Distressed/ugly/aesthetic

indybones

indybones

Well-known member
Hi guys..could do with a few creative ideas or suggestions please..

Not sure if this should belong in cinematography, lighting, HVX200,FCP or all?

I'm shooting this short and I'm wanting to try and make the image ugly, claustrophobic, insidious etc...
I've tested out various looks like Bleach by pass, Blue Look, Cyan, etc and have at the moment settled for a yellow/green with crushed blacks...

The question is have you guys got any creative ideas on how I could make the image ugly, distressed etc in post or in camera. I know that a lot will take place in the set design so creative input there would be great as well. I know it's quite an open question, but if you've got any ideas please let me know.

Shooting on HVX200 720PN and FCP

Thanks

Guys
 
indybones said:
Hi guys..could do with a few creative ideas or suggestions please..

Not sure if this should belong in cinematography, lighting, HVX200,FCP or all?

I'm shooting this short and I'm wanting to try and make the image ugly, claustrophobic, insidious etc...
I've tested out various looks like Bleach by pass, Blue Look, Cyan, etc and have at the moment settled for a yellow/green with crushed blacks...

The question is have you guys got any creative ideas on how I could make the image ugly, distressed etc in post or in camera. I know that a lot will take place in the set design so creative input there would be great as well. I know it's quite an open question, but if you've got any ideas please let me know.

Shooting on HVX200 720PN and FCP

Thanks

Guys
Click to expand...

Distressed and Ugly: Was just reading about this... there are many ways and the recent tips I've found was this.... high latitude= pretty... Contrast= more gritty.

"The special processes really added something to the film, because all of a sudden the stocks didn't look so clean. I just did some commercials with stocks that have up to 9 or 10 stops of latitude, and as the emulsions go more in that clean direction, it becomes harder to give scenes a really emotional feeling. Nowadays you sometimes have to go through leaps and bounds with the lighting to make it interesting and give it a real signature. When you use special processes to alter the way the film records, you can create a look that doesn't look quite so stylized, because the lighting doesn't have to be so overt. If you control the look on several different levels-- as Janusz did on this film with ENR, flashing and smoke-- it's a bit more effective."

- David Devlin, Gaffer for Janusz on Amistad
Click to expand...

That was Devlin's take on film stocks, and it's true. Images that yield higher latitude seem to look a bit more pretty. In these cases, cinematographers who wish for a 'raw' feeling often have to work their asses off to get contrast back into the picture. The special processes Devlin was talking about happens to be Technicolor's ENR, which is done in processing.

So in addition to lighting with a bit less fill, and greater ratios for greater contrast, you can also feel free to add a slight amount of grain to the picture.

Slight grain also creates some raw feeling as well. Digital noise can be called grain, but it falls apart (to the viewer) much more quickly, so be careful when using it. The HVX might yield just enough naturally...haha!... HVX200a can be pushed a bit.

When you underexpose and push film, the color saturation is lowered and the contrast increases. The grain structure will become more apparent and the look is a gritty raw one which has served many a cinematographer.

In digital terms, I'd add grain in post, because real digital noise is ugly! I'd also not underexpose because the dynamic range and latitude of digital lacks from film... and since digital can reduce color saturation with a press of the button, the same photo-chemical process of underexposing does not apply. Film processes are just for reference.

Obviously, as you mentioned, texture via set design and wardrobe is key.

Claustrophobic is a difficult one... the textbook play for that is simply using very long lenses. Watch the beginning of Chungking Express. Great sequence in the streets of Hong Kong, where the lenses are super long with great motion blur. You feel drugged and very lost/claustrophobic. Long lenses gives you the inability to see around you and it feels restricting..

Since cinematography is endless in possibilities, and a very talented cinematographer could probably achieve your desired look using the opposite of my advice, you can see that really anything goes. What I mentioned is more typical. I bet clean wide angle images with the right blocking and context can feel dirty and claustrophobic... ya know?

Best,

-Rpo
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Distressed and Ugly: Was just reading about this... there are many ways and the recent tips I've found was this.... high latitude= pretty... Contrast= more gritty.



