I watched it both on my standalone and DVD ROM and the blur is there.

being that everyone authors differently and chapter points could be off a few seconds, the exact point of the video is where the kid "Marcusl" is getting candy thrown at him from some kids in school and he goes to Hugh Grant's home and after he makes himself something to eat he goes to sit on the couch. Right after he goes to sit on the couch, there is two seconds of "blurred" or distorted video.

If you or anyone could check their copies out at that point and see if you notice the same, i'd appreciate it. Thanks

[Bob W]

I do remember that part of the movie so I will check it out later tonight.

[defense]

great, thanks. If anyone else can test this out in the meanwhile, it would be appreciated.

[Bob W]

great, thanks. If anyone else can test this out in the meanwhile, it would be appreciated.

Well I went ahead and had a look at it. It looks to me like both Hugh and the kid walk into the camera which then makes a focus adjustment then the kid is walking away from the camera to sit on the couch and the camera again makes an attempt to re-focus. Bottom line it is out of focus for a second but if you hadn't pointed it out I never would have noticed it in the first place.

[defense]

well i'll be damnned! I think I really should do some serious video scrutanizing on the side if i'm the only one catching this type of thing. This isn't the first time i've found mass produced major film releases on DVD with some type of video error. Since I have been doing DVD BACKUP I have gotten a super sharp eye for things like this.


Although this is minor, why is it that the production crew wouldn't notice this and rectify it. Even though it's only for a split second or so, it still is annoying, at least to me and the majority of other DVD movies don't have this issue, why should this one. Maybe I'm being particular, but I think it should be perfect. 8)

[Bob W]

British films are not known for their technical excellence just their clever wit.

[defense]

i'm not into British movies, but some female asked me to watch this movie and I said I would. Now i'm gonna go back and finish it up. Thanks for checking that out for me Bob....and i'd have to say that thus far the movie is pretty damn funny.

[defense]

I just finished the movie and noticed that there was 1 other instance where this "out of focusness" occurred. It was at the 1:17:35 mark and where Will is talking to Marcus inside his apartment. Interestingly, Will's apartment is where the other "out of focus" scene was.

This time it really was a blur and I had to "step" freeze frame through to see if I actually caught the blur. Sure enough, right at the 1:17:35 point, you can see the camera, once again, go out of focus. It couldn't be for more then 1/100th of a second, so i'm amazed that I actually noticed it.

Anyway, all in all, the movie was pretty good. I give it 1 thumb up. I just watched the Count of Monte Cristo earlier, and I thought that was much better.

[flaninacupboard]

Defense,
-every- camera needs focusing! it depends however on what lens you ue as to what distance a focus setting will cover. i'm not really into photography but from what i understand a "tight" lens will need refocusing often, but can look dramatic: i.e. when you switch perspectives in an important plot development, and a loser lens will give you a greater depth of fous, but only from a certain distance away. this is nothing to do with DVD transfer, purely to do with filming.
As an aside, i thought the movie was pretty funny "Christ marcus, you dodn't have to throw the whole loaf, that would have killed me!"
Actually, something i noticed about this film, the UK and US releases use different masters. The US release (which i saw in xvid form) had a lot of black dirt on it at the start of the film, wheras the UK print had none. odd, eh?

[defense]

@ flaninacupboard, thanks for the info. Basically, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the "US" release in the theater would of also shown these "blurred" affects as well, right? If this occurred during "filming" which I don't doubt, then why was the scene, or in this case "scenes" as i've mentioned, weren't "reshot?" As I said, this is the FIRST time I've EVER noticed anything like this, so i'm assuming that when it occurs on other films, the scene is just reshot. Would I be correct in assuming that?

If you read my first post, I said without even knowing what was the cause, that I had a hunch it had to do with "all" the "About a Boy"movies. At least all of the "US" releases. I was very confident it wasn't a CCE encoding issue, or authoring issue. I also knew it wasn't a burning issue, because the very rare times burning issues occur, I am "unable" to rerip the entire back up DVD without a ripper freezing.

Anyway, i'm glad the post was answered and I know for sure. I just think it's a poor job of fimling because I noticed this issue and at the least, the first scense where "two seconds" are blurred should of been reshot if anything. The second scene was only about 1/100th of a second, and as I said, i'm amazed I caught it.

