Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Red and makeup and actors in 4k

L

liquidigital

Banned
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Since the camera has been in circulation for quite some time now, what has been your impression of faces at 4k? Do actresses need more make-up to cover up pores and even skin tone, or less? Have you had to compensate by pushing a stop? Curious as I was asked this recently.
 
Well, I have had to do some "digital makeup" after the fact ;)

Here would be my 2c for the makeup dept:

First off, the DOF characteristics of the 35mm sensor are far more forgiving than HD, by the way. Shooting shallow focus stuff on RED can look gorgeous and sexy.

In terms of overall characteristics, it depends very much on what curves, sharpening, etc you put on it afterwards. It's RAW, so this is up to post.

Basically, try to talk to not only the DP but the post people involved.

A lot of people really don't know how to deal with RED footage yet. They need to listen to Jim about S-curves for film-like looks that are flattering to skin. Instead you often see stuff with hard clipping and bad highlights - or a "washed out grey" look if they don't clip the blacks properly.

It's also not always easy to get good-looking reds out of RedCine. I'm not sure whether this is due to hardware, software color settings or interface. RedSpace seems to make things easier.

So, if they get strange orange-looking red lipstick and people look at you accusingly, please be aware you might just be dealing with a novice post fellow.

In general, it's very similar to the transition from 35mm still film to DSLRs. It can be very sharp. There's not as much latitude as film in general, of course.

But basically have fun and go for it. Enjoy the fact that you can preview looks on set instead of waiting for telecine / dailies. Enjoy the lovely 35mm sensor. You should be able to do great work.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Yes, you really need to just see it to get a sense about the "look." We did a quick a/b between a Canon H1 and the RED shooting the same shot of a man sitting at a table, close up on his face.

The H1, which I think is a bit of an underrated camera has excellent resolution and detail. However, the RED showed the detail in a different and hard to describe way. As we switched the monitor back and forth, it was as if the detail was there, but it was more of a "creamy" look...definitely less sharp and filmic. Again, hard to describe, so best if you can just go out with a RED crew some day and check it out...or look around here for the test pics.

Kevin
 
I treat it like any format, get as much out of make up as possible with out it being obvious. Then use a good lens to focus on what is needed and soften the bad sections of skin. Combine that with lighting the skin blemishes out into the shadows and your left with better complexion. Higher res and bigger band width means more detail and information to work with in post. You just have to determine which detail gets recorded.

This is a still taken out of the last commercial we shot the model had quite badly blemished skin but it is not noticed in the footage. This is despite the fact that the pic is a very bad quick grade of what we shot, it is just to show that it is not a problem.

7096_1218675449.jpg


Also if your going to broadcast, web or DVD when you compress the image down most blemishes merge into their background.
 
What others call a "creamy" look in comparison with most other video cameras, I would attribute to the debayer algorithm (slightly) and lack of a default sharpening process in the Red image pipeline (mostly), but there is probably more to it.
 
coldpizza said:
I treat it like any format, get as much out of make up as possible with out it being obvious. Then use a good lens to focus on what is needed and soften the bad sections of skin. Combine that with lighting the skin blemishes out into the shadows and your left with better complexion. Higher res and bigger band width means more detail and information to work with in post. You just have to determine which detail gets recorded.

This is a still taken out of the last commercial we shot the model had quite badly blemished skin but it is not noticed in the footage. This is despite the fact that the pic is a very bad quick grade of what we shot, it is just to show that it is not a problem.

7096_1218675449.jpg


Also if your going to broadcast, web or DVD when you compress the image down most blemishes merge into their background.
Click to expand...

RED's Super 35mm sensor and it's relative (lack of) depth of field took care of this shot. Looks great!
 
This was from an R3D file Peter Majtan posted on ScarletUser. If it shouldn't have been posted in this way, my apologies. Mods, feel free to remove.

I posted this to demonstrate the use of an S-curve to improve skin tones and make an image look more "filmic."
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Guys this is really interesting stuff, thanks. Does anyone have any women specific examples?

Also, do you find it necessary to add more or less makeup to a person than with 35mm or HD?

Even when watching something shot on 35, but broadcast in hi-def, I often see a lot of faults with the amount of make-up applied.
 
I think your question in being answered in a technical cameraman's way. Make up is more than hiding imperfections of the skin, and not every shot is a close up with a very shallow deph of field.
I have very little experience with make-up, but what I do know it's a tricky thing. Things get shiny very soon indeed. I think it would be best if you found some connection with a make-up specialist having worked with a Red team.
 
The best makeup is good lighting.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Having shot a few features now on Red, the best experience I've had is when the Make-up artist uses the airbrush technique for the skin foundation. Lenses can really affect the look in certain lighting conditions as well. But I've been quite happy with the results of the combination of airbrush foundation, classic soft filter and either Varioprimes or Cookes.
 
On my last short we had different methods for the makeup. Including a method to cool down the skin with with a Evian water-spray and then take the moisture off for a sweat-free skin. We also had airbrush and HD-makeup on silicon-base.

Our makeup-artist just was kept saying "I'm sorry. I just can't do better. No chance." for the first days, although he did a tremendous job. Although I liked the idea of "cooling the skin down", I think the silicon-based HD-Makeup did the best job. We used the airbrush-method for body-shots and not for the face if I remember it correctly.
 
liquidigital said:
Guys this is really interesting stuff, thanks. Does anyone have any women specific examples?

Also, do you find it necessary to add more or less makeup to a person than with 35mm or HD?

Even when watching something shot on 35, but broadcast in hi-def, I often see a lot of faults with the amount of make-up applied.
Click to expand...

I've found if you just tell the makeup artist to treat it like film (the orginal 4K) then 99% of the time it's fine. In other words......less....

jb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top