Green/yellow/sweaty look

indybones

indybones

Well-known member
Hi guys

Not sure if this should go in lighting or in here...

Was wondering if I could ask your advice.

My next shoot will be in a very claustrophobic room, a cellar.
I am thinking about the color palette and was thinking of a green yellow sweaty look,
this kind of look can be seen on certain scenes of horror films.
I'll try and get a visual example for you soon.

I had thought about shooting it clean then just applying this look in post,
or
trying to shoot and light with this look in camera prior to post.
One thing that is quite evident in the look is that the flesh tones still remain looking like flesh colors and tones and other areas have a green yellow sweaty tone.

Would anyone have any advice or ideas or producing a green/yellow sweaty claustrophobic look.



Thank you

Indy
 
Last edited:
I generally shoot clean and grade it for things like that. Gives the most options and allows for a more efficient shoot.
 
Casalen said:
I generally shoot clean and grade it for things like that. Gives the most options and allows for a more efficient shoot.
Click to expand...

You can attain this look most easily by tricking your white balance. Get a Rosco or Lee swatch and use the opposite color/ strength of your desire.

For instance... if you want green... use a slightly magenta gel filter and white-balance through that. The more magenta strength you use the more green it will become.

Go ahead and do tests ahead of time. Then once you are on set, it's an easy and simple process that only requires minimal post work... which will save time and money, not to mention helps secure the look you and your director and in mind.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
You can attain this look most easily by tricking your white balance. Get a Rosco or Lee swatch and use the opposite color/ strength of your desire.

For instance... if you want green... use a slightly magenta gel filter and white-balance through that. The more magenta strength you use the more green it will become.

Go ahead and do tests ahead of time. Then once you are on set, it's an easy and simple process that only requires minimal post work... which will save time and money, not to mention helps secure the look you and your director and in mind.
Click to expand...


Thanks Ryan...:dankk2:

would you recommend doing it on set and in camera...
or
shooting clean then creating the look in post?

Im going to do lots of different tests before hand but getting you guys advice is very much appreciated...
 
thome said:
I think Ryan is trying to say doing it in camera is easier and faster...
Click to expand...


ar right ok cool....:)

is there any quality difference, added noise or any thing else I may not be aware of in doing in camera as opposed to in post, I'm using FCP BTW...

Also I've just thought will this faking the white balance work if I was to create a large blank document in photoshop, fill it in with said color, then point camera at screen and dial in white balance?

Thanks Guys...
 
Last edited:
indybones said:
ar right ok cool....:)

is there any quality difference, added noise or any thing else I may not be aware of in doing in camera as opposed to in post, I'm using FCP BTW...

Also I've just thought will this faking the white balance work if I was to create a large blank document in photoshop, fill it in with said color, then point camera at screen and dial in white balance?

Thanks Guys...
Click to expand...

Ok i honestly dont know about the photoshop one but iv seen people commending the method in the link i gave and the method Ryan described above.

As for noise i dont think so coz iv heard of big movie DP's using the said method...noise is mostly a light issue(more light less noise)

It would be advisable to first try the 'trick' white balance before the shoot..if it looks good then go for it but if not dont loose hope,just shoot flat and do it in post!!

Im not a pro or anything just my two cents
 
indybones said:
Thanks Ryan...:dankk2:

would you recommend doing it on set and in camera...
or
shooting clean then creating the look in post?

Im going to do lots of different tests before hand but getting you guys advice is very much appreciated...
Click to expand...

My advice to you ... is to do tests with different white balance tricks. Find a gel or combination of gels which gives you your overall color palette. Then pay attention to the set design, wardrobe, and lighting. Use these elements to re-enforce and continue the desired look you want. By doing so, you can create your look within a three dimensional space... not just dropping an overall 'filter' over your footage. This gives you greater control in creating the look, as you can have the background more green/yellow then the foreground, or vice versa... Just saying I can always tell when the look is just an applied 'magic bullet' effect over the footage.

The professional DP will create as much of the look in production as possible. This is because it is not only (part of) his JOB, but it assures that the look works, saves time and money in post production, and ensures that the DP, who is in charge of the look of the film, is in control, as many contracts do not keep the DP on the payroll during post and they find themselves off on another project.

It also helps moral of actors, director, and producers to see a more complete looking and wonderful footage in dailies. No one wants to see 'rawcode' or flat lit footage... it's a party pooper.

Not sure why so many indie folks find the look in post. If you don't know what you want your film to look, or have the ability to do it on set... I'm not sure why you are a DP. This is like a director not knowing what he/she wants and just shooting massive amounts of footage to decide in editing... this wastes money and time.

Here on DVXuser... I understand the workflow is not the same as a big picture... the hours or days you spend on CCing the film is not as costly as it would be on a professional film, but you see my point.

