MattC Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Since I'm scheduled to shoot this scene this weekend, I sure hope so! Ok, here's the gig, The first set of three photos I took directly from my editor with some post work done. They're still brighter than I wanted but I want you to see what I'm working with. I decided to go with mixed color temperatures, moonlight/candlelight and have to say I do like the effect. The second set looks too red in my browser but looks just right on my spiffy new production monitor so that's what I'm going with (just try and imagine a little less red if it seems to much, LOL!). Also, for the second set I experimented with making some quick masks to simulate DOF. You will see some uglies around the candle, it's not the camera, it was me doing the effect very quickly with a mouse instead of a tablet. Ok, here it goes. First set: Now the second set which has had more work and the simulated DOF: Let me know what you think! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent J. Craig Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 I'm not sure how you're simulating depth of field, but your examples don't feel 'right' to me. Restoring or creating some select focus is a good way to lend a more filmic look to miniDV footage, so I assume that is why you are doing it. Remember that DOF isn't about selecting random objects to be soft, it's about how lenses render objects that are not at the exact point of focus less and less sharp depending on how far they are away from that point. In your examples there are things are different distances that are all sharp while other things at the same distances are soft. That doesn't read to my eye as DOF. If your system can make use of Photoshop filters, I use a great one called Varifocus. While it still does not reproduce true DOF, it allows you gradations of softness that are much more believable. With a bit of practice and a knowledge of how real DOF works you can do some nice things. One trick is to mask of the objects that will be at your point of focus and only let the filter work on the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattC Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 Thanks Brent, I know you're right. I did all three of those in about five minutes making a very quick mask and applying a couple of levels of blur. When I do it for real, I will certainly take your advise! But, uh, what did you think of the lighting? Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Bass Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Hewwo. I'm assuming in this scenario that the candles and the moon (the bluish light) are supposed to be the sources? Take a lot of the light off the background, behind the characters. Maybe make the dark side of the faces darker, to accentuate the "candlelight." Also, what might look real sweet, if you can pull it off, is this: notice the candles behind the dude? Use some kind of light to create an edge light, noticably brighter, hotter than the main light source on his face, to simulate this other pair of candles. That's my amateurish two bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetorian Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I like the second set of prints with the darkness, but it is not flattering to the male subject. He looks splotchy and sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvin Pingol Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 With a bit of practice and a knowledge of how real DOF works you can do some nice things.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very true; The following setup was shot wide open but did not provide as shallow a depth of field as I wanted. I scanned the positive (it was E6 film) and in Photoshop, drew mask to select the area that I wanted in focus and heavily feathered it. The focus falloff looks much more natural that way. Unfortunately, the raw scan must be on a disk somewhere, as I can't seem to locate it on my hard drive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted March 3, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 3, 2005 Very true; The following setup was shot wide open but did not provide as shallow a depth of field as I wanted. I scanned the positive (it was E6 film) and in Photoshop, drew mask to select the area that I wanted in focus and heavily feathered it. The focus falloff looks much more natural that way. Unfortunately, the raw scan must be on a disk somewhere, as I can't seem to locate it on my hard drive... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That book doesn't look like ntural depth of field at all. Things that are the same distance from the lens should be blurred the same amount. There you can easily see that it is altered, especially since print is a VERY easy indicator of sharp focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvin Pingol Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Eh. Looks better on paper. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now