I too thought the movie was good, but not great. I had just watched the Count of Monte Cristo prior, and although they are two different types of movies, I didn't think there was much of a comparison. TCOMC was a damn good movie, while About A Boy I thought was funny, but nothing spectacular. I also thought the Duck "quacking" before getting thumped by the loaf of bread was much funnier then the comment Will made about it being able to kill him. I thought that was a little dry. But that's just me. 8)

[lrpebler]

How could the camera go out of focus 'for 1/100th of a second' when the original film was shot at 24 fps?

[defense]

How could the camera go out of focus 'for 1/100th of a second' when the original film was shot at 24 fps?

The reason I know it was 1/100th of a second was because I pulled a stop watch out of my arse and timed it!.... Actually, I was just using an approximation. The second time I noticed this "blur" or out of focus was at the 1:17:35 point mark. In "real time" the blur is so fast most wouldn't notice it.

This is probably why noone mentioned it before. However, I did notice it, and the reason I know it was definitely less then a second was because I played the movie "frame by frame" in ultra slow-mo about two seconds before the "blur" ocurred.

As soon as the "blur" occurred, I stopped and noticed the clock on my dvd player was at 1:17:35. I then continued to go frame by frame and I must of gone about 10 frames or so and noticed that the clock WAS STILL at 1:17:35. I didn't think it took a Rocket Sceintest on Alpha Centari to come to the conclusion that this blur was LESS THEN A SECOND. Maybe a "half" a second would be most accurate.

Being that very important question has been answered, i'm hoping someone can still explain why those scenes, more specifically, the first scene had blur for some 2 seconds was not "reshot." Hopefully someone can explain why most producers would rectify an out of focus scene, but the producers/directors of "About A Boy" would allow for two scenes to be out of focus, and not reshoot.

[You_Are_Alive]

Time and money! From my understanding, doing reshoots is extremely costly depending on what sort of scene needs to be reshot. Think about it, everyone is sent home, cast, crew, etc.. A week later its just the editor and director/producer in a room. They probably noticed the "small error" but it was workable, especially for such a short amount of time. (Aside, sometimes blurred shots are intentionally used to add effect or mood).

It would be very annoying to the studio and all other parties involved to say that, "Oh by the way, we need everyone to come back and do a reshoot". Ain't gonna happen for small things. Think of the logistical nightmare and cost! Forget it, enjoy the movie and get over it. They are not going to do a recall of all the DVDs out there after they were mass produced and distributed.

[defense]

@ youarealive, what you are saying makes VERY little sense. Very little, if any. When filming MOST movies aside from the "Blair Witch Project" types..a ton of money is used for filming/effects, etc. Countless millions of dollars usually. To re-film a 2 second scene would take very little time, and I can't see how it would be costly at all.

Also, according to flaninacupboard, (and they have proven knowledgable on many posts) this out of "focusness" occurs often. According to them it has to do with the type of lens, etc. That sounds very logical and if that is the case, then why don't MORE movies have this issue? The reason is probably because when shots like this are out of focus, they are reshot to be properly focused, and as a result, there is nothing to notice.

(Aside, sometimes blurred shots are intentionally used to add effect or mood).

no kidding...these "blurred" shots were not for effect, and clearly should of been properly focused. I said early on it wasn't that big of a deal, so there's no reason to make more of it then what it is...I just think the scenes should of been reshot.

It would be very annoying to the studio and all other parties involved to say that, "Oh by the way, we need everyone to come back and do a reshoot".

These scenes i'm referring to were in the middle of the movie and probably at a time when there were weeks left of filming, if not months. They just had to simply redo the scenes, but they figured "screw it" because it isn't that big of a deal. Interesting that this is the ONLY movie i've seen with this issue, so as I said, other producers/directors are correcting this issue.

[You_Are_Alive]

I don't know why this would make very little sense to you. How old are you? Why did you even ask the question when it seems you already knew the answer that you wanted to hear or accept?