This can be argued, and I'm sure someone here will... but I find it my responsibility to know and create the look of a film, while we are making it. If there is something I cannot achieve due to technology, time, or cost reasons, I'm glad to seek post work to make the vision happen.

Shooting clean and doing the look in post will never be my style, unless it is the only option or logical solution to a time/money constraint.
 
indybones said:
ar right ok cool....:)

is there any quality difference, added noise or any thing else I may not be aware of in doing in camera as opposed to in post, I'm using FCP BTW...

Also I've just thought will this faking the white balance work if I was to create a large blank document in photoshop, fill it in with said color, then point camera at screen and dial in white balance?

Thanks Guys...
Click to expand...


No this will not work.

As it will do crazy things to your white balance.... fooling the white balance to see a certain way, only works when used in conjunction with the lighting temperature of the environment you are in.

You could use your computer to white balance, but then when you get to your tungsten or incandescent set... it will not look the same as you thought.

Just as normal white balance must be done in the lighting conditions you are shooting in, fooling the white balance must be done in the lighting conditions you are shooting in.

The gel swatches are free. Go to your local professional lighting shop, or request one for free online at the company websites.

If you have any questions, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them.

BEST,
 
Wow thank you so much Ryan for your very detailed reply.:dankk2::dankk2::dankk2:
I'm going to chew over that for a bit and hit you back with a few questions if and when I get them...

Thanks again for your time and help
 
thome said:
Ok i honestly dont know about the photoshop one but iv seen people commending the method in the link i gave and the method Ryan described above.

As for noise i dont think so coz iv heard of big movie DP's using the said method...noise is mostly a light issue(more light less noise)

It would be advisable to first try the 'trick' white balance before the shoot..if it looks good then go for it but if not dont loose hope,just shoot flat and do it in post!!

Im not a pro or anything just my two cents
Click to expand...


Thanks Thome :dankk2:
 
Hi all

Actually I am also trying to achieve this same look, and I am now doing some tests with my HVX+M2.

My method is to light a grey card with daylight bulbs and then set the white balance with a minus green filter in front of the lens. The reason I used an 18% grey card instead of white board is because the 'green' result with the 18% grey card is not as saturated as I would get with white board, therefore it gives more natural look to the skin tones. So, I prefer that method, even though the effect is only subtle. And the reason I whitebalance using daylight bulbs because I believe my camera will create more noise if I whitebalance using tungsten bulbs.

Then having that subtle green in my image, I use my daylight hmi's or kinos with lee dark green or pale green filters to light the walls/ set, not the actors, so that the actors skin tone always remain natural with already added subtle green effect from the white balance trick. I like mixing different strength of color filters on the walls because it helps to create depth.

But, the thing now is the practical tungsten lamp seems to be a bit orange - I kinda like it but Im not sure how the audience will accept it. I can put blue gel on the bulb, but I like it orange, because it gives more contrast to the image. It looks like Constantine, the opening scene when Keanu enters the building, walk on the corridor and enters the room - you can see the color - green and orange. But that movie is Comic Based, so maybe that can give them the freedom to create a look that doesnt have to be realistic and audience can accept it. I don't know if this orange tungsten can be fit into a more realistic horror. I need you guys opinion on this. Should I blue gel the practical?


Ryan, I have watched your site, and I think you are good in creating 3d and playing with contrast to make the audience eyes see a certain part of the image. I really like your style. Do you mind sharing what camera you are using? esp for Creepy Country Ppl and Song for Ana ? It seems like HVX with Cine D to me, but I don't know. Or maybe it is Red? :)

Hope you guys can join in and teach me stuffs.
 
wunan said:
Hi all

Actually I am also trying to achieve this same look, and I am now doing some tests with my HVX+M2.

My method is to light a grey card with daylight bulbs and then set the white balance with a minus green filter in front of the lens. The reason I used an 18% grey card instead of white board is because the 'green' result with the 18% grey card is not as saturated as I would get with white board, therefore it gives more natural look to the skin tones. So, I prefer that method, even though the effect is only subtle. And the reason I whitebalance using daylight bulbs because I believe my camera will create more noise if I whitebalance using tungsten bulbs.

Then having that subtle green in my image, I use my daylight hmi's or kinos with lee dark green or pale green filters to light the walls/ set, not the actors, so that the actors skin tone always remain natural with already added subtle green effect from the white balance trick. I like mixing different strength of color filters on the walls because it helps to create depth.

But, the thing now is the practical tungsten lamp seems to be a bit orange - I kinda like it but Im not sure how the audience will accept it. I can put blue gel on the bulb, but I like it orange, because it gives more contrast to the image. It looks like Constantine, the opening scene when Keanu enters the building, walk on the corridor and enters the room - you can see the color - green and orange. But that movie is Comic Based, so maybe that can give them the freedom to create a look that doesnt have to be realistic and audience can accept it. I don't know if this orange tungsten can be fit into a more realistic horror. I need you guys opinion on this. Should I blue gel the practical?


