Makeup and Cinematography in a 4K+ world.

Chris Santucci

Chris Santucci

Veteran
I'm starting to wonder who much 5K and 6K origination is going to affect makeup techniques and how much of the burden of high resolution (due to modern lenses and big sensors) should be rightfully heaped upon makeup artists.

Is the once common practice of using a pro mist or similar filter going to come back now that closeups threaten to disclose an actor's complexion in a big way? I'm definitely starting to see how resolution is unkind to the poor on-camera talent, especially real people.

Makeup can only do so much now that lenses/sensors are resolving SO much detail it seems to me.
 
My 2c: this is quite overblown.

Did I recoil in horror at the facial detail when watching Dark Knight in IMAX?
Did I hate Samsara's portrait shots when projected in 4K?
Do I hate Hasselblad for portraits?
Does looking at people's faces in real life scare me?

No, no, no!

Sure, detail can reveal bad makeup. But most of the reason why faces look bad is due to issues with digital sensors not having high quality and faithful color and detail rendering... then trying to compensate for it with color tricks that don't quite work, or oversharpening, etc.

End 2c.

Usage of Pro-Mist etc is slightly separate topic. I own a ton of filters from Glimmerglass to Pro Mist and there are definite places you want to use them. But I don't think that it's 4K that's the issue.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
bruceallen said:
My 2c: this is quite overblown.

Did I recoil in horror at the facial detail when watching Dark Knight in IMAX?
Did I hate Samsara's portrait shots when projected in 4K?
Do I hate Hasselblad for portraits?
Does looking at people's faces in real life scare me?

No, no, no!

Sure, detail can reveal bad makeup. But most of the reason why faces look bad is due to issues with digital sensors not having high quality and faithful color and detail rendering... then trying to compensate for it with color tricks that don't quite work, or oversharpening, etc.

End 2c.

Usage of Pro-Mist etc is slightly separate topic. I own a ton of filters from Glimmerglass to Pro Mist and there are definite places you want to use them. But I don't think that it's 4K that's the issue.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Did you hate the Playboy Centerfold... shot on an 8x10 until some recent time... of course there was body make up and photo retouch... but still...
 
Great thread and very relevant. Bruce's comment is very big budget centric, for me I've been seeing this repercussion for a while and I've seen MUA's with high def experience being asked for even several years ago. MUA's used to play up for the camera, now its like beauty makeup 100% unless its tungsten and talent will sweat. Its like make up for stills but without the sculpting and contouring. Well that is what I've asked for anyway
 
Yeah, I was asked today by a makeup artists if I preferred airbrush and I told her I didn't really care as long as the makeup wasn't visible and "worked" - that's all I cared about. I suppose in-camera sharpening and lighting can make a big difference, but I've come across talent on commercial jobs that never should have been cast because of how "textural" their skin was and in some instances, there's only so much you can do and I think you need to tell the client as much in those cases.

A few years ago a friend of mine did makeup for a series of law firm spots with a female talent who had very pocked skin on her face, and the lady was lit in such a way that the pocks didn't appear which ended up making a shadow on the center of her nose. The client was all upset because of the dark spot on the center of her nose, the cameraman blamed it on the makeup, and the producer/director didn't have the gonads to tell the client that they reached an impasse because of her skin.

One thing I hate having to do is change good lighting because of the talent's complexion.
 
I guess plug-ins is a good thing when under control. Skin masking / smoothing software will become better, as will the general population of computers able to handle 4K and beyond in small studios. It's a non-issue in my opinion, we either adapt or accept, there is no middle ground. Long live progress :)
 
This relates to something I've been pondering. I think making films is about creating misdirection. You force the viewers eyes to something, the idea you want them to grasp before moving on to the next scene. Having too much information for the viewer to take in could mean two things, you need to reduce resolution on some parts of the screen, or increase the cut so that the viewer has time to take in and process what is being shown.

I LOVE HD on nature documentaries for example the bloke who tracked the Arctic solo (not Sir Ralph I'm referring to). The scenery is breathtaking and there isn't so much an idea you try to convey apart from just sharing what you see with your own eyes. But come film making and telling a fictitious story, I think the ballgame is slightly different. I've experienced it quite a few times lately where I am suddenly taken out of the story when a particular scene catches my eye with too much information - I tend to look at all the detail. Off course it is argumentative that me seeing it is just because I am aware of such things where the average audience merely came to watch a movie who are not aware of movie making techniques.

Like I said, it is something I'm pondering with no conclusions, only questions.
 
I think it's like anything, the closer you look at it - the more obvious it becomes. If you look at a woman's face up close in real life, you can see the makeup, similarly if you have a close-up of someone's face on screen - you're going to see makeup there too. The issues only magnified because you're seeing people's face stretched so large in close-ups projected on a big screen.
 
One of the many reasons why I believe 4k and beyond is somewhat unnecessary. I think instead of just shouting "MORE DETAIL, MORE!", we should take a step back and decide whether more resolution would actually enhance cinema or not. I understand the purpose of extreme resolution for nature documentaries or image heavy pieces, as those are all about the image itself. But I feel like in a narrative piece, it could become distracting if it's not kept under control.
 