Try to keep an open mind and not judge others so quickly. Rant over. Let's take another look to help make this more clear for you, if you are still interested. Now think of what I stated the first time. Filming is wrapped up and everyone has gone home. Do you still think it would NOT cost alot more money and time to get ppl back just to reshoot? I could stop here but maybe I should continue with some examples, just in case.

Consider trying just to get back the same actors at one time, what if they can't do it cause they started shooting another film, how about the camera guy, the lighting, the sound, the acquisition of the equipment, etc. You still think it does not cost alot of money?

And lets assume all of this can happen, you have another problem. How would you be able to recreate the same exact lighting and shooting conditions during that 2 second "blur"? You'd have a very difficult time doing so if impossible. Then you would complain that the fixed scene does not belong there because something was different, like lighting or the color of an actors clothing or placement of an object, or even the placement of the shot on the action. I can go on, but I think you understand now.

[energy80s]

Sounds like a standard "pull focus" shot to me. I've seen the film a couple of times and have not noticed it. Even though I was trained up as a video cameraman after leaving school, I still tend to watch the picture rather than the technique.

[defense]

lol...I thought that post was humorous. It would be hard for someone to have more of an "open" mind then me. And what does age have to do with knowing about Video/filming? The answer I am looking for is the "correct" answer. What you say contradicts the statements that this happens often.

As far as a costly "reshoot," I guess what you are saying "CAN" be accurate. But being that this "blur" occurred in the "middle" of the movie, it seems as though there was much more filming to do and let's suppose there was a lot of filming left. Then how would it be "costly" to reshoot a scene with two human beings walking to a couch. I don't doubt countless things go into shooting film, but this scene took place in an apartment. I can't see how it would be tough in any way to get the lighting right.

Watch the scene for yourself. We aren't talking about 100 cars blowing up and stunt men getting thrown in all directions. Then I would say, "well, I can understand why they didn't reshoot."

Also, my last point has still be unanswered. That is, if this "unfocusness" occurs "often" then why don't we see it on many more DVD's? Unless someone can explain otherwise, I would have to logically assume that the reason is because when it does occur, it is rectified. Either by some type of editing/adjusting, or a reshoot of the scene.

Again, this shouldn't be made out to be more then it is, BUT on the same token, it was annoying, because once I noticed the "blur" the first time, I kept one eye open for it again. And sure enough, I found another scene where it happened again. Maybe it isn't a real big deal, but it was clearly noticeable in real time. At least to me it was.

Sounds like a standard "pull focus" shot to me. I've seen the film a couple of times and have not noticed it. Even though I was trained up as a video cameraman after leaving school, I still tend to watch the picture rather than the technique.

When you say "pull focus" exactly what do you mean? I have never done any video work and tend to watch the "picture" because I have no clue about technique and I did notice it, only watching the movie for the first time. Also, it sounds like you are referring to the "first" two second "blur," what about the other split second "blur" I was referring to?

[energy80s]

Pull focus (or indeed push focus) is when you shift focus between two object on screen. On a film set there is a person employed especially for focusing as the cameraman doesn't do it! Look in the credits for the Focus Puller and blame them!!

[defense]

Pull focus (or indeed push focus) is when you shift focus between two object on screen. On a film set there is a person employed especially for focusing as the cameraman doesn't do it! Look in the credits for the Focus Puller and blame them!!

Thanks for that brief description....sounds like that is what the problem stems from because they focus does shift from "Will" to "Marcus" and Vice-Versa a few times walking to the couch and then sitting on it. The second "blur" was very similar...walking to the couch....interesting to say the least.

[flaninacupboard]

defense,
i watched the scene you described (times were different because i'm watching a PAL copy) and what you are seeing is the camera being quite tightly focused on will, he walks in fron of the camera towards the sofa, and then out of the frame on the right. Marcus now looks "blurred" because the focus isn't set on him. the focus is then adjusted and everything is fine. you've probably hit the nail on the head as to why you saw this, i think it was shot in a real apartment as opposed to a studio. in a studio you leave off the fourth wall and put the camera wherever it's convenient, in a real room you don't have that luxury. the cameras are quite close so the focus needs adjusting a lot. i assure you though, it happens all the time.
this is an example from a well known film. shot one, the background is in focus.


and in shot two, about a second later, the background is blurred, but C3P0 is now in focus.


as for the issue about the cost of reshooting, it is very costly. and also, just because a scene appears in the middle of a film doesn't mean it was shot halfway through the shooting period. i would say it is very rare for a film to be shot in chronological order (although it wouldn't suprise me if by some fluke chance quentin tarantinos films were!)
You forget that hugh grant is a really popular actor in england, with the sheer volume of romantic comedies he churns out i'm sure he didn't have the time to reshoot anyhting.