Ryan, I have watched your site, and I think you are good in creating 3d and playing with contrast to make the audience eyes see a certain part of the image. I really like your style. Do you mind sharing what camera you are using? esp for Creepy Country Ppl and Song for Ana ? It seems like HVX with Cine D to me, but I don't know. Or maybe it is Red? :)

Hope you guys can join in and teach me stuffs.
Click to expand...

18% card huh? Funny. I've never heard of that or tried it. If it works for you, then go for it. I'd suggest to others reading this to get a gel swatch and experiment with the different strengths and types of magenta like filters offered. Looking at my Rosco swatch I've got options of:

3308 Tough Minus Green
3313 Tough 1/2 Minus Green
3314 Tough 1/4 Minus Green
3318 Tough 1/8 Minus Green

Ones that kind of work with different hints:
4815 15 Pink
4830 30 Pink
0333 Bluish Pink
0037 Pale Rose Pink

If anyone on DVXuser needs or wants a swatch, I've got a bunch. PM me your address and I'll send you one... for limited time though. I'm leaving the country in a week. Speaking of which, I'm not sending swatches internationally.

Anyway... the gray card thing is certainly interesting and I'll be testing it out to see exactly what it does, next time I am out in the field.

What I am confused about is the daylight colored lamps. You should always fool the white balance in the color temperature environment you plan to shoot in. (Best option is actually on set). If you are using daylight lamps in the actual production then that is relatively acceptable. If you are using tungsten lighting and balancing off of day light, you will get a green tint AND orange.

I suppose that is what you want after all (reading the thread title)... but those who may not have daylight lamps, can just add a full, 1/2, 1/4, or 1/8 blue/CTB to the minusgreen and get a dialed in similar effect.

Also,

Thanks for the comments! Both films you mentioned were shot with HVX200/redrock combo and Yes, the base scenefile was Cinelike D, although I had optical filters and custom scene file settings different from factory 'Cine D' settings.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Both films you mentioned were shot with HVX200/redrock combo and Yes, the base scenefile was Cinelike D, although I had optical filters and custom scene file settings different from factory 'Cine D' settings.
Click to expand...

Ryan, have you tried blowing up Cine D footage to 35mm? I'd like to know how the noise and film grain match up.

Thanks
 
I've wanted to experiment with in camera looks by fooling the white balance, and came across the thread thome pointed out a while back.
I think the benefits are it's quick, easy and repeatable.

I'd heard of using colored envelopes, and it's great to see it laid out so clearly with the name and number of the Smead envelopes!
So I wonder if you use the Smead purple (to give you a green look) could you then use a purple gel on faces to counter the green and give more of a flesh tone?

That said, I can also see the benefits in a more traditional approach like Ryan's: use colored gels when and where and to the degree you want for more precise control.

And wunan's grey card/minus green using 5600K lights certainly sounds interesting.
And I've heard the theory of 5600K light giving a cleaner white balance, can't say I've noticed it, but food for thought...

T T T:
Time To Test!

Chuck
 
groveChuck said:
I've wanted to experiment with in camera looks by fooling the white balance, and came across the thread thome pointed out a while back.
I think the benefits are it's quick, easy and repeatable.

I'd heard of using colored envelopes, and it's great to see it laid out so clearly with the name and number of the Smead envelopes!
So I wonder if you use the Smead purple (to give you a green look) could you then use a purple gel on faces to counter the green and give more of a flesh tone?

That said, I can also see the benefits in a more traditional approach like Ryan's: use colored gels when and where and to the degree you want for more precise control.

And wunan's grey card/minus green using 5600K lights certainly sounds interesting.
And I've heard the theory of 5600K light giving a cleaner white balance, can't say I've noticed it, but food for thought...

T T T:
Time To Test!

Chuck
Click to expand...

Ryan has already made some swell points here, but just to add/clarify:

When you're using gels to create a certain look, given youre building your color pallette on top a set white balance like 3200k, 5600k ect, it's sometimes beneficiary to throw another kelvin temperature into the mix, as the human eye watching your end result will more or less attempt to balance to that temperature of light, and you only know something by it's opposite. If you want the moonlight to appear more blue, perhaps throw in a tweenie with 1/2 CTO in the mix somewhere for highlights. The eye/brain visual system adjusts very fast to varied lighting temp conditions. The camera can't keep up with that consistant adjustability.
A large part of cinematography is simply allowing the filmstock/silicone to see what our eye sees, and given that our eye/brain system is Log in response, and constantly adapting, it gets pretty crazy.

A further note: That whole 5600k balance noise advantage started, AFAIK, with the RED camera's native 5000k color balance, and the general assumption that 3200k color balancing would create some digital noise in post. In fact, many ENG cameras are natively tungsten balanced, and employ a filter wheel to attain daylight balance in order to minimize noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top