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 :)

Actors look bad on HD

HD and actors

HD and actors

I do believe that this is a sharpening (a.k.a Edge Detail) issue not a resolution issue. If you want to see the effect of the former, take a (SVGA or lower resolution) medium such as security cameras or ichat and observe how faces look. Ever seen deeper age lines? Probably not.

For another illustration of sharpness v's resolution see here -

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

What this illustrates in the sweater example is you can shoot in high resolution without artificially induced artifacts. The "kindest" option is high resolution, low acutance (sharpness) which is the natural default for RED footage. You can increase the sharpness in post if desired of course.
 
Good link Stuart, thanks.
Nice explanation why DigiBeta picture is so ugly.
 
Does anyone here have experience with the use of an SD lens on a HD camera? Does that look redicilously soft/weird? I can imagine it has some of the benefits of shooting at a high resolution, without being overly sharp..
 
Are the HD lenses really sharper? I believe they are just able to cover the wider image area.
 
Yes, I agree that the main problem is edge enhancement, but I also think seeing yourself on a large HD set monitor is also a new experience for everyone used to film and video taps.

For example, lately quite a number of DP's and AC's have complained to me that digital cameras with 35mm sensors like the Genesis actually have less depth of field than 35mm movie cameras -- because they are having such a hard time pulling focus on these digital cameras. Personally, I think the depth of field is about the same, it's just that they've never seen how the focus really looked before, and now they are. In 35mm, the only person seeing a clear image is the operator looking through the viewfinder, and even that is a tiny groundglass image. Otherwise, everyone else just sees an SD video tap of the groundglass image on set. So now with a camera like the Genesis, sending a picture out to a 24" HD monitor, everyone watching on set can see exactly when the focus is in or out.
 
I was thinking about 2/3'' B-mount lenses. HD vs SD ones.
 
I know this isn't the Ask David Mullen anything forum, but I did want to say that I think your right about the fact that now people can actually see when things are out of focus easier than before. Back to the discussion on diffusion, I was wondering what they use on Samantha Who? It has a certain soft glow that seems to be flattering to the actors and actresses.
 
You can read Paul Maibaum's blog about shooting "Samantha Who?" on the Genesis here:
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=24232&st=20

He says:
I use a light black bridal veil net (tule fabric) behind the lens except on night exteriors or in situations where there are very specular highlights due to the star pattern created by the net in the highlights. I use the net (or not) in combination with either a Tiffen 1/2 or 1 Black FX filter. On occaision I will add a 1 or 2 glimmer glass to that and on close-ups of the actresses in the show I will add a 1 or a 2 Schneider Classic Black Soft Filter. I might go with a lighter grade glimmer or black fx when I add the classic black soft.
 
fergus said:
On the Miss Potter "Making of" DVD chapter they put diffusion on the lens for the interview with Renee Zellweger but not for anyone else.
Because they were intercutting the soundbites from all the actors and crew I thought it looked stupid every time we cut to a strangely soft Renee.

But... I dont know how this is contributing to the thread..
Hmmm, maybe it isn't really :bye2:
Click to expand...

She's interviewed in like 4 different locations in that making of I didn't find renee abnormally soft I found that she was in 4 different locations with 2 different hair colors.
 
Grain tends to add a perceptual sharpness that gives the eye some fine edge detail which it thinks is added detail. This ends up making the depth of field fall off on film feel like it's wider DOF but its really the same.

On a digital camera, the low pass plays an important part in this also. If you put in a very weak or no low pass filter you'll get a hyper sharp image with a DOF that's falls off very fast and is perceptually a shallower DOF.

Gate weave/sway also has some added effects...
 
Yes whenever I shoot film I use a 1/4 gate weave with an 1/8th sway.
Sorry Deanan had to do it.
On topic, I think it's lighting, go soft,mega soft with any digital device.
Go out of your way to go soft. If your going to diffuse anything diffuse light.
An old friend shoots most Pantene commercials all over the world and has done for the last two decades. With him goes a massive soft light about
20' long by 6' high. The light out of this thing makes any actress look stunning, whatever the age. Most ask him to shoot their next movie after seeing the results, and of course he has to decline explaining that this sort of lighting is not practical in a feature drama situation.
Get your key source a soft as possible by eleminating hard direct sources
whenever possible and your halfway there with faces of the acting fraternity. Indirect and soft is good for Digital. Arrrrrrr.... it's all in the lighting. Filters are for
emergencies and people who can't light, IMHO.
Mezmo
 
Maybe this is also to be said, but I got the chance to see Transformers on DLP 2K projection and on a 35mm print. While I could not notice grain and certain shots being out of focus on the 35mm print; it was painfully obvious on the DLP 2K. So I do think that people who are used to film, which is more organic/forgiving, may have to become a bit more detailed because it being pixel for pixel.

