Thread: 8K Monsto and an aging actress

Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Williams View Post
    You got a great lens for a good price, pleased your still happy.
    Yes I did. Thanks to you Stephen.
    Best investment I have made in fact. Very grateful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Scot Yount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Marblehead, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by steve green View Post
    After lots of research and great feedback here, I went with Zeiss 70-200 Compact zoom, Tiffen 1/4 Glimmer Glass, and a Briese Light 220. Couldn't be happier with the results. Thanks everyone for the input.
    Steve, I know this thread is a bit old....but is there any chance you could post (if you have access to it) the final product from this shoot? Or maybe some BTS?
    Forged CF Helium 8K 00107
    Scarlet X 02249 (The Gateway Drug)
    Fujinon Cabrio 19-90 Version 2
    RED Pro Zooms and Primes
    Director/DP at https://www.butcherbox.com

    Living life by the ocean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    There's a few good post options (plugins, etc) in the Skin Softening / Retouch category. Some are quick and cheap, others are more elaborate. One of the easiest, although maybe not the absolute best option, is Magic Bullet Cosmo or other software of that kind with similar price tag. Older and vintage lenses help a lot too, but from what I've seen the heavy filtration affects the whole image quite apparently and do not really cut well with non-filtered shots, maybe one could get away with it when used for tight closeups only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34 Know the pipeline 
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Tresch View Post
    Tell them that resolution is not sharpness. The more resolution you have, the less you have to make "it look" sharp.
    More resolution gives you more natural skin nuances and a less artificial look. It's always easier to soften your picture by choosing filtration, lenses, ... if really needed.
    Spot on. To some degree I blame Sony's earliest HDCAM efforts that turned the sharpening up to 11 to "show off" HD - and spooking actors/agents about high resolution formats. The reality is that one can make native 1080/2K images that are anything but kind to aging actresses or 8K files that can be processed to look quite "smooth". Overriding all of that, in many cases, is being able to intercut with the rest of the scene.

    Choosing a lens with less "bite" is a valid option and, like C. Burkhart, I like the older Cooke zooms for such situations. I also carry a 1/4 HBM (Hollywood Black Magic) filter to provide some attenuation of detail optically so the post processing isn't carrying so much of the load.

    All that said, IMHO, lighting technique is still the most powerful tool at your disposal - especially if you are aware of what the wheelhouse of post processing is. Fix it in post is not a generic choice. Yes, virtually anything can be "fixed", but some issues can be quelled with minimal damage to the image as a whole - other issues, not so much. As a DP, I want to know enough about the post processing dynamics to know what I can realistically expect to be fixed without creating other issues, and what I really need to control on set. YMMV.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    We tend to use frequency-dependent blurs, so it's not just a gaussian blur -- it's a very qualified blur (and sometimes a glow) confined to very specific parts of the face or body and nothing else. Fashion photography does tons of this stuff, so we're just using versions of this technique applied to moving images.
    Haha, It's alLLLLliiivvee! #ZombieThread.

    I just meant you can make an 8k camera into a perfect 3k camera, if that's all that they want, by applying a 4px gaussian blur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavin Greenwalt View Post
    Haha, It's alLLLLliiivvee! #ZombieThread. I just meant you can make an 8k camera into a perfect 3k camera, if that's all that they want, by applying a 4px gaussian blur.
    No, not at all. We confine the defocus only to a very specific part of people's face, qualified very carefully with masks and secondaries, so everything else in the shot -- their hair, their eyes, their mouths, their teeth, their clothes, the background, any objects -- retains 100% of the original resolution. Only the specific parts of the "aging actor's" face (from the original thread subject) is affected. This is not an overall filter: it's a very special kind of color correction applied with scalpel-like precision applied only to the face. And it hinges on specific frequency content, so we control what threshold and sensitivity can be. All adjusted manually based on gut instinct and experience. There are unpublished tricks involved to get the most out of it, but I'll leave that for others to discover on their own.

    I sometimes have to apply another tracking mask to the neck and upper body if those appear to sag or otherwise have blemishes or inconsistent skintone, and sometimes multiple masks on the face are necessary. I recently had to do this to a <fairly famous> actor in a 1990s film, and I did it just because they had had the reputation of being a fairly glamorous person back in the 1950s and 1960s. I felt, "well, let's maintain the illusion of this 70-ish actress looking extremely good for her age." She didn't look like she was 30 or 40, but you could buy her as an extremely well-preserved 60, maybe late 50s. Nothing else in the shot was changed: just her face skintone, and maybe a dash of eye lightening. All this stuff has to be done very subtly, so I tend to err on the side of "less is more" whenever possible.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    High resolution and noise free image is always a better starting point. Flame 2020 is out today and got seriously good AI for face stuff. But even before that, all the matchbox tools like, reskin, dollface and motion warper makes it very possible to simply paint the face you want and render it on. Even relight it in 3D space if wanted. Quite a big step forward in this update.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGf_1sGhg6Y


    Edit wrong video... did not find the face ai stuff.


