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 :)

4K and beyond...Pretty .Ugly

Its an easy fix..

no body panic..

Key the skin, then blur over lay...put back on itself, skin instantly looks soft and milky... old ladies look young again, everything else is sharp. Been doing for years in skin & makeup commercials. You can do it in FLAME, any grading tool, AE, NUKE... even FCP 3 way color corrector can do it.
Very simple to do and pleasing to any female actors eye.

Bring on 6k!
 
There's nothing inherent in 4k or higher that causes problems for making actors look pretty. Indeed, it even has advantages:

With softer HD, you're often tempted to over-sharpen, and this is often the major cause of why makeup artists didn't like HD, even when they did like the higher resolution source of 35mm film.

If you are still seeing too much real detail with any camera, regardless of resolution, you can address this in numerous ways - lighting is key, makeup application technique, depth of field, softening filters on the camera. The Alexa has a softening diffusion filter as part of it's OLPF stack which is all that you're seeing there Fredrik, and of course, such filters can be added to any camera if you know to do so.

Even added filters is not an argument for accepting a lower resolution. Such filters work much better at higher resolutions like 4k or 5k because that allows you more discrimination to soften fine detail without effecting major detail which you wish to keep (by virtue of the superior MTF response of the camera system).

Graeme
 
True enough Mark. The post tools for this are quick, simple and effective, and to me, look much better than the old Star Trek "beauty glow" you got whenever a woman came into shot. City on the Edge of Forever is a superb episode, but with Joan Collins as guest star, they must have been swapping that filter in and out all day....

Graeme
 
Makeup art

Makeup art

Even with all other factors identical, I typically find it easier to get a "beauty" look on RED cams than on HD cams. I assume that is due to the sharpening Graeme notes.

IMHO creating an interactive feedback loop with makeup is the most powerful tool in the box. Each person, lighting condition, framing, angle, etc has its own particular profile in terms of how skin reads on camera. My favorite technique is to have the talent get out of the makeup chair and stand/sit on their mark for 30 seconds while the makeup artist looks at the monitor with me. I will typically toggle between actual framing and the 1 to 1 punch in to show details, sometimes I'll also show them "clean" vs filtered for reference. Using this knowledge the makeup dept. can use their expertise to give the best starting point for whatever one might do later.

Note: one of the key issues is the reflectivity of the makeup - too matte often looks too "made up" or plastic, too shiny can create new issues. If the matrix of lighting, filtration and makeup reflectivity is well managed; 4K or 5K, as implemented by Graeme/RED, should not look ugly or require extensive post finessing.

One of the other advantages of expert makeup work is greater ability to manage the amount of defocus/filtration needed for the "pretty" look so you can retain more depth in the skin tones. My pet peeve is when defocusing blemishes does collateral damage to subtle nuances of performance.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair - very good how you get the makeup artist involved in seeing their work under the lighting and camera that will be used. I think it's vital for them to see their work this way.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Blair - very good how you get the makeup artist involved in seeing their work under the lighting and camera that will be used. I think it's vital for them to see their work this way.

Graeme
Click to expand...


I do the same, but I also shoot a lot of interview / talking head sort of projects. We're small time here for much of this work... My makeup artist / hair stylist is my wife's best friend and she won't put her stamp of approval on anything until she sees it lit and on-camera.

Personally I love how 4K and 5K acquires all the detail! It's "real" detail too and not what we see with HD most of the time. Over-processed, over-sharpened, over-compressed HD acquisition often makes for a very ugly image and people tend to blame the resolution. Nothing makes pores and pimples look worse than overzealous image "enhancement". Just my opinion...

There are plenty of ways to soften the image, break up detail, etc.. Both practically and in post. To me, there's no such thing as a camera with too much resolution or a lens that's too sharp. That's crazy talk.
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
We are finding that most actresses look pretty darn scary in 4k and absolutely horrific in anything higher.

The trickery and hoops we are having to go through to get a "pretty" look is nothing short of a nightmare.

Yes, it IS lovely to have the information we get from a large sensor, but the reality is, we are back to all the work-arounds that Hollywood masters of light, filtration and post developed to make the glamourous stars look ...glamororous!

Will we indeed have to resort to Vaseline-smeared Doris Day close-ups to get approval on-set of the current stream of leading ladies, or will we be stuck in post production, electonically dealing with the very REAL reality of seeing humans under the scrutiny of the new wave of very unforgiving sensors and projectors?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...


Sorry Brandon, but I could not disagree more with your assessment, obviously in your TEAM, there is the luck of a GREAT DP, familiar with SKIN TONES and there is the LUCK of a great COLORIST to make sure those SKIN TONES are preserved to their best, also there is the need of proper positioning of the lights and the type of lights used, I find my self enjoying very much 5k and can't wait for 6K for that matter as I do still want and need more for the frame grabs extraction as well as love the additional room given in the insanity of resolution that we get pout of EPIC, and so do the Post team.


Sorry you are having nightmares in what it is for me the best ever, and still getting better and higher in pixels count, which trust me will count in the end results of your project.
 
Doesn't the "Skin" function under alchemy really help with this? Not a lot, just a bit to smooth out any inconsistencies in actors/actresses faces.
 
Ketch with all due respect, shooting raw means the actual skin tones have little to no bearing on much ...I am talking about TEXTURE..like pimples, facial hair on women,black heads, visible cosmetics that are applied by experts who really DO know what they are doing and finally the delight of wrinkles.

