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 :)

Artificial eyelight?

Stephen Pruitt

Stephen Pruitt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Website
www.thetreemotionpicture.com
Hi all. . .

I'm busily editing the footage from our second feature, Terminal, and I've noticed that, despite my usual fastidiousness of insisting upon a good eyelight, I've found a couple of shots where I failed.

Is it possible to put a realistic eyelight into a shot after the fact?

On a related note, in my quest to put an eyelight into a scene at a church, one of my actors turned his head a few times and his glasses showed the mini-Kino flow strapped to the pew in front of him. Unfortunately, the coating on his glasses made this light very blue. The performance was just what I was looking for, so I'm wondering if this shot can be saved. Can something be done to "de-blue" and "blur-out" the obvious Kino in his glasses reflection?

Who does this sort of work for a reasonable fee? (We are an indie film, after all!)

Thanks!

Stephen
 
All the pro folks I know are slammed with work. But we did just hire a junior After Effects person. Lemme see if she's up for some evening / weekend work at indie rates.

Email me some screengrabs - b o a c i n e m a (at) g m a i l . c o m

Eyelight is likely the harder of the two... because it can subtly affect the acting.

Then again, my friend added tears to Clint Eastwood for Gran Torino. So it's do-able!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
i'll send you a PM stephen. the process could involve some painting or projection mapping techniques, but i'm sure it can be worked out.
 
Shane Betts said:
Oh, now don't go telling me that! I wanna die a believer. Don't rob me of my innocence. It's Clint :patriot:
Click to expand...

Sorry. :emote_couch:

paulherrin said:
i'll send you a PM stephen. the process could involve some painting or projection mapping techniques, but i'm sure it can be worked out.
Click to expand...

BTW I am frikkin' slammed, so Paul, if you've got the time - take the job, man!

Agree 100% - exactly what is involved is up in the air depending on the contents of the shot / cam move / lighting. Could be simple repaint or otherwise something much more involved.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I know of a major ($100,000,000) VFX feature that used Lustre or Pablo tracking eyelights on just about every close-up in the film, often with multiple cameras. I'm reluctant to name it, but trust me, you've seen them. (More than one film in the series.)

A lot boils down to time and money, like everything else. It's not hard to just throw a little more light into an actor's eyes, and I've done this a thousand times. But putting a reflective pinpoint of light, like something you'd see in a classic 1940s film... to me, if you don't do this on the set, it's never going to look organic. A very tiny tracking power window can help, but it's not a replacement for good lighting.
 
Yeah, I know. I did botch that shot. I'm normally very fastidious with my eyelights (much to the consternation of my crew, I must say!), but it's totally worth it. In this case, I don't know how it slipped through the cracks.

Here is a link to the scene in questiion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWuIcbz0L-A

Obviously, the issue is with the older gentleman (a really great actor, by the way!).

Stephen
 
you're right marc, it's obviously preferable for lighting to be spot on while shooting... yet unfortunately: time, space, budget, performance, and physics can all become limiting factors rather quickly, so it's nice to have some ability for creative control afterwards. as far as natural looking reflections, you can track the eyes and place in some geometry, and then either use a reverse angle, an HDR, a BTS shot, or something found or painted to calculate reflections. And of course place your specular highlight for the eyeball where you wish. Could take a little more effort than power windows (depending on the shot), but it's definitely an option. I'm just glad we have the tools and ability to see our vision through... that's pretty awesome to me.
 
I wouldn't try to add an eyelight in post to that coverage -- right now, a viewer isn't going to notice the absence of an eyelight (which can be argued is not necessarily natural anyway, to always have one) but they may notice a fake-looking one going on in the middle of a performance.

I don't know why there is a rule that every close-up has to have a reflection of a light in the eyeballs.
 
I agree with you David. There are lots of instances with great performances without a highlight on the pupil, and even some when the story fits where the eyes are dark and in shadow. Eyelights can add life but it does not have to be an obsession that every eye has to have one.
 
There's more eye light in the tighter shot at the end. I think the lack of eyelight in the wider shot is more noticeable because it contrasts quite a lot with the tighter shot of the other actor. I'm sure you kept the wider shot longer for creative editorial reasons, but if not you could always cut closer a bit sooner, or not cut to the close on the other actor as soon. However, I'm sure most audiences wouldn't be bothered by it.
 
Good ideas, Eric. . .

. . . unfortunately, I cut where I did because I had to to kill off dialog and/or performances that didn't work. I will try to toy around a bit more with it, though.

