AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,974 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was flying home from Dallas yesterday and was reading the airline magazine which had a story about how actors are really concerned with how they look on HDTV. Acne, vericose viens, wrinkles, and uneven skin tones are all crystal clear and make up artists are scrambling for solutions. The best so far is to air brush on make up since caking too much make up on in HD makes the actor look like a talking corpse. They listed the best and worst looking in HD. Amoung the best were Angelina Jolie, Cathrine Zeta Jones, and Jude Law and the worst were Jone Rivers (what a surprise), Brad Pitt, and Michael Douglas. Funny that Pitt and Douglas were ranked amoung the worst while their wives were amoung the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
I think they should just stop worrying about it. Skin imperfections are one of my favorite things to see in HD -- they always make me think "what a great picture!", not "that person looks bad". They don't look bad; they look real.


Conversely, it's annoying when people are overly concerned about it, because it drives some bad production decisions. When they artifically soften the picture, I never think "that person looks good"; only "that picture sucks".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,997 Posts

lexa695 said:
how actors are really concerned with how they look on HDTV.
Actors? You should hear how some of the local news anchors are worried..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,974 Posts
Discussion Starter #6

Quote:
Originally Posted by phtnhappy /forum/post/0


It's not only the people, it's some of the cheesy new sets unless they are re-done for HD.

I'm not sure I understand you. Can you clarify?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,180 Posts
Film stars have had to worry about that for decades since film is very high resolution and projected to much larger sizes than on home screens!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695 /forum/post/0


I'm not sure I understand you. Can you clarify?

Sure! The same things where about being able to see (figuratively AND literally!) the warts from actors apply to seeing thigns such as seams in the joins of news set walls, uneven or poor paint, etc. HD is revealing of any surface, no matter if it is a live person or a news set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695 /forum/post/0


I'm not sure I understand you. Can you clarify?

If you watch the Lost episode before the finale. When Charlie is in the hatch, the wall behind him has all kinds of bolts, pipes, portals, etc.. that were obviously painted on. Watching the SD version, it looks fine, but in HD, it looks very fake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,974 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
OK, I see what you people are referring to. I never noticed the news sets because all our news programs in NY are in SD. I don't watch lost either so I never did notice that. I guess the Sopranos and 24 do a good job as I never noticed anything looking fake or I just wasn't paying close attn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I just got HD yesterday and was amazed to see the detail. My wife was surprised to see the razor burns on the actors that we could never see before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,363 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe /forum/post/0


Actors? You should hear how some of the local news anchors are worried..

Indeed, HDTV is going to shorten a lot of TV news anchors carriers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,942 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695 /forum/post/0


I'm not sure I understand you. Can you clarify?

You'd be amazed how much you can get away with in SD with chipped, cracked, bashed and poorly/cheaply executed sets which look shocking to the naked eye. When you shoot the same set in HD you suddenly see how bad it really is on camera - and it matches pretty much what you see if you look at the set in person.


If your set is built well, handled well, lit well and looks good to the naked eye when you are shooting in SD, it is likely to look good in HD. If corners have been cut and there has been an "oh the viewer won't see that" attitude during construction, setting / de-rigging, and maintenance, you'll catch a cold if you try shooting it in HD.


As for make-up - airbrushing is proving popular in some areas - but there is also a feeling that the odd imperfection makes anchors look a bit more human and "real". I don't want to see a "Photoshopped" android tell me what is happening in the world - I want someone who might actually be a believable journalist... Does having acne in your teens mean you can't be trusted?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
Are they suggesting that there is a difference between being shot on HD and being shot on film (and exhibited on film)? I wouldn't imagine a huge difference since film has higher resolution. Curious that they'd make a point of mentioning Jolie, Zeta Jones, Law, Pitt and Douglas as they're all actors who work pretty much exclusively for the big screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,942 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNair /forum/post/0


Are they suggesting that there is a difference between being shot on HD and being shot on film (and exhibited on film)? I wouldn't imagine a huge difference since film has higher resolution. Curious that they'd make a point of mentioning Jolie, Zeta Jones, Law, Pitt and Douglas as they're all actors who work pretty much exclusively for the big screen.

I guess it could be more related to when they are interviewed for TV on video rather than appearing on film (where high make-up standards are expected)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,485 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNair /forum/post/0


Are they suggesting that there is a difference between being shot on HD and being shot on film (and exhibited on film)? I wouldn't imagine a huge difference since film has higher resolution. Curious that they'd make a point of mentioning Jolie, Zeta Jones, Law, Pitt and Douglas as they're all actors who work pretty much exclusively for the big screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 /forum/post/0


I guess it could be more related to when they are interviewed for TV on video rather than appearing on film (where high make-up standards are expected)

Exactly. Film makeup is done with a lot more care - and for a lot more money. You also have those people available (and more time) for constant touch-ups. On a TV show - particularily interview shows - you often don't have the luxury of a long make-up session. In addition, TV and film makeup are actually different animals due to the differences in the way film vs. video cameras record information, the type of lighting used and the amount of lighting required.


Traditionally, the a close cousin of the "pancake" style of makeup has been used in TV since you don't see that "cemented" look. It's similar to (but better developed than) the early stuff used before scope films came around. The technique has always been "make-up covers all". Now, the make-up artists are having to learn to work with less to create the same effect. One way, as mentioned above, is with airbrushing make-up on. It creates a fine mist layer that covers blemishes and gets rid of the chalky look, but doesn't look like it came from the Tammy Fay school of cosmetics. You literally use the same type of airbrush model builders use.


This issue will go away once the newer techniques become more common. Of course, the local news stations will be slow to embrace them due to cost. It's very hard to airbrush your own make-up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,151 Posts
Or maybe people'll just grow up.


Good looking actors/actresses/models have high cheek bones, symmetrical features, etc. but otherwise they're HUMAN. I mean, good god, if I met Charlize Theron in real life and she wasn't perfectly made up and I could see actual pores or whatever on her face, I wouldn't go running in the other direction screaming in horror. I would say, damn, it's Charlize Theron!


The same guy who wrote that article probably also complains about how vain and insecure actors are and how they're ruining HDTV by demanding soft filtering etc. Gee, I wonder how they get that way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,485 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by barth2k /forum/post/0


The same guy who wrote that article probably also complains about how vain and insecure actors are and how they're ruining HDTV by demanding soft filtering etc. Gee, I wonder how they get that way?

Wait, so you expect the same people who make actors out to be perfect gifts from the hands of God himself to not tear them down and show them to be vain and defective examples of the human race? Shame on you for having confidence in the media....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,893 Posts
Phillip Swann has made a career out of this one idea -- lampooning the looks and supposed vanity of those who make their living in the public eye.


Which makes it even funnier that in recent days he has started posting videos of himself (nothing expensive, just Youtube stuff) on his website.


Too bad the celebs whose looks he has laughed at (who are, of course, mainly middle aged and older women) don't take shots back at him for HIS appearance.
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top