Actors look bad on HD

[Nova Invicta]

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.

[Pig]

Solution: pantyhose or vaseline!

:)

[Jim McKinney]

Can you provide a link to the story?

[Matthew Rogers]

Solution: pantyhose or vaseline!

Are you saying put pantyhose over the actor's head and the rub vaseline onto their face? Sounds good to me!;)

Matthew

[David Mullen ASC]

The problem is only partially to do with resolution.

With an HD camera, you can see the picture on the set in HD resolution on a big monitor, so facial flaws are obvious. With 35mm, the actors see a crappy video tap on set, and DVD dailies later. Transferred to HD and viewed on a big HD monitor, they would be likely to see the same facial flaws, though film is still a little kindler and gentler. If they viewed the 35mm in a print projected on a big screen, then the loss of resolution from printing and projecting, plus most people sit a little back from the screen, makes the facial flaws less distracting than when viewed on an HD monitor.

If these actors saw how some of them look shot in 35mm and shown on an HD channel, they'd be just as concerned as they are about being shot with an HD camera.

So the real problem is the fact that they get to see themselves live in HD on the set, which is a new experience.

All that said, the "edginess" of many video cameras due to Detail and other electronic issues, is not kind to middle-aged faces with lines.

I was watching the HD news broadcast the other day and noticed that they were using Black ProMist diffusion on the lens -- for the reporter in the field!

[Jim McKinney]

This just brings up the fact that we'll have to be able to deal with this on the set. That can take many forms: top-of-the-line make-up artists, on-set diffusion, on-set post-effects (to at least demonstrate what will happen in the post suites), or possibly eliciting the understanding of the client and/or actress.

There are actors out there who will freak when they see themselves on a crisp hi-def monitors. We simply have to be prepared to deal with this as gracefully as possible when it arises.

[ericyoung]

This just brings up the fact that we'll have to be able to deal with this on the set. That can take many forms: top-of-the-line make-up artists, on-set diffusion, on-set post-effects (to at least demonstrate what will happen in the post suites), or possibly eliciting the understanding of the client and/or actress.

There are actors out there who will freak when they see themselves on a crisp hi-def monitors. We simply have to be prepared to deal with this as gracefully as possible when it arises.

The problem isn't necessarily the cameras or the crisp hi-def monitors in the director/DP video village. The displays on set that the "talent" see may be badly set up, oversharpened "courtesy" SD plasmas or LCD used by other crew, possibly via sub-broadcast quality downconverters.

[Zack Birlew]

Post softening. That's the best solution without messing up the initial image. Other than that, it'll all depend on makeup and lighting to hide those little details. Also, they could use that technology that they used on "X-Men: The Last Stand" where they made Professor X and Magneto look 20 years younger. I saw a demo of that and they could do a lot more with that stuff (ie. turning a pot belly into a six pack [although it does look pretty funny]).

[David Mullen ASC]

Post softening.

That doesn't address though a middle-aged actress' reaction when she sees herself on the set in HD -- "oh don't worry, we'll make you look good in post!" Or "don't look yourself on the monitor, it will only upset you!" That's not going to cut it.

[ChrisLyon]

You could always just feed SD to a monitor for actors and have an HD in the director's area. :)

[David Mullen ASC]

Maybe we need a LUT viewing box for these RAW and LOG cameras that have a simple digital diffusion filter function.

[Brian D. Goff]

Maybe we need a LUT viewing box for these RAW and LOG cameras that have a simple digital diffusion filter function.

Or we pull a nylon socking over the monitor:nerd:

[Dalibor Fencl]

......
I was watching the HD news broadcast the other day and noticed that they were using Black ProMist diffusion on the lens -- for the reporter in the field!

Do you thing David, Black ProMist is a good idea? Maybe for the male reporter, but female? I'd rather use normal white net (ProMist).

[David Mullen ASC]

I usually use Regular (White) ProMist on HD and just dial down the blacks in the camera to compensate if I don't want to save that for post -- but if you're swapping a diffusion filter in and out all day long, one that doesn't cause as much of a change in black level, like a low-level Black ProMist or Black Frost or Black Net, would probably make more sense if you weren't doing post color-correction to match.

A Black ProMist is just a regular ProMist with additional black specks to counteract the loss of contrast caused by the mist particles.

My only problem with Black ProMist in video is if you have too much depth of field, then it looks like your lens is dirty because the blacks specks are coming into focus.

