Is HD "too good" for docs?

O

Overlook

Active member
I'm interested in the experience of people who have shot interviews for documentaries in HD. Is HD "so good" that it brings out people's blemishes, wrinkles, etc., to such an extent that people "look bad?"

NTSC and 16mm are forgiving and we are comfortable with their look and feel. HD is a whole new thing.

How are you all dealing with this?
 
My Canon 20D still camera has much more resolution than most HD cameras, and people look great on it. Can someone with a more technical bent than me explain why this is?
 
that's quite an interesting question.

my guess is that it's all in the lens. i'm sure HD lens appear sharper than conventional 35mm lens- which is sharp too but probably has a warmer quality to it that everyone just ends up looking great. also, I think it has alot to do with the fact that photos and videos are not the same thing.
 
Indeed a good question!

One option would be to use filters - not quite as exaggerated as in the old B&W days, but something like a PRO MIST®, for whenever there is a "talking head" shot. I am sure it will also depend on the subject too.
 
Anyone that says that high definition is bogus because it shows the wrinkles is a naysayer. A naysayer is someone who likes things the way they are and does not want to change. If there is any technological advancement rather than embracing the technology he will do everthing he can to stonewall it. One popular slam of high definition is to say that people do not watch movies because of the picture quality but because they like the story. If that were really true than why make movies at all since books do an exellent job of telling the story?
 
dvpixl said:
that's quite an interesting question.

my guess is that it's all in the lens. i'm sure HD lens appear sharper than conventional 35mm lens- which is sharp too but probably has a warmer quality to it that everyone just ends up looking great. also, I think it has alot to do with the fact that photos and videos are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

There is no way that the HVX is in any way sharper than a 20D, even with the cheapest possible Canon EOS lens. Maybe if you used a lensbaby..... :)
 
Try turning down sharpness in the menu if you don't like how sharp people appear. 16mm is far higher resolution, especially in slower stocks, than NTSC, and no one complained about it. People misinterpret what HD will reveal. Most docs I shoot benefit from greater clarity, and it doesn't make folks look any worse.
 
The trick is in how you light your subject. Blemishes are not a result of better formats or lenses. True, these things can contribute to a "problem" that already exists. Shadows are your true concern if you're trying to remove blemishes. Just make sure that you have some amount of bounced or diffused light coming from behind the camera and try and avoid hard light. Forget about filters. If you need to soften the image you can do that in post.
 
One person said 16mm has more resolution that HD. However, all the docs shot on 16mm that I worked on were transferred to beta NTSC and delivered SD.

So, we are still back to the issue of "how people look in HD." One person was telling me how "bad" a famous actor looked on HD and this got me to thinking.

Also, isn't it the case that studios are having to seriously upgrade their sets due to HD. Sets are one thing, people are more delicate.

Has anyone out there have a specific story to tell about their experience with a typical sitdown interview shot on and delivered on HD?

Even before HD cameramen put stocking behind the lens and used filters for SD. Isn't HD going to be a whole new challenge? I'm heading out in that direction because my nect doc will include lots of nature shots and landscapes which should look spectacular. However, there will be many interviews, sitdown and on the run.
 
Last edited:
Another thing that is done for sure, is makeup of course.
Consider some basic make-up for "problem subjects".

Also, Skin Tone detail setting could be played with.
 
Come on.

What kind of question is this.

There are many things that can be done to flatter or to vilify a subject.

Resolution plays a part to be sure.

So do lighting, focus, makeup, pov....

It is an equation that has to be balanced.

There is no reason we shouldn't move forward with higher and higher resolution until we have reached a point that the resolution and fidelity of both the sounds and images we make are a bit beyond what we can physically perceive.

These advances should continue in all facets of the art:

Production, Post, Distribution, and Exhibition.
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Come on.

What kind of question is this.

There are many things that can be done to flatter or to vilify a subject.

Resolution plays a part to be sure.

So do lighting, focus, makeup, pov....

It is an equation that has to be balanced.

There is no reason we shouldn't move forward with higher and higher resolution until we have reached a point that the resolution and fidelity of both the sounds and images we make are a bit beyond what we can physically perceive.

These advances should continue in all facets of the art:

Production, Post, Distribution, and Exhibition.
Click to expand...

Here, here!
 
Um... Have you tried the menu option on the HVX .... the "digital makeup" option?

SCENE FILE > SKIN TONE DTL > ON

That reduces the detial a little bit on "skin tone". Its subtle, but it can be useful in some situations.
 
Jeff is right. it's all about lighting, focal length, dof, lens placement, camera angle, powder etc. Just last week I did a series of HD interviews for the History Channel on a full size Varicam, 3/4 inch chips, great glass. This camera sees everything. And it all looked great. Don't worry about your camera except for making sure it is set up properly for your project. Do worry about your craft as a DP and how YOU make the frame look.
 
Dude, there is a simple solution: don't interview ugly people. j/k

I have heard this same arguement on why we wouldn't want HD porn. All I know is that if you want your documentary to look real, reality is not always perfect. People have blemishes. Either show them or put a little post production to hide them, but you can't go back if you didn't get it in the first place.
 
Getken said "HD interviews for the History Channel on a full size Varicam, 3/4 inch chips... "

Wow, 3/4" chips? This must be a new innovation. The last Varicam that I rented only had 2/3" chips. Guess they are getting smaller, huh?

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
Getken said "HD interviews for the History Channel on a full size Varicam, 3/4 inch chips... "

Wow, 3/4" chips? This must be a new innovation. The last Varicam that I rented only had 2/3" chips. Guess they are getting smaller, huh?

Dan
Click to expand...
He also attributed my comments to Jeff but you don't hear me complaining! ;)
 
Last edited:
History Channel on a full size Varicam, 3/4 inch chips
Click to expand...
You guys don't use those newfangled 3/4 inch cameras? Hey, it was late when I posted! Of course I was talking about 2/3 inch chips. And I didn't mean to leave you out Estebeverde...it was just easier to reference Jeff than type 7 more letters for your name! Sheesh...tough crowd in her:>).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top