That was Devlin's take on film stocks, and it's true. Images that yield higher latitude seem to look a bit more pretty. In these cases, cinematographers who wish for a 'raw' feeling often have to work their asses off to get contrast back into the picture. The special processes Devlin was talking about happens to be Technicolor's ENR, which is done in processing.

So in addition to lighting with a bit less fill, and greater ratios for greater contrast, you can also feel free to add a slight amount of grain to the picture.

Slight grain also creates some raw feeling as well. Digital noise can be called grain, but it falls apart (to the viewer) much more quickly, so be careful when using it. The HVX might yield just enough naturally...haha!... HVX200a can be pushed a bit.

When you underexpose and push film, the color saturation is lowered and the contrast increases. The grain structure will become more apparent and the look is a gritty raw one which has served many a cinematographer.

In digital terms, I'd add grain in post, because real digital noise is ugly! I'd also not underexpose because the dynamic range and latitude of digital lacks from film... and since digital can reduce color saturation with a press of the button, the same photo-chemical process of underexposing does not apply. Film processes are just for reference.

Obviously, as you mentioned, texture via set design and wardrobe is key.

Claustrophobic is a difficult one... the textbook play for that is simply using very long lenses. Watch the beginning of Chungking Express. Great sequence in the streets of Hong Kong, where the lenses are super long with great motion blur. You feel drugged and very lost/claustrophobic. Long lenses gives you the inability to see around you and it feels restricting..

Since cinematography is endless in possibilities, and a very talented cinematographer could probably achieve your desired look using the opposite of my advice, you can see that really anything goes. What I mentioned is more typical. I bet clean wide angle images with the right blocking and context can feel dirty and claustrophobic... ya know?

Best,

-Rpo
Click to expand...

HOLY COW..as always Ryan your advice, very detailed ideas and thoughts are very much appreciated, thanks mate...:dankk2:

As you mentioned the long lenses...I had thought about shooting more or less all of the shots in mid-close ups, close ups and extreme close ups with a shallow depth of field and no establishing type shots so that the viewer really cannot find a location, or locate themselves within the film.

Also in post to subtly put a ND so that there is a darkness to the top of the frame giving a claustrophobic feel, kind of pushing down onto the person.

I've been experimenting with shutter speeds and have tested 1/25 (motion blur) 1/120 sharp but a little to much of that staccato effect, I also tested a 45 degree shutter angle, now this seemed to produce a sharp image with just a little bit of motion blur and staccato.

You mentioned not under exposing. I used to underexpose largely because I like the blacks crushed and a darker image, however and I'm sure it was after reading one of your posts I'm now using the marker and pushing the image as bright as I can before any blowing of highlights occurs..I think to produce less noise in the shadows as the HVX200 struggles when you under exposed?

I tend to now crush the blacks in post having tried to get as much detail in them first in camera?

You mentioned ENR am I right in thinking this is a type of Bleach By-pass?
I had also heard of flashing the film?

The whole short will be filmed in a cellar so at the moment there are three overhead practicles, and a table lamp (prop), I also tested using a 500 watt on a tripod in place of the overheads that produced much more light. I guess I'm just trying to make it as real as possible with the lighting, BUT harsh and ugly. Not much experience with lighting so any advice with it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks :dankk2:
 
Not to hijack this thread for the sake of photochemical film processing tricks, but...


ENR, is a process introduced by Technicolor... it's like Bleach bypass in the same way that they are both special processes which can change the images contrast.

In my experience, the similarities are many but not the same. Both Bleach bypass and ENR are silver retention processes, meaning they are used to keep silver into the image, increasing contrast and reducing saturation.

Here is an explanation which is from a great article called Soup de Jour from American Cinematographer:

It is a common mistake to refer to all of the various silver-retention processes as bleach-bypassing. Although bypassing the bleaching step may yield a similar result to ENR, the two processes differ radically in their approach to silver retention. "Bleach-bypass will tend to create an effect similar to that achieved with ENR," Ricotta submits, "because when you develop the print stock, you haven't developed a lot of silver in the highlight areas where you didn't have a lot of exposure. But as you get into the shadows, where the majority of the exposure density is on the print, you start to develop a lot of silver and dye. So whether you do a bleach-bypass or ENR, when you leave silver in the film, it is retained with less silver in the highlights than in the shadows. The two processes are not too different in that regard.
Click to expand...