[John Hunt]

Ugly as they are and content aside, this was an issue with soap operas when they went to HD a few years ago. Entire alarmed (aging) casts and art departments. 1080i is especially unforgiving (or perhaps, especially honest).

I saw a talking-head doc on HDNet yesterday in which Dan Rather was softened in post but the interview subject they were cutting to was not. It was like watching Soft vs. Sharp - not pretty.

John

[Jim McKinney]

Maybe we need a LUT viewing box for these RAW and LOG cameras that have a simple digital diffusion filter function.

I like this idea.

[Thom Steinhoff]

This has been brought up many times in the past and Graeme commented that the hyper sharpening and contrasting of most HD cameras is what they are seeing.

With Red, it's different, as there is no auto-sharpening, and with the extra resolution--it's even more forgiving (wrinkles are shades of gray rather than a line of black). So Regular HD is highlighting and enhancing the wrinkles and blemishes where Red will give a far more pleasing--natural look.

That said, I think film takes it a step further and actually masks skin defects--but that's what SFX are for.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, I do believe the issue is edge enhancement, rather than resolution. HD is actually quite a low resolution, and often inadequately anti-alias filtered and over-sharpened....

Graeme

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

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:

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

On second thoughts, I'll have another go.. (nooo pleeaaaase don't..)

I think actors look ugly when they look lit... and when you can see their makeup, or the wig or the constructed set. Isn't it difficult not to have the same Kino-Flo looking the same in every shot..? Film can help because it's organic and constantly changing, although lots of modern film stocks are so good that they aspire to ugly perfection.
Graeme: do you think you could slip a little bug into the Redcode to make it constantly change? To be less perfect?
You know, like the great artists of the past would aspire to great beauty, yet they would deliberately leave some imperfection in their work because only God could create true perfection.

[Stuart English]

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.

[Dalibor Fencl]

Good link Stuart, thanks.
Nice explanation why DigiBeta picture is so ugly.

[Henk van den Doel]

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..

[Dalibor Fencl]

Are the HD lenses really sharper? I believe they are just able to cover the wider image area.

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[Dalibor Fencl]

I was thinking about 2/3'' B-mount lenses. HD vs SD ones.

[Steve Freebairn]

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.

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[vincelucero]

How does makeup handle all this? I've seen more airbrush as a result personally.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

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:

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.

[Deanan]

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...

[mezmo]

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

[Darren Orange]

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.

[thornben]

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


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

[chuckt]

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

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?

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

You could always just feed SD to a monitor for actors and have an HD in the director's area. :)

good idea just tell them this is HD version
:biggrin:

[galexander]

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.... .

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.

[thornben]

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.

[mezmo]

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?
Hi Chuckt,
You don't reduce resolution if you diffuse light.
Mezmo

[mezmo]

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
Hi Ben,
The discussion here is about lighting actors faces (the classic close up)
for Digital. Faces, not the whole film, and the faces of actors with clout.
Filters are overused when DP's get worried about these faces. The results
more often than not is an overdiffused c.u./reverse(female) intercutting
with a totally different look(male). How do you solve this without the guy
looking like a pixie,(overdiffused) you light for it. No other way to do it.
Mezmo

[chuckt]

Hi Chuckt,
You don't reduce resolution if you diffuse light.
Mezmo

Thanks for setting the record straight.

I look good in the photos taken with my $120 point and shoot digital camera.
I look horrible in the photos taken with my $3800 digital camera.
I will try changing the lighting next time.

[mezmo]

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.

Hi David
LOR I would put in the emergency diffusion area. One month of night shoots
as I understand it and shooting two films at once. The shedule a nightmare
and a colorist I know spend months fixing the girls eyebags on Lustre.
Much facial tweaking in post on both films.
Snow falling on Cedars too diffused on CU's IMHO but people obviously loved the look of the overall film.
I am talking about close-ups here with my 'Go Soft for Digital' idea and trying to encourage the guys/girls to find a solution with lighting rather than
just slapping on the glass.
Mezmo

[David Mullen ASC]

Clearly LOTR used diffusion more to highlight the fantasy aspects, like the use of a net filter for the Galadriel sequence -- I doubt Lesnie used the net simply because Cate Blanchet had been up all night. There may have been some cosmetic use of diffusion too now and then (most of the series was shot clean though), like to hide some make-up prosthetic blends, but the most obvious use was motivated by the story, like the create the ethereal look of the world of the Elves.

