Best skin tones

[Will Keir]

Shot on Arri Alexa for anyone curious.

I've been watching quite a bit of 'Game of Thrones' recently, and although not a film, I'll have to say that it's been a pleasure looking at faces and skin in that series.

Although alot has to do with the interior bits which are shot with lights casting a beautiful colour temperature, that akin to candlelight on the cast -- the series really shows off what Cooke S4's and the magic 'Cooke Look' can do to skin tones.

 

[Matt Ryan]

Matt. Only the first two shots have a "natural" look IMO. Even these aren't lit for "game of thrones" type skin tones. That show does a fantastic lighting job most of the time. Most of Tyrian's stuff is well lit, but John Snow skin tones look good but much different. A lot depends on the environment of the scene.

I like the look of the actor with the cigar, sure it's a pale face but I think it works. I don't like the 4th and 5th shot at all.

Maybe you can post the whole clip of that scene and we could tell ya more?

I just posted the shots to show a difference of looks based on different lighting conditions/color temps, not trying to get a critique. None of these have been colored yet, just curious what people thought "looked right" to them straight out of camera. I'm not matching popular tv/movie looks if thats what you think, I light based on what I am shooting and the look the that suits the story/theme. As for the shots, some are daylight, some tungsten, one fluorescent uncorrected, a couple mixed color temps, etc. These are from different projects, not all the same shoot. Just looking to see what people thought of these straight out of camera looks from RED and if they think they are natural looking or not.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I just posted the shots to show a difference of looks based on different lighting conditions/color temps, not trying to get a critique. None of these have been colored yet, just curious what people thought "looked right" to them straight out of camera.

Well, phew - that kinda explains your lack of responses, right?

Personally I didn't want to say anything because I thought you had colored them and... well, they looked like crap.

And I don't like trashing people on the internet.

I'm not matching popular tv/movie looks if thats what you think, I light based on what I am shooting and the look the that suits the story/theme. As for the shots, some are daylight, some tungsten, one fluorescent uncorrected, a couple mixed color temps, etc. These are from different projects, not all the same shoot. Just looking to see what people thought of these straight out of camera looks from RED and if they think they are natural looking or not.

I think they do not look natural. Shot #2 is the closest to looking natural, but still not really there. The others are just the usual godawful RED colors.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Bruce Allen]

My favorite so far - good example of how you can do a cold turquoise / greenish-yellow look (kinda like acid El Greco colors) but still have living warmth of skin show through.

Oh wait... that was shot on film. Damn it!!!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Matt Ryan]

Well, phew - that kinda explains your lack of responses, right?

Personally I didn't want to say anything because I thought you had colored them and... well, they looked like crap.

And I don't like trashing people on the internet.

I think they do not look natural. Shot #2 is the closest to looking natural, but still not really there. The others are just the usual godawful RED colors.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

hahaha I'm not a colorist. These were just straight from cam. Like I said, just curious what people thought of skin tones. I feel as though the best looking skin tones from RED are those shot under tungsten and underexposed by a stop. Can you concur this theory of mine?

 

[Evin Grant]

Bruce, this may not live up to film in your opinion but here is an attempt at a saturated Epic skin tone. This is a frame from my latest short and this is waaaaaay more saturated than I intend to finish it, but I think it looks as good as any saturated Alexa skin tone, in fact the lips look much better...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's interesting how we can scientifically measure resolution, dynamic range, and color... Yet color is the one aspect where our responses are subjective because we all perceive colors slightly differently and we all apply personal taste when reviewing color, yet we can all generally agree on how many lines of resolution were measured on a chart and how many steps of luminance were captured by a grey scale.

 

[Bruce Allen]

hahaha I'm not a colorist. These were just straight from cam. Like I said, just curious what people thought of skin tones. I feel as though the best looking skin tones from RED are those shot under tungsten and underexposed by a stop. Can you concur this theory of mine?

I agree with you on underexposing being useful... but not so much on tungsten with RED. Tungsten with RED is iffy for me - sometimes good results, sometimes not good. I see the best results from digital when you are outside during the day.

Bruce, this may not live up to film in your opinion but here is an attempt at a saturated Epic skin tone. This is a frame from my latest short and this is waaaaaay more saturated than I intend to finish it, but I think it looks as good as any saturated Alexa skin tone, in fact the lips look much better...

Now we're talking! You're rehabilitating RED here - nice Any filters, or clean?

BTW - Dude, that's the waaaay over-saturated version?? Lemme edit you up a saturated version

It's interesting how we can scientifically measure resolution, dynamic range, and color... Yet color is the one aspect where our responses are subjective because we all perceive colors slightly differently and we all apply personal taste when reviewing color, yet we can all generally agree on how many lines of resolution were measured on a chart and how many steps of luminance were captured by a grey scale.

Right... though at the same time, I bet that if you did a blind study, you'd find that an audience prefers filmic skin tones to RED ones

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Matt Ryan]

Right... though at the same time, I bet that if you did a blind study, you'd find that an audience prefers filmic skin tones to RED ones

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Depends what age group were talking about here? I think it's all subjective on a per viewer basis. Most every one of my friends couldn't tell you the difference in skin tones from one film to the next, even with an aggressive grade, and I feel like 99% of viewers could care less...

