Actors look bad on HD

[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.