[defense]

@flaninacupboard, thank you for the specifics on why this occurred. I find it interesting and now can at least say that I know the cause. Also, I want to say that I don't doubt that this happens, but to say it happens "all the time" is hard for me to understand when I've never noticed it before.

Interesting you put a "LUCAS" film as an example, because I would think Lucas would definitely not allow something like that to occur. Being that i'm not a Star Wars fanatic, i'm not sure which episode that is. But if it is one of the ones from the 80's, wouldn't the older camera's be a reason for this? I mean, I could see in that case, why it would happen much more often or be more noticeable on older films.

You mentioned that this happens "often" and I really would like to see just one other commercial release from the last year or so where this has occurred. Not that I doubt it...but I just want to see for myself so I can try to figure out why I never noticed it before. Do you know of any such movies off hand?

Also, i'm just curious how much money you could "estimate" would of been spent on that one particular scene, had they done a reshoot? Let's assume their was at the very least, another week of shooting. I know Hugh Grant is huge in England, but from my limited knowledge, each and every movie has reshoots to some extent or another.

I think "filming" in general is costly, regardless of whether it is a reshoot or not. On many comedies alone you will see how many reshoots there really is just by watching the "outtakes." I can't see why an apartment scene for two seconds would be costly, but if you could give me a monetary number or what it could potentially cost to reshoot a two second scene with zero action where two people are talking in an apartment complex, i'd really be interested to know.

Thanks in advance

[flaninacupboard]

Ok, i can't stress this enough. this is not a mistake or an error, it is just the way a camera works. reshooting would not help, the limitation is the type of lens used, and that's just the way it is. as for the cost if a reshoot was required (for som other reason, not this one) here's a simple way to work it out. look at the crew list, there's probably 200 names or more there. so first of all you need to get them to recreate the set and the lighting and camera and film stock type etc. etc. i reckon two days for that. then a day to shoot the scene, and develop the film so it can go to be edited with everything else. so 200 people for three days, even if they earn only £40 a day (which lets face it, actors don't!) that's £24,000 or about $36,000. here is another example of shfiting focus:
in this shot Stansfield is in focus, and the gun is not.



and a second later, the focus is shifting and neither are in focus

it continues to shift until the gun is in focus.



this is another example from the same film, first the focus is on Leon, with stansfields' hand out of focus.



and now the focus has shifted to stansfields' hand and leon is out of focus.




As i said this is not an error, it is normal. go and have a play with a video camera with auto focus and move it between a close object and a far away object, you'll see it.

[energy80s]

Indeed, a pull focus shot is used in just about every TV programme and film ever made. I do it a lot myself. Don't understand why some people are only cottoning on to it now.

[defense]

thanks again for the info. Is that movie you just posted a pic of "NTSC" or "PAL?" Now I know what you are stressing, but something I want to stress is that I am not referring to unfocussed scenes which are used for effect as "you_are_alive" mentioned. I can give countless films where that has been done.

If it isn't an "error" though, then why don't we see more of it. If I pulled 20 movies out of my collection and watched them right now, the ONLY one that would show this type of "blur" would be About A Boy. With that type of disparity, something else has to be there.

I'm also just curious if i'm missing something and the directors whack the crap out of say "Martin" or Eddie Murphy, when they B.S and say somethiing which causes that particular scene to be reshot. The only times i've seen the B.S scenes reshot are when they are done so in a surrounding with little or no action, which would obviously be less expensive then one with 50 cars exploding.

Even though I understand the concept of the lens now, the facts as to why so many reshoots are done intentionally without "price" being considered and why none of my other movies have this type of "blur" still have me perplexed. As far as "what causes" this type of issue....that I now know.