There is another process, which I first learned from accounts by Emmanuel Lubezski used on Sleepy Hollow, which is another similar process called CCE by DeLuxe labs. It is a process which is very contrasty, which he used to help him 'see through' smoke and haze. It also reduces saturation.

Flashing is when you preexpose your film with a base of light. This reduces contrast depending on how much you pre-expose your film. Janusz did this on Amistad with ENR. This odd combo seems to undo what the other does, but infact it leaves unusual results...

From American Cinematographer, Breaking Slavery's Chains by Stephen Pizzello (January 1998)

"This was the first movie on which I used ENR, and it was also the first where I flashed the film. On The Lost World, I did extensive tests with Deluxe's CCE process. It's an incredible process, but it was a little too harsh for that particular movie. I felt that Amistad would be the right movie to use a process on. If you don't prepare, though, you can really get yourself into problems with the darkness and the contrast. ENR can almost be so high-contrast that there are no mid-range tones; if you're not careful, everything becomes either black or white. You therefore have to test, and you have to use a certain lighting style. You don't necessarily have to flash, but you do have to start filling out the shadows a bit. I flashed this film because I did comparison tests for certain things-- with flashing and without it. I found that the ENR becomes very slick and elegant if you don't flash it. It's very beautiful, but if you flash 10 or 15 percent it becomes grittier, which was the look I wanted for the story. I learned a tremendous amount about ENR from the interview American Cinematographer did with Darius Khondji [AFC] on Evita. That's a good example of a film in which great lighting is augmented by ENR for a beautiful final result. Darius' explanation of his ENR work was very helpful to me; he basically said, 'Flash it, test it and see if you like it.'

For a typical scene, I would flash the wide shot about 10 percent, but if I wanted a bit more drama or contrast I would flash maybe 7 percent. We used standard white light in the flashing. The Panaflasher is a very interesting device; I'd tested it on seven or eight other occasions, but I'd never liked it, simply because I love to have contrast. But this time, in conjunction with the ENR, I really liked it. We flashed the negative, which introduced some light into the shadows and added some grain, and then applied the ENR, which kind of counterbalances the flashing by adding more contrast and getting rid of the grain. However, ENR also affects your color saturation; the colors become softer, and the highlights become a bit metallic. That was the kind of look I wanted. I was losing a bit of the grittiness by adding ENR, but the flashing made up for it."
Click to expand...



Read the wonderful article from AC magazine on American Cinematographer's website: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/nov98/soupdujour/pg1.htm
 
Again thanks Ryan for your help :dankk2: I will have a good look at those articles..

I was wondering though how and if these ideas/techniques would transpose onto a digital platform, ie FCP and HVX200?

With various plug-ins one can have control over the blacks, mids, highs, push the color de-saturate, gamma, gain, lift, simulate a Bleach Bypass and various other looks, 'Blue', 'Green' etc. But I was wondering if the degree of manipulation in the 'film process' as opposed to the 'digital process' allows the filmmaker/cinematographer/director much more scope with which to experiment with looks?

For instance when the article talks of keeping silver in the image (which increases contrast and decreases saturation) is it literally the same as a plugin by crushing blacks, blowing highs and de-saturating the color? Or keeping the highs metallic, how would one go about creating that? Maybe this is just some thing you can't do on a digital platform I wonder?

Also just returning a bit here if I could ask your advice on 'shafts of light'.
I was thinking of creating 'shafts of light' for this short I'm filming and was wondering how I would go about doing that, also I would very much like to some how get the camera to pick up within these 'shafts of light' the dust particles that kind of hang in the air? I was also going to be using a desktop fan in some of the shots so that there is a kind of mechanical monotonous movement which hopefully may add a certain sense of tension, maybe lighting from behind the fan?

Thanks Ryan :thumbup:
 
indybones said:
Again thanks Ryan for your help :dankk2: I will have a good look at those articles..

I was wondering though how and if these ideas/techniques would transpose onto a digital platform, ie FCP and HVX200?