My point is that diffusion filters are not only used to hide facial flaws, they can be used deliberately to create a look for the whole movie, like in "Excalibur", "Legend", "Superman: The Movie", "Cabaret", "JFK", "Fiddler on the Roof", etc. It may be done in order to create the feeling of Romanticism or a period look or simulate a painting better, or simply because the cinematographer and director personally like softer images. Or they may be used for flashbacks, memories, or dreams, like the use of the net in the flashbacks in "Sweeney Todd".

There have also been movies to use the lightest grade diffusion for most of the movie just for a slight softening and an increase in halation around lights. For example, Conrad Hall shot most of his last few movies with an #1/8 Black ProMist filter, as in "Searching for Bobby Fisher" and "American Beauty".

As for fixing facial flaws, correct lighting is a lot more effective, but as even you said, a giant soft light may not always be possible in a narrative feature shoot, especially with Steadicam-happy directors, or those running three cameras on everything. Just to calm the lead actress in those situations, you may be putting on a filter just to make her feel you are doing something rather than stand on principle and try explaining to her that filters won't help -- that may be misinterpreted.

I do think there has been a mistaken belief that digital cameras have too much resolution and thus need more softening with filters, when most are just over-sharpened electronically.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I look good in the photos taken with my $120 point and shoot digital camera.
I look horrible in the photos taken with my $3800 digital camera.
I will try changing the lighting next time.

Maybe you should change the subject. ;)

[brandon herman]

My solution to the issue of Actors looking bad in HD:

Use better looking actors.

(And tell them to moisturize a lot.)

[mezmo]

Hi David again,
Point taken about use of diffusion for effect on many films, Digital or other.
Again I make my point that in the case of Digital Acquisition, if i can
light my way to a desired result rather than opticially diffusing a shot I will
always be be better off. I get a sharper shot although stiil soft or diffused
by the use of indirect or diffused light. The lens optics are unclutterd by pieces unbloomed glass with bits of stuff in them and as a result will perform at best specs. There is also less need to sharpen in post which seems to be all the rage these days, when a shot is found to be overtdiffused or slightly soft prior to a film-out stage.
I think Digital and Diffusion can be dangerous in some cases because it
can lead to unatural post sharpening and other odd post tricks. With digital
we start with a softer looking image in the first place. Why diffuse it even more if we don't really have to, unless for effect.
Cheers Mezmo.

[thornben]

Hi Ben,
The discussion here is about lighting actors faces (the classic close up)
for Digital. Faces, not the whole film, and the faces of actors with clout.
Filters are overused when DP's get worried about these faces. The results
more often than not is an overdiffused c.u./reverse(female) intercutting
with a totally different look(male). How do you solve this without the guy
looking like a pixie,(overdiffused) you light for it. No other way to do it.
Mezmo


Hi Mezmo,

I am still not in agreement but I understand what you mean. Okay, yes I would prefer to diffuse the source that may have been harder in a wider shot, at the least the angle has a continuity.

But maybe the director on those jobs needs to have some balls and be upfront with their actors how they are going to look so that the DP doesn't get blamed for something which the director has asked them to do?

Again though, hard light can look brilliant on RED on people's faces, very flattering. It is, at the starting point, not that sharp. When you process the images (to be specific, the R3D's), that is when you add the sharpness. Without adding the sharpness it is quite smooth and does not have a diffused look. I still think this is an issue not of softlight or heavy diffusion but of correct angle and "texture" of the light (HMI bad, Tungsten good, Sunlight good, Punchlight very good - these ar emy opinions) - and in correct collaboration with very talented make-up artists too. I worked on a job with the red a couple months ago and our make-up artist was so brilliant and made our leading lady look very very good. Plenty of hard light, small sources too, used and she looked brilliant.

-ben

[David Mullen ASC]

Depends on the face. Any light that is not flat-on to a face creates shadows, and if it is a hard light, then it creates hard shadows. And the angle that the light is striking the face will determine what objects on the face throw a shadow and where.

For example, a higher light will create a shadow under the chin and nose, but also under the bags under the eyes. So it depends on the face. Some faces take hard light very well from certain directions but not others. If the hard light is as dead-on frontal as it can be, then the shadows created are quite small.

