Actors look bad on HD

[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:

[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.