As for actors seeing themselves...perhaps its best to keep dailies or video that actors might see at 1K.
 
mezmo said:
Yes whenever I shoot film I use a 1/4 gate weave with an 1/8th sway.
Sorry Deanan had to do it.
On topic, I think it's lighting, go soft,mega soft with any digital device.
Go out of your way to go soft. If your going to diffuse anything diffuse light.
An old friend shoots most Pantene commercials all over the world and has done for the last two decades. With him goes a massive soft light about
20' long by 6' high. The light out of this thing makes any actress look stunning, whatever the age. Most ask him to shoot their next movie after seeing the results, and of course he has to decline explaining that this sort of lighting is not practical in a feature drama situation.
Get your key source a soft as possible by eleminating hard direct sources
whenever possible and your halfway there with faces of the acting fraternity. Indirect and soft is good for Digital. Arrrrrrr.... it's all in the lighting. Filters are for
emergencies and people who can't light, IMHO.
Mezmo
Click to expand...


I don't mean to be impolite, but In MY Humble Opinion, this is total crap. If you think that, then you are the one who can't light. It is all about ratios and you can get something interesting out of HD/Digital easily if you light for it. That is the DP's job, period. The answer is not to go soft unthinkingly, that is amazingly lazy, the answer is either: get the lighting ratios correct, or use a better camera if you are not happy with the pictures you are getting. You go soft because it is the look you want, not for any other reason.

I did a job with the Red about a month ago, the DP and I agreed we wanted to just see how far we could go. Never used fill, not once, never needed to. 90% high key sunlight, 90% of the shoot beach exteriors. And this is New Zealand - we have a large ozone hole above us. I got 2nd degree burns on that shoot from the sun, it was bloody harsh, trust me. Zero diffusion on the lens. Cooke S4's. We also overexposed heavily - maybe 3 stops - on an interior scene in a bathroom which looked amazing.

Benjamin Rood
Prod/Dir
Cinematic Alliance
Akl, NZ
 
mezmo said:
Yes whenever I shoot film I use a 1/4 gate weave with an 1/8th sway. Indirect and soft is good for Digital. Arrrrrrr.... it's all in the lighting. Filters are for
emergencies and people who can't light, IMHO.
Mezmo
Click to expand...

I am not an expert in this technical issue. But, wouldn't it be counter intuitive if you have to use a 4K camera and some how reduce the details down to SD? My common sense says, shoot with canon in SD. when projected on HD screen, this would look pretty good. won't it?
 
There is no right or wrong level of sharpness, but your choices should be based on the worst-case scenario, i.e. large screen projection unless you are absolutely sure that will never happen.

As for diffusion, true diffusion is not the same thing as a blurrier image -- diffusion is the overlay of a soft image over a sharp image. That's how diffusion filters work. And there are many reasons why one might use a diffusion filter, not just for emergencies. There have been a number of movies nomimated for Oscars that have used diffusion for a specific look ("Lord of the Rings", "Snow Falling on Cedars", etc.) not because the DP did not know how to light.

As for just lighting super-soft, not only is that impractical a lot for feature work in terms of how restrictive that may be for the actors or the cameras, but it also may not be logical or realistic for the scene.

Yes, I agree that fixing facial flaws is almost always a lighting problem; filters are the final touch but they barely help -- if the light is causing a shadow from a bag under the eye, difffusion filters will just make the shadow fuzzier but it won't eliminate it. However, if you light the face to get rid of the bags, a diffusion filter may help reduce any super fine lines in the face that are distracting.
 
Nova Invicta said:
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 ...stuff deleted.... .
Click to expand...

why didn't someone explain to the actors that hi-def only matter when you are sitting about 2 meters away from a ~30 inch screen or whatever you're viewing on? in the theater maybe the first few rows will notice but everyone else will be so far back beyond the pixel resolution, they won't be able to distinguish the difference.

my .02.
 
I couldn't say for certain, but I think we may be missing one element of this discussion. I am sure that actresses and actors are worried about how they look on HD, especially at the point of raw camera acquistion. It is unflattering.

But also they look like "normal peopl"e on HD, not "stars" and this is a problem for me as a director, too. I have seen DVD versions of Collateral and Zodiac that were straight from the HD master, not the film-out, for example, and the actors, especially the bigger stars, look like shit. Tom Cruise looks like he is in a student film. Mark Ruffalo looked like he was in a bad stage show with his ridiculous get-up in Zodiac. In film, you would have gotten away with it far more. I think when you print onto film it solves most of these problems, but when you look at it straight in HD dailies I imagine as an actor, and you are quite fragile and vulnerable (to be fair, they need to be as part of their job) up on screen, and you look weedy and fake, well, it is demoralising and you don't look good, and that can affect a job you might be up for.

All the actors I have known are totally wierd about this shit but you do sympathise because it reduces the credibility for the story, too. I would never do any narrative picture on an F900 for example because, even though I know it will look nice once it has a film-out, while editing it will look naff and embarassing and I really couldn't face it! Okay, so I am vain too, but I am also very sensitive to my own pictures, it's like looking at a picture of myself so I can empathise with their feelings. So I can get how the actors feel. Film or cameras like the RED enchance the appearance of a performance and that is very important.

I hope that makes sense.
 
chuckt said:
I am not an expert in this technical issue. But, wouldn't it be counter intuitive if you have to use a 4K camera and some how reduce the details down to SD? My common sense says, shoot with canon in SD. when projected on HD screen, this would look pretty good. won't it?
Click to expand...
Hi Chuckt,
You don't reduce resolution if you diffuse light.
Mezmo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top