[flaninacupboard]

look, as i said, go try with an auto focus camera, you will se exactly what is going on and why. whether the effect in Leon (the film from which i posted the clips, which is obviosuly shot on film, but in this case from a PAL DVD) is for artistic reasons or not THE CAMERA CANNOT FOCUS ON THE GUN AND STANSFIELD AT THE SAME TIME. no amount of reshooting or recomposing the shot will change this, it is a limit of the camera.
IT IS NOT A -BLUR-, THE CAMERA IS OUT OF FOCUS. there is nothing else to this. find any, and i mean any footage shot in a real house with people on opposite sides of the room, you -CANNOT- avoid part of the picture being out of focus.
again, not a blur but lack of focus.
let me try and explain when you will see this. if a lens is focusing on something one metre away, and then you want to focus on something 2 metres away, that is a big change. with a 1m focus your background and your 2m object will be blurred. when on the 2m oblect your background and the 1m objec will be blurred. now, move your two objects to 20m and 21m. that's not a lot of difference percentage wise, so no refocus is required. so, if you wanted to create the shot in about a boy with no focus shift, you could place the camer 25m away from will, and zoom in. no focuse adjustment would be required for the 25m will to the 26m marcus, but obviously they can't -get- 25m away, it's more like 2m, with marcus at 3m. again 2m to 3m is a long way, so you see and out of focus as will exits the frame, which then focuses on marcus. this is totally normal. you won;t see the focus shift on studio material becaus as in my example they set the camera some distance away and zoom in. hence in an action movie (the only other type you've mentioned) you have lots of wide shots, crane shots and panning shots. these are all done from a distance so no refocusing is required/noticed. if you still don;t understand, go read a high school science text book. here in the uk our secondary schools teach us about lenses, i assume your high schools do.

i think you are confusing a re-take with a re-shoot. a retake is "cut! reset! action!" this costs nothing as such, because the shooting schedule takes a certain number of retakes into consideration. a re-shoot is when shooting has completely finished, and then more is done at a later date. this sometimes happens if opinion showings say "change the end!" and the end is changed.

[defense]

I don't wanna continue to beat a dead horse, and I do appreciate your in depth analysis of focusing, but the one problem I have is not seeing the proof in the pudding. It's been said that this happens all the time, so all i'm asking is for someone to post just 1 mere NTSC release from the last year which can back that statement up.

I have a good eye and unlike a lot of others, I pay close attention to detail in a movie. Background, scenery, etc..etc. As I have said before, I have never seen another NTSC DVD that has had the same affect as the one as in "about a boy." There MUST be some reason for this. I will check my collection because I know SEVERAL of my DVD's must have some type of scenes in a house or apartment which would allow the camera to adjust from one object or person to another instantly. I'll post examples I see which are similar but almost certainly which won't have this "out of focus" effect.

think you are confusing a re-take with a re-shoot. a retake is "cut! reset! action!" this costs nothing as such, because the shooting schedule takes a certain number of retakes into consideration. a re-shoot is when shooting has completely finished, and then more is done at a later date. this sometimes happens if opinion showings say "change the end!" and the end is changed.

I think I gave a poor example of what I was trying to say. The examples I gave would be "re-takes" I suppose, but here's a much better example.

According to you, it would be an almost impossible feat to duplicate a 2 second scene with a kid walking to the couch with another person. How often do actors screw up and laugh on camera by "mistake" or screw up their lines or fall or stumble or pass gas for that matter? Let's say our little buddy "Marcus" dropped his Jelly toast on the way to the couch....what would the directors do then?

Whack Marcus in the furkin' head with the camera AND the Lens because it was gonna be so damn costly to get that lighting right and have 2 zillion people reset the stage for that two second scene? Or how bout if our huge British Actor, Hugh Grant slipped up on his line or didn't say it emphatically enough? Then what would happen? The directors gonna give him a pay cut because it's gonna cost them an arm & a leg to reshoot a TWO SECOND scene in an apartment? I don't think so.