Thanks!

Stephen
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't know why there is a rule that every close-up has to have a reflection of a light in the eyeballs.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that eyelights help the audience detect emotion and/or face layout in the shadowed parts of the face... didn't realize it was a "close-up rule" (I guess that's why you've got that ASC at the end of your name :)

In any case, I honestly wouldn't touch it. The tighter shot eyelights are subtle enough that you wouldn't anticipate seeing them in the wider shot. In other words, the only reason I noticed it at all was because you mentioned it and the footage/performance is good enough that I don't think anyone else will think of it either. Plus, what's the scene about... sounds like the older dude is reluctant to hit on a girl (or talk him in to helping her with something) and his buddy is trying to talk him into it... If you throw in a cut away to the girl (presumably she's the least bit attractive), the audience will not be thinking of eyelights at all... I mean, he even glances over at her...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I wouldn't try to add an eyelight in post to that coverage -- right now, a viewer isn't going to notice the absence of an eyelight (which can be argued is not necessarily natural anyway, to always have one) but they may notice a fake-looking one going on in the middle of a performance.

I don't know why there is a rule that every close-up has to have a reflection of a light in the eyeballs.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Eye lites can look very good when they occur by chance, but I dont think worth the trouble to make sure you always have one twinkling. They can make the shot feel un-natural and lit.
 
My 2c:

1. That looks expensive to add an eyelight to (and make it look perfect).

2. I prefer the performance, composition and lighting in the CU anyway. It's good stuff. I do think you cut in to the CU at the right time - it feels right - but I'm assuming you've tried other editorial strategies and this is the only one that works?

3. The shots of the older guy have a flatter grade. Especially the shot in question. It's currently not as punchy as the shots you're matching with.

Ideally, yes, you'd add an eyelight.
But part of this is overall contrast... punch that up a bit and make it a little less red.

Also try darken down the bright white wall bit behind him. It's darker in his CU and that's another reason the CU shot looks better. In the wider shot, the bright background is in the same tonal areas as his head so there's no separation.

And part of it is just the lack of a bright white highlight anywhere in the shot except the bokeh behind his neck, which is kinda weird.

I'd at least take a stab at just adding some brighter bokeh bits to the window behind him (like in the CU - maybe you could even use grab a chunk from there). That's infinitely easier than adding eyelights. May look good or bad - dunno.

4. Actually the amount of eyelight in the other actor is a bit distracting to me! Maybe take it down a tad?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Interesting comments all!

Just for the record, there was "no grade" at all on this sequence. I'm just editing the raw footage. I haven't touched the color at all. . . just whatever CS5.5 is throwing at me.

I actually like the eye lights on the younger guy, though. That is almost always my preference, but, like I said, I just sort of botched it and didn't see the lack of an eyelight on the "wide."

Since enough people have commented that they seem to like it the way it is, I think I'll just probably end up leaving this sequence alone, except for the color work and audio work, of course.

Hopefully, there will be no more unpleasant "eyelight" surprises as I go through the footage.

Thanks for the very constructive comments!

Stephen
 
forget the eyelight stephen. cut it how you want it and get over the fact there is no eyelight. you will enjoy the scene again then.
 
My fear is that if the fake eyelight is done badly, it would ruin his performance as the viewer gets distracted and thinks "WTF?" Obviously if is done flawlessly and seamlessly, then it's not a bad idea for intercutting purposes... though again, I detest the notion of "rules" like that you always have to get a reflection in the eyes when to some degree, it is a highly artificial trick, especially outdoors in daytime.

I recall an old article by the inventer of the Lightflex flashing device where he was proud that with flashing, he could introduce some fill into the shadow side of the face without getting a light reflected into the eyeballs, calling attention to the fact that an artificial light source was pointed at the actor (I'm referring to the early 1970's AC article on "Young Winston", for which DP Gerry Turpin invented what at the time was called the Colorflex device.) So while eyelights are nice and pretty, and help direct the viewer's attention to the eyes, I'm sort of split on whether to use them or not because I do feel it is a bit of glamorization. If I am doing a realistic drama, sometimes I'm much happier if the key light created the reflection in the eyeball, or a source next to the actor like a lamp, rather than use a traditional eyelight.

Where I find eyelights the most useful are very dark scenes... when a face is in the dark, let's say a couple of stops underexposed, then that bright glint in the eye helps give you the impression that the shot is not accidentally underexposed and murky, and it helps draw your attention to the acting even in the dim light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top