Actors look bad on HD

[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/tut.../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/forum2...ic=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.