With various plug-ins one can have control over the blacks, mids, highs, push the color de-saturate, gamma, gain, lift, simulate a Bleach Bypass and various other looks, 'Blue', 'Green' etc. But I was wondering if the degree of manipulation in the 'film process' as opposed to the 'digital process' allows the filmmaker/cinematographer/director much more scope with which to experiment with looks?

For instance when the article talks of keeping silver in the image (which increases contrast and decreases saturation) is it literally the same as a plugin by crushing blacks, blowing highs and de-saturating the color? Or keeping the highs metallic, how would one go about creating that? Maybe this is just some thing you can't do on a digital platform I wonder?

Also just returning a bit here if I could ask your advice on 'shafts of light'.
I was thinking of creating 'shafts of light' for this short I'm filming and was wondering how I would go about doing that, also I would very much like to some how get the camera to pick up within these 'shafts of light' the dust particles that kind of hang in the air? I was also going to be using a desktop fan in some of the shots so that there is a kind of mechanical monotonous movement which hopefully may add a certain sense of tension, maybe lighting from behind the fan?

Thanks Ryan :thumbup:
Click to expand...


All photochemical processes can be replicated in some fashion on digital medium. Some can be done in camera, some can be done in post, and a few needs to be done a little in both.

To speak plainly and with a little bit of film bias, the photochemical approach cannot be directly/exactly reproduced (as successfully) as it is dealing with greater resolution, dynamic range & latitude, and can be implemented in various stages of development (ie: exposure, negative development, interpositive, answer print, etc)

This is a much more successful and true way of manipulating an image as you have many stages in which doing the photo-chem effects will react differently to the image. This is kind of like what Nodal trees in Shake were created for. It's not just about the process but also where in the development of the look, it happens.

Overall, if you are trying to attain a certain look a film process gives, but you are shooting digital, I'd say set the image up as best you can in camera and use post to finish off the conceptual look. This ensures the best recipe for success.

Don't save it all for post by shooting clean, because you'll quickly realize that not preparing the image for the look on set (via lighting, exposure, etc) can often cause the desired look to become unattainable or attainable at the cost of artifacting and other side-effects of stretching an image beyond its limitations, not to mention the loss of ability to create your look in a three dimensional form on a two dimensional medium... which is something many people don't realize.

Some exceptions I make is color. If I'm shooting on a native color camera such as the HVX and I desire a desaturated look, I'll shoot with the color a little more saturated then I intend for the final look. This is because turning the color down in the camera hold no benefit. I will however have a monitor on set, so I may make proper judgments in tonal separation, something that seeing color can mislead. I do this so that I may slightly alter color channels in post, if I need to darken reds and etc.

It's a fine line to walk, the digital versus in camera debate.

The only solution and answer is this: Know what you want. Know what can be done in camera, what can be done in post, and what needs to be done in both. Sometimes effects in post can only work if the image is set in camera. Then do it!

I guess to lengthen an already long winded rambling, most people assume that if you are doing an effect in post (for whatever reason) you shoot clean. Little do they realize that camera and post are a team.

Just as a volleyball player must set the ball for another to hit, almost all effects which are found in post need some sort of pre-thought and pre-executed base upon which to work.

This is why 'finding' the look in post, usually equals a gimmicky stylized wash over the entire image. The looks is 2 dimensional and an attempt to hide poor photography. Knowing the look ahead of time and planning out how it can be best achieved in camera, with camera helping post, and then in post is why professional films have a look which feels as if it belongs to that world... not just a stylized look washed over the entire picture.

This is why DP's such as Lubezski and Janusz who use processes like ENR or CCE do tests before hand. THey learn what it does and what they have to do in-camera and with lighting to compensate for the effects and find a good balance. Lubezski learned that he could use much more smoke and flat lighting as the CCE process returned much of the lost contrast making him see 'more' through the smoke and fog. Janusz learned that he must flash the film to rid of some of the effects ENR left on the film. The same goes for digital. Know what you are going to do in post and assist it in camera. Help it work.

I'm beginning to realize this is not really what you were asking at all. Sorry for the derailed runaway train.

- RPO

PS: As far as shafts of light...

