Actors look bad on HD

[thornben]

Hi Ben,
I take it you have not sharpened your Red footage in post, if so and if you
are able, trial a small amount out to film (30' test) and project on a large screen.
If it's too soft, then you'll have to go back and sharpen again to get the desired result. Doing this, you may then start to notice your harder lighting
and the problems it causes.
Cheers Mezmo

Why would you assume this. I was saying you could if you wanted.

I have sharpened it, there isn't a problem. If I went out to film it would be even kinder.

 

[thornben]

There is also digital diffusion going on in many scenes, obviously because the blacks are halating (glowing) along with the whites, something you can get with a gassian blur overlay but not with lens diffusion.

Also that Arri Mag quote could be total bull.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Also that Arri Mag quote could be total bull.

No, I talked to Andrew Lesnie once and he told me about the use of nets and ProMist on the Galadriel scene, though that was just a confirmation of something I could see with my own eyes. We also talked about "King Kong" and how he wanted to avoid too much digital diffusion for that movie.

As for shooting greenscreen stuff with diffusion filters, that seems risky to me.

 

[thornben]

...in "Big Love" I used the lightest diffusion filters on the camera for close-ups, but in post we selected a handful of shots throughout the series to get digitally touched-up to soften something distracting in a close-up now & then. But due to the costs of Flame work, or whatever it was they used, we kept it to a minimum number of shots.

I bet you didn't have to do much of that on Amanda Seyfried! Man that show is so well cast, everybody is believable in their role. Must be fun working with such actors.

I enjoy the look of that show. Nice, looks good. I saw the last of season 2 recently, those are your eps right?

 

[thornben]

No, I talked to Andrew Lesnie once and he told me about the use of nets and ProMist on the Galadriel scene, though that was just a confirmation of something I could see with my own eyes. We also talked about "King Kong" and how he wanted to avoid too much digital diffusion for that movie.

As for shooting greenscreen stuff with diffusion filters, that seems risky to me.

Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant, not that he didn't use them but no mention of digi-diff and not deliberately using it across the board to hide the keying issues.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Test, test, test...

I shot an HD movie (F900) called "D.E.B.S." a few years ago, in a sort of frontal hard key light style (the director wanted that look after I did some tests -- she felt soft lighting looked too "natural" and wanted something poppier, more old-fashioned glamorous).

The thing is that this was my sixth HD feature and the producers and director was telling me that I had to use diffusion when shooting HD -- "everyone knows that". So we shot some tests and filmed them out to 35mm at EFILM and everyone picked the clean undiffused shots over the diffused shots. Though in one love scene, I did have to sneak in the lightest Soft-FX filter made... and no one noticed, not even on the 24" HD monitors on set. But I felt it was necessary to make this scene slightly stick out, even in subtle way, because it was a turning point in the story.

I did another HD movie after that with a well-known actress in her middle fifties and she wanted me to test lighting and filters on her in advance and judge the tests. In that case, we ended up using some light diffusion filters...

My point is that diffusion filters are still useful tools for creating a look in a movie.

 

[Iron Possum]

Also that Arri Mag quote could be total bull.

Arri News, Issue 04/2004, p13 - A Question of the Lens.

These extracts were taken from an Arri interview with Andrew while he was at the Berlinale Film festival that year.

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Test, test, test...

I shot an HD movie (F900) called "D.E.B.S." a few years ago, in a sort of frontal hard key light style (the director wanted that look after I did some tests -- she felt soft lighting looked too "natural" and wanted something poppier, more old-fashioned glamorous).

The thing is that this was my sixth HD feature and the producers and director was telling me that I had to use diffusion when shooting HD -- "everyone knows that". So we shot some tests and filmed them out to 35mm at EFILM and everyone picked the clean undiffused shots over the diffused shots. Though in one love scene, I did have to sneak in the lightest Soft-FX filter made... and no one noticed, not even on the 24" HD monitors on set. But I felt it was necessary to make this scene slightly stick out, even in subtle way, because it was a turning point in the story.