So far we have had a go with filters, nets behind the lens,beautybox and cosmo plug-ins and yeah they do help..but by the very nature of the beast, you are going to SEE more no matter how much our DPs know skin tone and lighting..and I can assure you that accross a cinema screen unless theres a great deal of work in post, the experience will be jarring and ugly to many who are used to seeing cinema magic performed on their favorite female stars of ANY age.

It's a bitch, but men can have all the hard light and wrinkles in the world and we think it looks awesome, but women...not so much!
 
There are, to some extent, two conflicting forces at work -- when we want to capture reality in all its glory, then we want as much information as possible recorded. But a lot of narrative work involves fictional situations by definition - this actor doesn't really live in this house, those aren't his clothes, he's actually bald but his character has a crewcut, his wife is supposed to be 30 years old but is being played by a 45 year old actress, the scene is supposed to be sunny but halfway through the shoot, it starts raining, etc. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors, visual misdirection, look here but don't look there, etc. So the art comes in what you don't show as much as what you do. It's like that story Sidney Lumet tells about meeting Kurosawa and complimenting him on the composition of a wide shot in a period battle scene, and Kurosawa tells him that he framed it that way... because there was a power plant on the left and telephone poles on the right, both just off-camera (something like that, I don't have the actual quote.)

We are in the business of selling illusions just as much as reality, or a false reality, i.e. fantasy. To do that, we need to control what the camera sees and how it is rendered. Now most of the time, we want more information because we can always throw some of it away in post. But there are reasons why we do things in-camera as well, both political and practical (or financial). For example, on a hour-long TV show that budgets 2 days to color-correct an episode, if you give them 20 or so close-ups that need digital cosmetic work done to hide something, you will go over the budgeted time in color-correction and thus go over budget (depending on how much they have budgeted for that sort of thing.) Therefore there is a lot of pressure to get most of it right in-camera and not save it for post, just as there is pressure on the sound recordist to get clean dialogue tracks even if ADR is an option in post.

I think, for the most part, the modern high-end digital cameras are great in terms of resolution, because I prefer an image with more detail but less artificial sharpening, i.e. more like a film image. Sharp but not sharpened. I don't think lowering the resolution of the cameras is the right idea. However, let's all admit that for some types of close-ups, we need to soften the image and therefore are also lowering the resolution. Most of us aren't selling cameras and TV sets, we are selling dreams and our obligation is to make the actors and spaces look good using all the tools and tricks available to us, not necessarily make the technology look good.
 
Software is quite amazing to deal with this. Just like point and shoot cameras have facial recognition and tracking built in, expect all colour grading tools have this functionality. It can be done now, but watch how it will be even easier very soon. I've done my share of digital makeup.
 
As always, David says it best.

Brandon, you should read a previous quote of yours (spoken in the third person) and maybe make adjustments:

"Brandon is laughing because Brandon is amazed how many prosumers can afford a Scarlet or Epic when what they really need to invest in is a few textbooks on lighting, a degree in production or a few years of working up to some sort of core competence as film makers.

Put a point-and-shoot in the hands of a master and you will get a masterpiece, however place a professional caliber instrument in the hands of a point-and -shooter. And you will most assuredly produce a train wreck."
 
WOW Shane, not sure if im more delighted to have such a fan in you or horrified to have a stalker on here.

So nice to be quoted, makes me feel good, so thanks.
 
This discourse has become pretty ugly. Some other adjectives also come to mind.
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
Ketch with all due respect, shooting raw means the actual skin tones have little to no bearing on much ...I am talking about TEXTURE..like pimples, facial hair on women,black heads, visible cosmetics that are applied by experts who really DO know what they are doing and finally the delight of wrinkles.

So far we have had a go with filters, nets behind the lens,beautybox and cosmo plug-ins and yeah they do help..but by the very nature of the beast, you are going to SEE more no matter how much our DPs know skin tone and lighting..and I can assure you that accross a cinema screen unless theres a great deal of work in post, the experience will be jarring and ugly to many who are used to seeing cinema magic performed on their favorite female stars of ANY age.

It's a bitch, but men can have all the hard light and wrinkles in the world and we think it looks awesome, but women...not so much!
Click to expand...


Again, strongly and respectfully disagree with you... again.

Shooting RAW has everything to do with SKIN, as it does with it all, ITS CALLED INFORMATION, and I always wanted to have as much as I can, I can soften an image as much as I can, but I wil always try to NEVER NEED TO SHARPEN one.

I control it all via lighting and effects if needed in Post, but I always acquired it RAW at the highest resolution, and always look out after my girls SKIN... ;)
 
Common guys, "blur and color corrector"....Thats is quite far from the sharpest shovels in the shed. Check this sample it was done with a "click to apply" nuke script. Blur is blur, getting rid of a certain noise frequency is something else. It leaves the wanted details and "nuke" the others...

http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/film/syndicate_technologies_DeAGE.mov

When we grow up we will all have our own CG heads to wear even on Facebook, so no worry :)
 
Awesome , Bjorn!!!!

Thank you.

Björn Benckert said:
Common guys, "blur and color corrector"....Thats is quite far from the sharpest shovels in the shed. Check this sample it was done with a "click to apply" nuke script. Blur is blur, getting rid of a certain noise frequency is something else. It leaves the wanted details and "nuke" the others...

http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/film/syndicate_technologies_DeAGE.mov

When we grow up we will all have our own CG heads to wear even on Facebook, so no worry :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top