Simple. In order to see shafts of light, you need a medium for it to pass through. Smoke, rain, dust, etc.

These mediums are best seen when backlit... ie, the medium is between the camera and light, or slightly off axis.

Finally, you want as hard as a source as possible. Sources become more hard when they are smaller. If you are using a fresnel lens, open it up so it's open face. Also, moving a light back will create harder cuts and shadows, depending on how far you can (before it starts becoming too dim) Using flags or other objects to help create sharp cuts in the shafts will help defind the shafts of light.

Xenon, Beam- Projectors, and other light sources have naturally hard sources as they are very directional and sharp lights.
 
Last edited:
dadoboy said:
There is an interesting thread on reduser about the "bleach bypass" look done on the latest Terminator. It was done digitally in post using software:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30638

It doesn't look like the free plugin is available any more :(. Let me know if I'm wrong!
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the article! The REDuser article did a good job outlining one way to simulate a silver retention look on a digital medium in post using software. However, the previous post can be accidentally misread (as I did) as implying that it was used on Terminator Salvation... It is a tutorial of sorts on how to simulate that look.

Shane Hulbert, ASC shot on 35mm film, processed at Technicolor which one of thier 5 or 6 different types of silver retention processes (generally referred to as bleach bypass)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your help Ryan..

I was wondering I was testing things out trying the 'trick the white balance technique', to get the sweaty/yellow/green look, and it was looking pretty much how I would want the overall look to.. well look, however I noticed that the whites were also yellow/green and I couldn't get them back to white in post.

As a test I shot the same footage clean then pushed the shadows to green/yellow and the mids to green/yellow but kept the highs white. I know that you have mentioned that it is best to get the overall look sorted in camera and on set before post as it can end up looking like just a 'post wash' over the footage just wondering if there is a way around of keeping the whites white but keeping the shadows/mids yellow/green on set and in camera?

Maybe and this could be the thing, get the colors sorted on set, paint washes of color onto the walls, make sure all props are the correct color and tone so that all that is happening in post is subtle changes, as you said

'Don't save it all for post by shooting clean, because you'll quickly realize that not preparing the image for the look on set (via lighting, exposure, etc) can often cause the desired look to become unattainable or attainable at the cost of artifacting and other side-effects of stretching an image beyond its limitations, not to mention the loss of ability to create your look in a three dimensional form on a two dimensional medium... which is something many people don't realize.'

I've also noticed in some films I think they use this techniques a lot on the 'Saw' films where you've kind of got two differing color pallets inhabiting the same shot, so that across say the right hand side of the composition there is a cool cyan and on the left hand side there is a hot yellow/orange and the highs are still white, hope that makes sense. How would one go about creating that? Is that post or more likely different gels and lights? Soz to ask so many questions, just hungry to learn as much as I can.:dankk2:

Thanks Ryan
 
I see. The camera whitebalance trick does not necessarily create a much better result then post, but rather is faster, before image compression, and etc.

My thoughts on your dilemma.

You discuss that you liked the results from the manual white balance trick in camera, but cannot get the highlights to 'real' white. I would first suggest trying some more color work. What are you using? Unless your whites are really in zone 6 or so, then I can't see how they might bleed into midtones and become un-whitable in post. Those suckers should be easily grabable. Grab onto those highlights, desaturate a bit (if necessary) and then try to cancel out the hue by neutralizing it.

Color Chroma tends to 'wash out' and 'desaturate' when illumination increases. Perhaps you're highlights aren't bright enough? This solution is viable but it can mess with the look, which might not be what you want. Or try lighting, painting, etc. the background with colored paint or gelled lights to get the strong color look you want, while tricking the white balance with a less strong gel, keeping highlights and skintone altered but not as dramatic.

Other then that, I can't imagine how your color software can grab onto shadows and midtones, but can't do it's job with highlights. I have a feeling your highlights are simply brighter midtones, creating the issues.

You can always paint highlights with a neutralizing color tint! (The opposite then what you're using on the in camera white balance trick.