Of course pushing RED to produce more film like skin tones is great, but what are film like skin tones exactly? Not every films skin tones look identical. I have a feeling once RED perfects the color science for skin tones some will complain skin tones are too saturated or some other issue.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Depends what age group were talking about here? I think it's all subjective on a per viewer basis. Most every one of my friends couldn't tell you the difference in skin tones from one film to the next, even with an aggressive grade, and I feel like 99% of viewers could care less...

Sure, but a) we're making art here often with human subject matter and b) it often affects people on a deep subconscious emotional level.

Of course pushing RED to produce more film like skin tones is great, but what are film like skin tones exactly? Not every films skin tones look identical.

Sure. But I mean, let's take a look at some boring/odd official film promo vids... even then film has a wonderful look... check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0UQBLZL5o&hd=1
Not 100% what I would do with the color - a bit too saturated even for my tastes and color isn't quite right to my taste! - but wow... imagine if we could get this out of RED... maybe not the fire colors at the end but the skin tones in the beginning for sure
or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpWq09bs81g&hd=1
or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIykxqZOxyE&hd=1
lighting details: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/motion_picture/lineup/eterna_vivid500/demo/index2.html

And that's Fuji stock... a lot of people prefer Kodak.

And listen to how much they're talking about skin tones... very very important thing. Imagine if you replaced "4K4K4K4K" of RED with "skintoneskintoneskintone" - the world would be a better place.

It seems like we're talking about different decades here in terms of the concerns and terminology expressed here. Lik

I have a feeling once RED perfects the color science for skin tones some will complain skin tones are too saturated or some other issue.

Well, if they can just skin tones close to neutral under varied lighting conditions and then we dial saturation to taste that would be awesome.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Matt Ryan]

Sure, but a) we're making art here often with human subject matter and b) it often affects people on a deep subconscious emotional level.



Sure. But I mean, let's take a look at some boring/odd official film promo vids... even then film has a wonderful look... check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0UQBLZL5o&hd=1
Not 100% what I would do with the color - a bit too saturated even for my tastes and color isn't quite right to my taste! - but wow... imagine if we could get this out of RED... maybe not the fire colors at the end but the skin tones in the beginning for sure
or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpWq09bs81g&hd=1

And that's Fuji stock... a lot of people prefer Kodak.

And listen to how much they're talking about skin tones... very very important thing. Imagine if you replaced "4K4K4K4K" of RED with "skintoneskintoneskintone" - the world would be a better place.



Well, if they can just skin tones close to neutral under varied lighting conditions and then we dial saturation to taste that would be awesome.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Thanks Bruce. Couldnt agree more especially on your last point! I think that is what should be considered "good" skin tones. Otherwise skin tones will vary by exposure, lighting choices, contrast ratios, amount of diffusion, color temp, grade, and so on. So I think your last point is important for everyone to understand what good skin tones means. Otherwise it's all subjective.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think someone should make a PSA about improving color science called "It Gets Better" just to comfort everyone switching from film to digital...

 

[Rami Mustakim]

I guess everything is a matter of taste.
And the story you wanna tell...
But I think RED can provide beautiful and colorful images.
For example Will Wernick posted a few R3d sample files a few months ago from his Scarlet.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?68671-First-Scarlet-shoot-grabs-and-R3D-files&highlight=dropbox+link
This is the look he gave to one of the files. Not very saturated. I like it.

But you can also go that way.

The main goal in RAW footage is that you can "play" with it and do almost what you want.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I guess everything is a matter of taste.
And the story you wanna tell...
But I think RED can provide beautiful and colorful images.
For example Will Wernick posted a few R3d sample files a few months ago from his Scarlet.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?68671-First-Scarlet-shoot-grabs-and-R3D-files&highlight=dropbox+link
This is the look he gave to one of the files. Not very saturated. I like it.

But you can also go that way.

The main goal in RAW footage is that you can "play" with it and do almost what you want.

But you have to admit that neither of those shots look quite right...

And the thing about RAW footage is that all it does is record what the sensor captured. If the sensor missed or misinterpreted certain wavelengths of light, RAW ain't gonna help you.

It's like you did a sound recording with a microphone with an odd tone... it's very hard to completely get that tone out, even if the microphone has extremely low noise and you recorded the raw waveform at 192khz 24bit.

I think someone should make a PSA about improving color science called "It Gets Better" just to comfort everyone switching from film to digital...

Or you awesome DPs could just, you know, make a bunch of films on RED with drop dead awesome color

Been waiting for that since 2007! Heck - before that if you just look at digital in general.

To me, nothing Cronenweth has shot on digital stands up to Fight Club, color-wise.

The last Pirates of the Caribbean looked notably worse.

I prefer the colors of the pre-digital Soderbergh films to the post-digital ones.

I even prefer Downey's look in Iron Man to his look in The Avengers (which I loved and worked on the trailers for). I did VFX on the original pre-grade material so it's not a grading issue. I also preferred the look of the stuff shot on film in The Avengers to the stuff shot digitally.