But you can have soft and dreamy 4K.

I think people get confused between oversharpening (which can be overwhelming and exagerrate bad things eg facial pockmarks - but when used cleverly can be awesome)... vs selective, real, artistic, rich detail (which is quite pleasant).

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Chris Santucci said:
Is the once common practice of using a pro mist or similar filter going to come back now that closeups threaten to disclose an actor's complexion in a big way? I'm definitely starting to see how resolution is unkind to the poor on-camera talent, especially real people.

Makeup can only do so much now that lenses/sensors are resolving SO much detail it seems to me.
Click to expand...

Didn't we just have this discussion? I seem to recall exactly this being discussed in relation to the move from analog to digital TV here in the US. In particular, all the "talent" from local to national news were all up in arms about how "damaging" the move to HDTV was going to be to their careers, how everyone (EVERYONE!) was going to be fired, etc., etc., and etc.

And... nothing much changed beyond improvements to lighting and set design. I didn't hear of any talent at any level being fired because of the move to HDTV. No careers were damaged that I could see. And there definitely is a real increase in image resolution in going from dumb old analog TV (good for around 320 lines of resolution if you're close to and line-of-sight to the transmitter) to HDTV.

The one change I did hear, was that on-air talent began to eat a little better. Old analog TV was known to add 10 lbs or so to ones look, so the talent wanted to be extra skinny. HDTV turned out to be more "truthful" in that way. Is this a bad thing?

The move from S35 film to 4k capture -- not so much. It's more or less the same when you talk about actual image resolution. I don't think makeup artists will even much change their workflows -- for TV they often apply makeup with a camera and monitor nearby anyway so they can check their work to make sure they get the look right for the camera. With digital capture replacing film, this strategy might make inroads onto the narrative set as well. Beyond that, I don't see much changing. But maybe that's just me, IDK.
 
bruceallen said:
But you can have soft and dreamy 4K.

I think people get confused between oversharpening (which can be overwhelming and exagerrate bad things eg facial pockmarks - but when used cleverly can be awesome)... vs selective, real, artistic, rich detail (which is quite pleasant).

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...


You are probably right. I suppose it just seems to me that with higher resolutions, it becomes easy to get overly excited by how sharp everything can be. I love a good crisp image as much as the next guy, but we don't need to see every pore on someones face.
 
IMO The advantage and reason for higher resolution(4K, 5K, 6K, etc.) is not necessarily for increased sharpness but for cleanliness of image. Makeup requires higher quality skills, for sure, but skin representation is but one of the areas for improved cleanliness. . . sets, props, lighting, camera motion all require higher skills in execution to handle higher resolution. Most of all, lens selection, filtration and exposure control effect the new cleanliness of higher resolution. Added sharpness is but an advantage to superior cleanliness of higher resolution. . . but, you've got to know what you are doing.
Ken
 
One thing I've noticed with HDTV and widescreen in general is that we tend to frame less tightly than in the old SD days. That ultra closeup that includes a face all the way from the eyebrows to the mouth worked (in moderation) on my old 12" TV, but just looks scary on a 50" screen, much less the 100" ones we're promised with 8K. As resolution has gone up, we have redefined the meaning of "closeup" and "medium shot" to take in a little more "air" around the subject. This also means that lenses are getting wider, in general. I don't know if we'll notice quite as much of a bump moving from 2K-ish to 4K resolution, but the wider framing overall means that the issues with complexions and makeup are mitigated a bit compared to what they would have been if we'd stuck with SD composition techniques in the HD era. However, it does put more stress on set design because more will be seen, with greater detail.

- Greg
 
jghenderson said:
One of the many reasons why I believe 4k and beyond is somewhat unnecessary. I think instead of just shouting "MORE DETAIL, MORE!", we should take a step back and decide whether more resolution would actually enhance cinema or not.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the increases in resolution in cameras. The main reason I shoot at 4K is because I have to in order to take advantage of the whole Red sensor size. 95% of what I shoot only needs to be 2K in the end.


Bruce Watson said:
The move from S35 film to 4k capture -- not so much. It's more or less the same when you talk about actual image resolution.
Click to expand...

The difference is, more are able to shoot at 4K now (and more often) than before on 35mm film. And I'm gonna guess right now that it won't be too long before 4K becomes the new standard.


Greg Smith said:
One thing I've noticed with HDTV and widescreen in general is that we tend to frame less tightly than in the old SD days. That ultra closeup that includes a face all the way from the eyebrows to the mouth worked (in moderation) on my old 12" TV, but just looks scary on a 50" screen, much less the 100" ones we're promised with 8K. As resolution has gone up, we have redefined the meaning of "closeup" and "medium shot" to take in a little more "air" around the subject.
Click to expand...

I think that's true. I've noticed being slightly wider on closeups lately, but it's also easier (since the image doesn't degrade noticeably) to enlarge in post if needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top