I did another HD movie after that with a well-known actress in her middle fifties and she wanted me to test lighting and filters on her in advance and judge the tests. In that case, we ended up using some light diffusion filters...

My point is that diffusion filters are still useful tools for creating a look in a movie.

It seems like Seamus McGarvey used some pretty heavy diffusion filters in Atonement. I can't say I liked it much especially when they had a light shining into the lens (like a torch for example).

 

[thornben]

Arri News, Issue 04/2004, p13 - A Question of the Lens.

These extracts were taken from an Arri interview with Andrew while he was at the Berlinale Film festival that year.

I'm not at all suggesting that you have quoted the text incorrectly, I just mean that people don't always tell everything in these interviews, nor is the person interviewing asking all the questions. Look at AC. So much of it is untrue. I think that is pretty well known in the industry, especially amongst DP's. It's about business.

It's not a big deal at all, I was just trying to sprinkle some healthy skepticism is all.

 

[thornben]

It seems like Seamus McGarvey used some pretty heavy diffusion filters in Atonement. I can't say I liked it much especially when they had a light shining into the lens (like a torch for example).

He is a big fan of nets (i.e. chanel stockings). If you check out the book 'New Cinematographers' by Alexander Ballinger, there are some interesting interviews with him in there where he gets quite specific. It's a good book, it has interviews with Khondji, Savides, Mathieson, Savides, Acord, Jean-Yves Escoffier, too. Best cinematography book I've ever read.

 

[David Wyatt]

I was passed an article in a British Sunday newspaper that read "Looks bad for stars on HD". Apparently many actors are complaining they look bad when shot using HD cameras and are refusing to be shot using them prefering the look of film. As actors already influance where and when many films are shot this cant be a good decision for the advancement of HD. HD used correctly doesnt make actors look any different to when film is used and more likely referes to 2/3rd inch cameras rather than 35mm format, however actors dont know the technical difference maybe film has won a supporter group.

This is going to sound completely made-up...but anyway...a post guy tried to convince me recently that a small number of top Hollywood actresses (and actors?) have it written into their contracts for digital wrinkle/line removal in post! While this sounds laborious and expensive I don't suppose it's that much different from every single magazine cover you ever see (just 24 times a second!!)

David Wyatt.
http://www.4klondon.com/

 

[Iron Possum]

So I might be shifting slightly off topic here from the original post but what I also found interesting in the Andrew Lesnie interview is that he said he had done some tests previously and found that it did not make any difference if you have the stocking in front or behind the lens, except that it's a lot easier to put it in front of the lens.

I cant remember exactly but when I tested this out a few years ago I though I noticed more veiling flare across the lens with the net in front. Also I thought that one bonus with having the net behind the lens meant that the apparent level of diffusion didn't change with focal length changes whereas if it was used in front this did seem to change, but maybe I'm confused on that one.

On another note The West Wing used nets behind the lens to great effect, I loved all those halated practicals on their sets. I think they use nets on NCIS too, it looks like it anyway, but for some reason it took me longer to get used to the look for that particular show.

I always want to use nets but whenever I test it I end up being too gutless to go with the effect, opting for glass diffusion instead. Maybe it's something to do with homemade/unknown vs quantifiable?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

My main problem with nets is that you can't create a set that has even degrees of strength starting with barely perceptible. The lightest net I have ever found is still the equivalent of a #1/2 Classic Soft or #1 Black Diffusion-FX or #1 Soft-FX.

The difference between a net in front and a glass diffusion filter is that as you use longer lenses, you are looking through larger gaps in the net pattern, but with a glass filter, you are enlarging the "lenslets" that soften the image around the clear areas. So the nets tend to look lighter on the longer lenses. With nets, it's the thread pattern that provide diffraction that throws a soft image over the sharp image coming through the clear gaps.

Yes, I think putting them on the back of lenses tends to make them more consistent across a series of lenses. But you may also have to be more consistent about the f-stop you use.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Also I thought that one bonus with having the net behind the lens meant that the apparent level of diffusion didn't change with focal length changes whereas if it was used in front this did seem to change, but maybe I'm confused on that one.