"CinemaScope lenses also couldn't focus very close, but Jack wanted the camera to be in tight with the actors. We had to use a lot of light to build up the stop and increase depth of field. We had a huge garden set built on the stage at Shepperton Studios, and we couldn't get nearly enough light on it for the stops we wanted, so I had the art department paint one side of the foliage silver and white to create a false highlight. That way, our fill could be what our key would have been. We had to do all kinds of tricks like that."

- Freddi Francis, BSC
Click to expand...

Can you post a still from the SAW example? I still have yet to bring myself to watch that movie! Too busy watching good films! :P
 
Thanks Ryan

'Can you post a still from the SAW example? I still have yet to bring myself to watch that movie! Too busy watching good films! :P'

Lol :tongue: yeah its not that I'm holding 'Saw' up to some kind of highly critical conceptual film...lol...Just liking the ugly look..

I'll have another bash at the color correction and see if I can get those whites white from the 'White Balance Trick', in the mean time here are a few pics..
Not the best of quality because I had to photo them with a stills cam from a screen, Google wasn't coming up with what I was after, but hopefully you might be able to see what I'm getting at.







Thanks Ryan :beer:
 
Hi Ryan

sorry to bother you but did you manage to have a look at the Saw examples above?
With the different types of color in the same shot etc?

Thanks mate :dankk2:

Indy
 
I'd say it was simply lighting.

They have a strong color of different hue on the parts with different color... from what I can tell from the stills. I really doubt they power windowed those elements in considering many of it interacts with depth in the scene.

They would have calculated the in-camera or post shift before hand, then found the right hue which gived the correct altered hue.

One of the ways to make a scene more 3 dimensional... by letting pockets of different colored light play within the scene. Something you can't do finding the look in post or using MB. The shift could be done in post, but not without pre-planning and execution on set.
 
Thanks Ryan...:dankk2::beer:

I'm very much interested in the way you talk of making a scene three dimensional.
I'm sure a whole book could be written on the subject but are there any obvious tips tricks or techniques that you know of? I know it's a bit of an open question but any thoughts on the idea would be very much appreciated.:dankk2:

Thanks

Indy
 
Three dimensional images in a two dimensional space is usually a top priority for any DP (unless story/mood/style calls for a 'compressed' frame, in which depth is not priority. It is a safe assumption that depth within the frame is desired more than not.

Depth within a scene or (lack of depth), can be accomplished in many different ways. These are the ones off the top of my head:

Lighting:
Lighting for Shape (making subjects or space three dimensional w/ contrast)
Lighting in layers (Making the space three dimensional w/ contrast)
Pools of light (making the space three dimensional w/ contrast)
Color & Color Temperature (making the subjects or space three dimensional by tonal separation or layered use)

Composition, Framing & Camera:
Foreground & Background elements
Lens selection / Subject to Camera Distance
DoF (in either extreme or moderation)

Art Direction/ Set Design:
Size of Sets (small or large)
Atmospheric Haze, fog, etc
Perspective/Forced Perspective
Colors: Tonal separation & Contrast in Set design, clothes, etc.
Foreground/Background element, etc

Special/Visual Effects:
Set Extension, Mattepainting, etc
CGI Elements?

There is so much more... but the main idea over and over is to create depth by contrast. I use contrast to refer to light and shadow... but contrast can be described by things with differences. Focus/out of focus, complementary colors, etc.

The key is to layer your world and gain that depth, or if desired lose it.

I have a 1/4th written article I've been working on. I stopped writing it because I am now reading every American Cinematographer Magazine from 1966- 2009 and documenting different strategies, viewpoints and etc. Once I've made my personal database, I'll return to my articles. I've recently found that I have so much more to learn before I should continue my articles.

Feel free to read the first part of an uncompleted article which will someday be part of an article series on light.

http://ryanpatrickohara.blogspot.com/2009/02/lighting-types-units-and-globes.html

This article should cover three dimensional shape on objects/subjects, and should cover lighting for depth (in layers or pools of light)

I hope that helps.

-Ryan
 
Wow Ryan, that's a great article.

I can easily see that being done as a "Hollywood Camera Work" style video series.
 
Holy cow, thanks again Ryan for your much appreciated time and help..
Great article I see I have much reading to do.

I owe you a few drinks :dankk2::beer::dankk2:

Indy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top