Marlene Deitrich used a high key light to bring out her cheek bones, whereas Lilian Gish, who always had baggy eyes, used to tell DP's : "Camera High, Lights Low."

[thornben]

Clearly LOTR used diffusion more to highlight the fantasy aspects, like the use of a net filter for the Galadriel sequence -- I doubt Lesnie used the net simply because Cate Blanchet had been up all night. There may have been some cosmetic use of diffusion too now and then (most of the series was shot clean though), like to hide some make-up prosthetic blends, but the most obvious use was motivated by the story, like the create the ethereal look of the world of the Elves.



Watching it again recently, I wonder if maybe the diffusion was also used to (believe it or not), aid with getting away with a lot of the keying work. There is a lot of added-halation and edge softness in the alpha channels on all blue/greenscreen shots. Think how hard the keying would be with all that big hobbit hair!
When you do that you also need to diffuse the whole of the shot and to incorporte it into the look to "sell" what you are doing in the composite/keying work. (Especially with the massive amount of keying in such a fast time in that job)

For all we know however, the diffused look may have completely be done digitally, perhaps even in the DI where it is easy to add that kind of diff-look.

[Iron Possum]

To quote Andrew Lesnie talking about LOTR from an 04 Arri News article:

For the Beauty shots on Liv Tyler and Kate Blanchet I used a black net...

We started out not using it for blue screen, but then we did some tests, and the special effects supervisors told me that they prefer the net on the lens. Even though the net makes it harder for them to get a clean matte, it is ten times harder to replicate the net's effect. Subtle diffusion effects have not been successfully replicated digitally. So we ended up shooting live action as well as blue screen beauty shots with the net on

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[number6]

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.

David, to further explore, are you as a DP/Cinematographer advocating using a smallish amount of gaussian blur over doing it on set?

What I'm really asking is, if working on a limited budget, limited equipment etc. type production, would you pick a lens softness, a lighting softness, or a digital fix in post as your primary softening tool?

To further clairify, which of the three choices would you make if you could only make one?

[David Mullen ASC]

Considering how cheap (relatively) a camera filter is, I don't see a reason to not use one if that's the look you've picked after testing. And it's never a choice between using a camera filter or using soft lighting -- you can do both if you wanted to. You should always light a scene for the look you want anyway. So you're describing a false choice.

The problem with digital diffusion, I've noticed, is that for film images, it tends to de-grain the image. Which can look lovely except what happens to the shots that you didn't diffuse?

Using a camera filter doesn't negate the ability to also do some diffusing in post. For example, 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.

So whether to rely on post diffusion really depends on how you will be doing it and how much it might cost you. If you are doing it yourself on your own computer, then it's only costing you the render time. Just don't try and judge how much to use based on a computer screen sized image if this is intended for theatrical projection. Hence the reason you shoot tests and look at them at the intended viewing size.

The only trouble with shooting everything clean is that some post people hate softened shots so you'll never convince them to let you soften it further in post.

"Oh it looks so crisp & sharp in HD why would you want to soften it?"

"Because the actress could look better if we did, that's why."

I'm not interested in selling HDTV sets, I'm interested in telling a story and I don't want the viewer to be distracted by excessive sharpness in a particular close-up.

(The flipside is when you do a big sharp movie... and the efx people want to soften all the efx shots to hide their mistakes better...)

I did a feature ("Solstice") where I used the lightest ProMist filter (#1/8) for some long flashback scenes but later they were cut-up into brief snippets, flash-cuts so I felt I could now add more diffusion in post to make them more dream-like since you were only go to see them briefly, intercut with normal footage. Here are some examples of those shots, which mixed the light camera diffusion with digital diffusion:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/solstice15.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/solstice16.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/solstice3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/solstice11.jpg

[number6]

Thanks, that helps. One other thing... is a "soft" close look and a sharper medium and far shot something that seems acceptable to a movie audience? I'm sure this is a common way of shooting, so I'm interested in how it is perceived.

edit: David, never mind... saw one of your posts on another thread that pretty much answered my question.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's like any other aspect of filmmaking -- you spend your life learning just how much you can "cheat" from shot to shot. Sometimes it is more distracting for the viewer if you don't cheat. For example, in theory the lighting of the wide shot should be exactly the same when you cut in tighter on the same axis -- but in reality, that wide-shot lighting may produce a distracting effect on a close-up of a face that isn't visible in a wide shot. So you can either be pedantic and not change a thing when you move in tighter, or you can figure out a change that won't mismatch too much with the wider shot.