I've always thought that (or at least the diffusion quality varies with focal lenght)... however I'm often confused!

I'd be very surprised if there was not a difference between infront of lens and behind lens diffusion. I'd accept at any given focal length with a test chart (no lights infront of the camera) they are the same..

regards

Michael

ps I would love the next red camera to be designed so you could place a very thin filter behind the lens. Obviously this would have to be always populated..

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Mr Mullens is too quick...

This is the 3rd time I've posted (too slowly) and only after posting realised he has produced a more coherent and usefull reply..

:sad:

but thankfull

Michael

 

[mezmo]

Why would you assume this. I was saying you could if you wanted.

I have sharpened it, there isn't a problem. If I went out to film it would be even kinder.

Hi Ben,
In future I'll assume nothing, just trying to demonstrate the collective softening of original material as it goes thru various post stages.
For multi release prints a IP and IN are struck which also adds to this
problem. And you dont know what you've got untill the final stage of
Post. DI facilities and Labs also use some form of Digital Sharpening to
'clean up' an image. If your just posting in 1080p, no problem.
If you light diffused or softer and keep optical diffusion off the lens then
you can sharpen and diffuse/soften at will in post for all stages of delivery,
(Film,1080p) and in various parts of the frame, not the whole frame.
Run burn tets and get the look you want.
If you shoot with too much diffusion on the lens, then you have to use Digital Sharpening of that overall soft shot in post or leave it soft.
It will look false and unatural either way.
Same goes for harder lighting, just how 'kind' a scene will look is unknown
untill 100-200 Release Prints are struck and screened.
Mezmo

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This is one reason why even after you shoot a test, if you like the results of a particular diffusion filter, then use the next grade lighter than the one you liked. It's always easier to soften it a little more in post than to sharpen it if you went too far.

This is one reason why I'm interested in what the lightest grades of filters do. I like that barely perceptible level, like the slight glow that a #1/8 ProMist gives you (or the similar #1 GlimmerGlass.) You then get some of the pretty artifacts of diffusion without giving the impression of an image that lacks sharpness. And you can then pull that light filter when going to a softer zoom, or when you are shooting a very wide shot where you want the feeling of increased detail, or if you end up under really flat soft lighting.

 

[Iron Possum]

That's why I always carry around a couple of the lightest grade of Soft FX which I can pretty much drop in or take out without too much thinking. I can just go with my gut instinct. No great ramifications or nasty surprises later if the shots aren't cut together they way they were originally intended. Although I guess I've used these filters so often now I know what to expect from them.

Quite often I'll just throw a diffusion filter on so that there are more lens "defects" occurring even in the wider shots. Sometimes it's really evocative when you get light hitting the front of the lens in the right way. Technically it's wrong, but it can look great. As long as you know when/if it's graded you can put a little more contrast back in if you want too.

 

[mezmo]

Hi Iron P.,
Yes some old 35mm 25-250 Angenieux zooms had great "defects" without
a filter, just light bouncing around the elements.
Could be great on Red for an 'Easy Rider' kind of retro feel.
They dont resolve as well as modern zooms, have a softer look although
some can be reasonably sharp if found in good condition.
Back in the day, we would stick gelatin filters and black nets to the
back these old lenses for things like the odd hippie trippie stoner scene.
My boss refused to buy glass filters. Life was simple then and that probably
prompted my suspicion of the modern glass CC and diffusion filter epidemic.
Mezmo

 

[Iron Possum]

Hi Mezmo,

the good ol' days... I think it's been said a few times around here before, that cameras like the Red would do well with the older, quirkier glass (for some projects). When you don't just want that super pristine digital image, instead you're looking to impart some character as well. I'd love to see some stuff shot with a set of old Cooke Speed Panchros, all you'd do is wind some of the contrast back in if you wanted later on.

I guess the thing is with a digital camera, you can QC the shots straight away with a scope or 30" 4K screen (next year), so the super techo types are in there looking at everything but the picture. At the end of the day it's an emotion that you're trying to convey on the screen, not the maximum lp/mm or whatever.