Can you point out one top cinematographer who has shot both film and digital... and you think his most beautifully-colored films were shot on digital?

Really smart guys like you and Cronenweth make the best of what you have and make it work for the story.

I mean, Social Network and Dragon Tattoo were great and the camera choice fit the story... but you could still feel the limitations.

Like if you give a brilliant painter only certain paints, he could make it work. I've seen people do stuff with clever use of black, white, burnt umber, burnt sienna and yellow ochre that you would swear had more colors in it. But at the same time, wow I bet the same person would kick ass if you gave them the full range.

To me it's like we've moved from oils to acrylics and not only do acrylics look different but they haven't actually gotten acrylic versions of the all of the oil colors yet.

And the weird thing is that the manufacturers aren't talking about that. All they're talking about is how fast they dry and how sharply they allow you to paint. I'm like WHERE THE HELL IS MY PRUSSIAN BLUE?!!! GNASH TEETH!

Anyway... will be calm now

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Evin Grant]

Bruce, here I've tried to ratchet it up to the max saturation I feel is pleasing...

I'd agree that a film image would probably handle this level of saturation better but I also can't think of an instance where I'd choose to.

Then again here is an fairly saturated image from my Vouge Portfolio shot on the Nikon D800...

I'm very happy with the skin tones in this digital photo although the makeup was intentionally light/white on her face, her legs looks look quite natural.

BTW everything seems to be just slightly less saturated through my browser than in Photoshop or Redcine X Pro.

 

[Joe Mannion]

Does digital stills photography have the same problem capturing natural looking skin tones or is it a problem particular to motion?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Since sensors don't "know" how often the shutter operates I'm guessing there's no difference to speak of... ;-)

Cheers - #19

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Skin tones are all over the map. Comes down to capture medium, lighting, filtering, post processing, etc. At the end of the day, what matters is whether it affects your ability to enjoy what you are watching. Saw this trailer today. Can't say I liked the skin tones, but I'd watch the movie. http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/safetynotguaranteed/

By the way, shot on Sony F3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1862079/technical

 

[Bob Gundu]

Yup.... screw skin tones.... the story sucked me in!

Skin tones are all over the map. Comes down to capture medium, lighting, filtering, post processing, etc. At the end of the day, what matters is whether it affects your ability to enjoy what you are watching. Saw this trailer today. Can't say I liked the skin tones, but I'd watch the movie. http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/safetynotguaranteed/

By the way, shot on Sony F3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1862079/technical

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Fool me once...

Fool me once...

Thinking about some of the language we use to describe color tonality, particularly with skin tones, and I am struck by how often we use words that offer "emotional context". It's not uncommon for a grading session to become 3 people in need of a thesaurus. Simple example: director/DP/producer; needs to look more "inviting" or make that guy look "meaner". Colorist briefly ponders career choice, then tries words that embellish the original note like "warm and inviting"? - since warm (typically more red) is something the controls on the grading box actually offers... ;-)

My point is that how each individual sees color is a product of their unique visual abilities AND the bank of feelings/memories specific colors evoke. That equation rides like a jockey on the back of a lifetime of conditioning that constitutes our visual library. My favorite analogy is vinyl record albums vs CDs where the CDs are "cleaner" with less noise/distortion, but, like the digital skin tones Bruce finds lacking, the CD version may lack emotional heft.

Point of reference: I have a musician friend, who drops by to listen to music with me on an older system that would chart poorly in terms of the frequency response curve. It's too warm and, in a sense, "over saturated" if that term can be applied to sound. But it "feels" so good. We can turn up the volume a bit and our ears don't protest. Beyond that, there is an emotional response deeper inside versus listening to the same beloved songs on a more technically proficient system.

My point is, that human beings assign values and meaning to stimuli through a complex interaction that relies on pre-existing schema. Are the filmic skin tones Bruce so adores simply expectation fulfillment? His notes on the jaundiced pallor of the screen image vs the real deal, from an Alexa BTW, posits an actual technical failure of digital sensors/color science that needs improvement. He may be absolutely right, but his biases, like all of ours, are impossible to discard. How do you find a proper "control group"? Find some Luddite who has never seen an image on a screen?

I think Evin's images and notes are perhaps the most instructive, at least in terms of the current state of RED's sensor and color science. Photons hitting silver halide vs photons hitting silicon is fundamentally different but the wavelengths and location of the reflected (and/or refracted) light leaving the exit pupil of the lens are identical.

IMO the Alexa color science was massaged to best mimic Kodak Vision stock's spectral response. RED simply wants to give you the highest fidelity recording of scene values it can and put the ball in your court (example: Alchemy is optional, not baked in). F65 seems determined to make everything look good, like a picture postcard, then let you "distress" it in post as needed. All potentially valid approaches that will appeal more or less to different filmmakers based largely on their ways of thinking/seeing/working.

Can you make digital images look so much like film that even a Bruce Allen couldn't determine its provenance? Sounds like an idea for the next RedUser party contest ;-)

Cheers - #19