So the same goes for diffusion filtration, there's an art to knowing how much you can get away with when moving in tighter (generally, not much -- better to be subtle about it). The examples I just put up were more extreme because this was a flashback/dream sequence though.

[number6]

Ah, the lighting aspect... will copy your answer and paste it into my crib notes.

[mezmo]

Hi David,
I agree, for dream stuff, flashbacks, diffuse away.
The problem is with diffusion you get an over all soft shot.
At least doing it in post you can place it where you need it.
Lens choice can also have a lot to do with creating a softer
look, some lenses just resolve different to others.
Sorry for being the Killjoy for diffusion on Digital and with Red
the degree of sharpening or no sharpening to the captured image
seems to be the Bayer way to go.
If I see another SOFT movie shot in Digital or Film and heavily posted
Digital I'm gunna scream. This stuff is passed of as good Cinematography?
Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater just because we are shooting Digital. Digital can be sharp too.

Mezmo

[mezmo]

Hi Mezmo,

I am still not in agreement but I understand what you mean. Okay, yes I would prefer to diffuse the source that may have been harder in a wider shot, at the least the angle has a continuity.

But maybe the director on those jobs needs to have some balls and be upfront with their actors how they are going to look so that the DP doesn't get blamed for something which the director has asked them to do?

Again though, hard light can look brilliant on RED on people's faces, very flattering. It is, at the starting point, not that sharp. When you process the images (to be specific, the R3D's), that is when you add the sharpness. Without adding the sharpness it is quite smooth and does not have a diffused look. I still think this is an issue not of softlight or heavy diffusion but of correct angle and "texture" of the light (HMI bad, Tungsten good, Sunlight good, Punchlight very good - these ar emy opinions) - and in correct collaboration with very talented make-up artists too. I worked on a job with the red a couple months ago and our make-up artist was so brilliant and made our leading lady look very very good. Plenty of hard light, small sources too, used and she looked brilliant.

-ben

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

[David Mullen ASC]

Mezmo, this is really just a matter of personal taste. My first favorite cinematographer was Geoffrey Unsworth, thanks to "Cabaret" and "Superman: The Movie". Then I saw "Excalibur" (shot by Alex Thomson), which also impressed me. I love the look of diffusion when motivated by the story or genre.

But there are plenty of ultra-light diffusions filters too that won't make the image visibly diffused, just soften fine detail in a close-up. "Lust, Caution" for example used the lightest Black Diffusion-FX on close-ups after shooting for a few days on the Zeiss Master Primes, which they picked in order to shoot at T/1.3 for a shallow focus look. When the production designer saw how sharp the first dailies were, he said "these lenses were designed for the scientific photography of ants!" Remember that the DP & director's previous movie together was "Brokeback Mountain", shot on Cooke lenses.

But there's no law saying that you have to use a diffusion filter if you don't want to Mezmo.

Sharpness is as much a perceptual thing as a measurable quality. Let's say you added the lightest grade of diffusion filter to a tighter shot but added some lighting element that created a sharp edge, like a hard edge or backlight, or increased the contrast. Plus the background was noticably out of focus. The perception might be that this diffused shot was sharper than the wide shot done without any diffusion! This is how one can slip in diffusion filters on tighter shots and not make the movie look like it is getting softer. Because our eyes crave more detail in wide shots, a softened close-up may actually blend better in terms of perceived sharpness than an unfiltered close-up, where there are times where you can be knocked back by the crispness and detail in the image (like some of Sigourney Weaver's sweaty close-ups in "Alien"...)

This is one reason why a cinematographer may use a sharp prime lens to shoot wide landscape shots, but be fine with a softer zoom lens for the tighter footage.

This is a matter of taste, like how much salt to put in your food. But it's also the reason why you have to be able to accurately judge the final quality of the image on the big screen when choosing lenses, filters, formats, post processes, etc.

[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!:unsure:

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.

[galexander]

...stuff deleted....

But also they look like "normal peopl"e on HD, not "stars" and this is a problem for me as a director, too.



but isn't that the point, they're not supposed to be "stars" they're the character, unless it's a cameo or doco...

i see those heavily processed shots and cringe...

get a good 1080p source and 50" plasma, look at the difference from 2meters and 4meters. change the source to 1080i.