Again, I am NOT doubting this "shifting focus" WILL happen ALL THE TIME. What I am saying is that OBVIOUSLY in those type of scenes in other movies, MOST companies are doing something differently then the directors/producers in About A Boy. Maybe other companies are using "multiple" camera's so that affect doesn't appear, or doing something I am unfamiliar with, but something is being done because I have NOT ever seen that affect in a movie before.

It wasn't just ONE time, it was TWICE as I've stated. I'm hoping someone can give just ONE of the countless NTSC films which have been released, which will show the "SAME" type of affect. Not some affect where the camera was "unintentionally" unfocused.

[flaninacupboard]

First of all, the issue of retakes and reshoots. in your example "How often do actors screw up and laugh on camera by "mistake" or screw up their lines or fall or stumble or pass gas for that matter? Let's say our little buddy "Marcus" dropped his Jelly toast on the way to the couch....what would the directors do then?"
they would do a retake. i already explained this earlier. try reading my posts more throughly. when energy and i said a reshoot would be expensive we meant a reshhot, not a retake. they are entirely different. AS I ALREADY SAID a retake costs nothing because they build a certain number or retakes into the shooting schedule. a reshoot (a reshoot is after they have finished filing -everything- they pack up and **** off, and then come back to do some more) however is horribly expensive. i won't discuss this further, you are just wrong on this one. energy is a film maker, and he told you it's expensive and hard. what more do you want?

on the issue of out of focus shots i have an example which fits your ridiculous criteria, it's NTSC and released within the last year. it's from Malcolm in the middle, and the composition is IDENTICAL to that in about a boy.
here in shot one the foreground is in focus, as hugh grant was, but if you look to the background where malcolm is (and where marcus is in AABOY) he is out of focus.


In our second shot the camera is beggining to refocus, at this point in AABOY hugh grant leaves the shot, meaning all you see is the out of focus back ground (and you'll notice malcolm and co are out of focus in this shot.)


And then our last frame, Malcolm and co are in shot (as marcus becomes in AABOY) and the foreground is out of focus. had hugh grant still been in the frame HE WOULD NOW BE OUT OF FOCUS.


Do you get it now? and i'll bet you didn't read up on lenses or look for out of focus shots yourself, you just expect me to do the work for you. well, i'm satisfied that ANYONE can read my examples and understand what is going on. i explained it to my girlfriend and showed her this thread, she knows -nothing- about photography or filmaking and doesn't like science, but understood what was going on. i suggest you read all my posts again.

[defense]

@ flaninacupboard, I think you are the one who isn't understanding buddy. As for your girlfriend understanding since you explained it, maybe she is smarter then you and picks up on things. I said three times I understand the entire shifting focus crap, you seem to not be able to decipher my morse code encoded sentence where I said that.

Now, as for this Malcolm in the Middle example,..isn't that from a TV Series? If so, that isn't any movie. You say that my criteria is ridiculous, and that statement shows you really are perplexed. How the hell can my criteria be ridiculous when i'm asking to see A SINGLE MOVIE, ONE "MOVIE" OF AN NTSC release on DVD which shows similar. I still have NOT seen any.

As for energy80's statement, you make them out to be Stephen Spielberg. Again, understanding WHY this occurs is understood so it does NOT need to continuously be repeated. However, the part where it happens OFTEN is confusing when i've NEVER seen it before on any other DVD's I've watched. "IF" it happens often, "THEN" there MUST be something which allows directors/producers of movies to not have this affect show up.

I mentioned MAYBE they use "TWO" seperate cameras so that "SHIFTING FOCUS" is NOT visible. It's pretty DAMN OBVIOUS what i'm saying is accurate, because if it weren't and it happened so OFTEN the same way as in "ABOUT A BOY" then I would think at least 50% of my DVD's would also show this affect, but NONE of them do.

I'm also very amused by the fact that on your first post you claimed to know very LITTLE about this type of issue, and to quote:

i'm not really into photography

Interesting....you are not really into photography a couple of days ago, and today you are a professional and sound like you actually Directed "ABOUT A BOY."

I believe the reason a different "METHOD" for this 2 second "BLUR" AKA SHIFTING FOCUS wasn't rectified was because the directors/producers of About A Boy said screw it...it's only a couple of seconds and noone will notice. It seems they aren't perfectionists like many other directors and producers.