    You can also argue that with monstro and fast glas you get more focus fall off. Even though I think thats possibly one of the things thats a little bit too easy to overdo with monstro, wide open high speed lens simply is a bit more than most asked for. Difficult to get both eyes in focus even when looking straight into camera :)
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se
    Flame / VFX / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    High resolution and noise free image is always a better starting point. Flame 2020 is out today and got seriously good AI for face stuff. But even before that, all the matchbox tools like, reskin, dollface and motion warper makes it very possible to simply paint the face you want and render it on. Even relight it in 3D space if wanted. Quite a big step forward in this update.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGf_1sGhg6Y


    Edit wrong video... did not find the face ai stuff.
    Yeah, to be honest the face in that video (1:09) still has that same "plasticky" quality that we have seen a million times, which just screams digital retouch. It's the modern equivalent of the fuzzy frost filters of the 60's every time a beauty shot was needed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Burkhart View Post
    Yeah, to be honest the face in that video (1:09) still has that same "plasticky" quality that we have seen a million times, which just screams digital retouch. It's the modern equivalent of the fuzzy frost filters of the 60's every time a beauty shot was needed.
    Ok, the demos is not really to show the quality of things. Its usually overly done and not to taste.

    Cant or should not point on girls and ladies that I pretty much redid the whole face for but but its simply more common than not doing it. Some want it to taste some yes want it well overcooked. But yes I painted around in Madonnas face some 20 years ago when I was a kid and excelled from there sort of speak. And a clean source with little or no noise is best with good makeup of ofcourse, but less makeup is better than shitty makeup. Soft light is of course good.
    Soft filter might help in camera but only so and so far. And its actually better to digitally add the soft filter after the retouch as that helps to coverer up the work done. 8K is the absolute best bet for this kind of stuff, quite contrary what people think. Even prores 2k files from 8k is better than other source as it becomes so clean. So the point, we only do it for HD is not valid, you want a noise free sharp HD signal 8k capture is the best way to get there.

    Shitty link and not the best video but was actually nominated for best VFX in MTV awards that year. Corn sadly won with a super slomo bullet video :)




    Back then Kodak Cineon degrain and cinespeed was the new cool trick. Roling stones took that cinespeed corrupted motion estimate stuff and run in circles with it to a new level with their "like a rolling stone" :)




    But yes frequency filtering with tracked on mask. basically allow you to remove wrinkles and spots without touching skin texture if you want.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se
    Flame / VFX / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Senior Member Simon_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Brisbane, AUS
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Abeynayake View Post
    Seems like you did not get an answer yet huh? Let me try to answer your question in a meaningful way. I hope you were not trolling or being sarcastic with your inquiry. There are quite a few reasons behind this topic. Here is a couple of them.

    In the industry there are perceptions of this camera is better than that camera etc. It goes back to the question "How easy to operate any camera by an average user/operator without getting too technical". When you look at most digital or digital cinema cameras, almost all of them comes with a bunch of dedicated buttons tailor-made to address almost all necessary commands and in some instances even simple menu's. Even in their main menu they rarely go deeper than one or two layers up/down. Whereas the RED folks built a camera with just 4 buttons on the brain. If you need more buttons, you have to shell out a lot of money to add a "sidekick" or a DSMC2 side handle etc. Instead of a whole lot of built-in buttons, RED depends on a camera mounted monitor with touch controls and fairly a complex menu system. And talk about the menu and the user interface (UI); even seasoned RED users sometimes get lost within the RED UI, when you are working under pressure and/or in adverse conditions. This could be considered overwhelming for some people. Movies are made by artists. Not as much by engineers, technicians and/or computer geeks. Most artists may not have a need or the desire to learn a complicated tech system just to tell their story.

    Another reason was the end product out of the camera. ARRI and other manufacturers gave the end user easy to use industry standard "Pro-Res", .mov, avchd or files in the mp4 framework. Yes, they were compressed formats. But many did not care. They preferred a much simpler workflow.

    I sometimes tell my students that other camera manufacturers build their cameras around a sensor and RED builds their sensor around a computer.

    One could discuss this topic in detail. This thread may not be the appropriate venue for that.
    Thanks for the reply - no I am generally interested in the thinking here. Yeah it seems like the safer option it looks for post houses.

    I am finding this with my footage out of the RED Neil, most times I am sharing that with other staff and they are asking me to grade and ProRes out instead of having an interest in learning to work with other formats. That's why I ask - I was curious what working with ARRI formats was like because I had not done that yet. I have been amazed at what I can do with RAW footage in a colour tweaking sense, other formats would just fall apart and so it was more about getting what you can in camera.

    I think turn around has a huge part in this personally. I must be lucky to have the extra time to put care into the images.

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Burkhart View Post
    Use a vintage Cooke. My cooke 20-100 zoom definitely softens the skin while retaining sharpness. Gives it a cleaner, softer feel, a bit like silk.
    The reason is because the coatings associated with skin tones have a slight halo, while the other coatings (which correspond in RGB to hair, eyebrows, blacks, etc.) do not, so they remain sharp.
    Far more natural looking results than most filtration I see out there.
    Most vedettes (aging stars from the past) definitely knew these lenses.
    This is exactly what I have done as well C. I do work with a lot of elderly academic folk who are new to presenting to camera and I have found this lens has been amazing at not being so harsh on the skin!

    Are you using any filtration on top of this as well? I am currently trying to work out that area (should I get mist filters, etc) and ND filtering as well. It looks like I need to get a matte box with a huge ass rear. 144mm is massive. I did get some Kodak gels, but sort of not sure about the rear filter stuff.

    Love to hear what you are using if any?
    Last edited by Simon_G; 04-16-2019 at 08:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts