Thread: 8K Monsto and an aging actress

Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44
  1. #21  
    I'f it's between a aging actress and a Monstro I'd take the Monstro.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member steve green's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Thousand Oaks, Ca
    Posts
    941
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon_G View Post
    Sorry not helping but was wondering, why is an Alexa easier to work with?


    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,221
    Quote Originally Posted by steve green View Post
    On this upcoming shoot we've got a small intimate set but they'd still like the BG to be soft, so I'm thinking the Monsto is perfect, but I'm getting push back from the producers saying they absolutely don't want to shoot in 8K resolution for a 1080 release (TVC) because "well see every pore" in her skin.
    I have done several major jobs in the last few years where there were fairly intricate "beauty passes" in Resolve done specifically for pores, pimples, scars, wrinkles, crow's feet, neck wrinkles, and other blemish issues. All this stuff has to be done by hand, but it's partially automated in terms of masks and tracking and all that stuff, so it doesn't have to take an inordinate amount of time. Even with comparatively young actors in their 20s, sometimes they have bad days and just need a little help. I think I did about 400 beauty fixes on Aaliyah in the 2002 film Queen of the Damned, and she was a beautiful 22-year-old woman. (16 years has passed and she's no longer with us, so I think the statute of limitations has passed.) Often multiple tracking masks for different parts of the face and body are necessary for best results -- it's not a "one size fits all" correction.

    Even for non-famous people and non-celebrities, I sometimes will reach in and make an isolated correction just to diminish an obvious scar or facial problem just to make the person look their best in a close-up. It doesn't take that much time to do. I've wanted to create a T-shirt that said, "I look better with Skin Defocus," and it's true. (And maybe a tiny bit of Glow, too.) A little goes a long way.

    The great thing about doing it in post is that we can confine the blur/mist effect entirely to skintone alone, and avoid affecting lips, teeth, hair, and other parts of the set. With a ProMist or whatever softening filter you use on the lens, it affects everything and can't be controlled. On the plus side, you see it right there on the day, and there are advantages to that. You can also make an argument that part of the "Alexa look" is the characteristic softness in highlights and the saturation roll-off, so if the clients like that look, maybe there's a way to approach it with filtration, soft lighting, and post.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    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.
    The more resolution you have the more skin detail you see and it looks more realistic. Which is a problem in this case.

    "Sharpness" is a folk's term with wide interpretation range and "resolution" techie fixation in "more=better" mentality. Neither tells anything about aesthetics and both are divorced from sense if not held together by context. Context here is the balance of acuity and purpose and higher acuity in some purposes doesn't help. Especially in cases where it moves focus from the meaning and essence to the surface. And that talk is cool to sell a camera but generally useless with the actress who's carrier depends on public perception and general appeal and self esteem.

    Optical filtration is a different look than lower resolution acquisition and one doesn't replace the other.
    The same goes for post pampering. Both of which, if used due to overkill of image detail, draw the the question why the chosen acquisition resolution in the first place.
    http://i68.tinypic.com/drcb4y.jpg


    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    The more resolution you have the more skin detail you see and it looks more realistic. Which is a problem in this case. "Sharpness" is a folks term with wide interpretation range and "resolution" techie fixation in "more=better" mentality and both loose sense out of context. Context is acuity and acuity doesn't always help.
    Very true. Put simply, I have often heard from DPs, "for this actor, sharpness is not our friend." So we do our best to take the curse off the shot and come up with a flattering look that makes the actor look better, yet still totally real for story purposes.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    I have done several major jobs in the last few years where there were fairly intricate "beauty passes" in Resolve done specifically for pores, pimples, scars, wrinkles, crow's feet, neck wrinkles, and other blemish issues. All this stuff has to be done by hand, but it's partially automated in terms of masks and tracking and all that stuff, so it doesn't have to take an inordinate amount of time. Even with comparatively young actors in their 20s, sometimes they have bad days and just need a little help. I think I did about 400 beauty fixes on Aaliyah in the 2002 film Queen of the Damned, and she was a beautiful 22-year-old woman. (16 years has passed and she's no longer with us, so I think the statute of limitations has passed.) Often multiple tracking masks for different parts of the face and body are necessary for best results -- it's not a "one size fits all" correction.
    Hats off.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    You can also make an argument that part of the "Alexa look" is the characteristic softness in highlights and the saturation roll-off, so if the clients like that look, maybe there's a way to approach it with filtration, soft lighting, and post.
    Image generally feels "softer" due to lower acuity mostly predetermined by spatial resolution. In some factors it is actually "sharper" due to different, rougher texture, also predetermined by resolution. Filtration, light and post do not achieve the same effect. Specific signal shaping part defining organicity of digital camera's image response is possible to achieve and has been taken care of.

    Past the point of HD and reaching film level of image detail, acquisition resolution became an acuity-related aesthetic choice.
    Red made a very smart move with Gemini.
    http://i68.tinypic.com/drcb4y.jpg


    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member Stephen Williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,066
    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.
    You got a great lens for a good price, pleased your still happy.
    Epic Dragon owner, the first upgraded camera in Switzerland :D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Tell them that no matter what filtration you use on set, Gaussian Blur is still available for $0 to perfectly match a 3k camera.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavin Greenwalt View Post
    Tell them that no matter what filtration you use on set, Gaussian Blur is still available for $0 to perfectly match a 3k camera.
    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.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    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