Blemish Remvoal and virtual makeup

[wheatgrinder]

HI all,
I recently worked (WIP) on a project where I needed to fix up the talent a bit. Using techniques from the Video Copilot "Blemish Removal" tutorial I acheved satisfactory results on what ammounts to an extreme makeover.

This video shows a bit of before\after and a few screen shots from the specific AE operations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6h1bFrtnUw


The finished (almost) product can be found here.
http://www.poptent.net/media/29818

 

[Smith]

Wow, that works really well.
looks great.

 

[rayw]

Getting a "Sorry. You do not have permissions to view this page, beyotch" message on the poptent link.

The color correction I see looks fine. Didn't see any blemishes to remove, though.

 

[gpforet]

Kinda looks a little like the Portrait Professional filter, with similar results. Essentially, a softening filter. The thing that stands out the most for me is it's removing alot of texture, which also mean remove thos miniscule shadows, which at least for me, is where all the drama lives. I am married to a top shelf make-up artist who does both conventional and sfx work and 10 minutes in her chair would produce far more realistic results than a softening filter.

Interesting side note, my wife actually spends more time applying blemishes than she does removing them.

 

[wheatgrinder]

Good makeup is much better no doubt, but you don't always have access.
The technique does a good job of keeping detail where you want it, something you have no control over with a softening filter.

 

[directorik]

I agree gpforet.

It's a post production softening filter that in my opinion
looks terrible. I also feel using those soft/diffusion filters
on a lens also look terrible. But these days, "fix it in post"
is no longer a joke but a mantra.

But glad you like the look wheat. Nice to find something
that works for you.

 

[wheatgrinder]

Getting a "Sorry. You do not have permissions to view this page, beyotch" message on the poptent link.

The color correction I see looks fine. Didn't see any blemishes to remove, though.

Awww, you gonna make a great husband some day!

At that low embedded screen size\resolution its hard to see much, HD full screen will show you more.

 

[wheatgrinder]

I agree gpforet.

It's a post production softening filter that in my opinion
looks terrible. I also feel using those soft/diffusion filters
on a lens also look terrible. But these days, "fix it in post"
is no longer a joke but a mantra.

But glad you like the look wheat. Nice to find something
that works for you.

No doubt, It feels a bit like using pitch correcting software for a out of tune vocal track! I hate that!

 

[directorik]

In a way, these "fix it in post" options are making filmmakers more
lazy. Don't get me wrong - I love the new technology (some of it) but
there are still many things that should be done during production. Even
if a filmmaker doesn't always have access.

It used to be that if I didn't have access I would wait until I did. Today
not having access doesn't even slow down way too many filmmakers.
They will fix it in post. Make up is a prime example (as is audio). While
few filmmakers have access to a top makeup artist, every filmmaker
knows a woman who knows a little something about corrective makeup.

Not only do blemishes show up more in HD - so does this type of softening
filter. The good news is these types of software can isolate the face and not
soften the entire frame like a lens filter does.

 

[Dreadylocks]

What happened to the good old days where folks used powdercake makeup and cheesecloth?

 

[gpforet]

And there's the rub. My wife has had to change quite a bit of her kit to support 1080. Makeup that looked great for standard def is nearly unusable for HD. Because of the increased detail, the grain of the standard makeup is highly visible and when used with HD appears to "sit" on top of the skin. Of course, her goal is for her work to be invisible to the camera. Drug store make-up does not cut it for HD work and in addition, nearly all drug store and standard make-up contains UV protection "sunblock". The same attributes which make standard makeup "glow" on the face of a person on the street or at work, becomes a cardinal sin in film work making the actor look pale and lifeless when the actor is lit by tungsten or HMI. And of course, the price of product to support HD resolutions is nearly double. The new stuff is milled to a much finer consistancy.

In a way, these "fix it in post" options are making filmmakers more
lazy. Don't get me wrong - I love the new technology (some of it) but
there are still many things that should be done during production. Even
if a filmmaker doesn't always have access.

It used to be that if I didn't have access I would wait until I did. Today
not having access doesn't even slow down way too many filmmakers.
They will fix it in post. Make up is a prime example (as is audio). While
few filmmakers have access to a top makeup artist, every filmmaker
knows a woman who knows a little something about corrective makeup.

Not only do blemishes show up more in HD - so does this type of softening
filter. The good news is these types of software can isolate the face and not
soften the entire frame like a lens filter does.

 

[wheatgrinder]

seems like all things film related there's a "quality continuum" with this too..
Bad to good... for audio its sorta like this..

On camera mic --> Cheap mic PLUNGED into the camera --> Cheap field Recorder with semi-prom mic --> Pro recorder with Pro mic.

so is "NO makeup" LOWER on the quality continuum then post processing or above it?

 

[gpforet]

Quality...there's a real subjective topic.

Speaking strickly from the issue of post process softening vs. no make-up artist:

I guess like most things in film, it depends. What are you trying to convey. I've worked on projects where on some shots the DP was working for razor sharp focus, and on other shots was intentionally pushing the focus out a bit.
But here's where a tool like this gets confusing. I have never been on a shoot where, when the female actor was meant to appear attractive, she wasn't already wearing some kind of make-up. So the question is not whether to use make-up or do it in post. Make-up was used, but issues such as blemishes were not addressed.

This is the same kind of stuff we face in audio all of the time. Shortcuts, or lack of attention and preparation results in poor production audio. Of course you try to fix it in post rather than leave it a trainwreck. However, the results will NEVER be as good as if proper attention was paid during production. So rather than using the phrase "fix it in the mix", I think a more appropriate phrase would be "bandage it in the mix".

So, the way I see it, do the work properly during production, or settle for some lesser quality using post processing to make up for what could have been a better product if production techniques had been made priority.

 

[wheatgrinder]

I guess Im of the "get er done with wacha got" school of film making. Building up that list of "wacha got" is the part Im done with. Im all geared up, nothing between me and making films but ol Mr. Will and his buddy Idea, oh I suppose a visit from miss Talent and her big sister Skill would be of some benefit. Shoulda Coulda and Woulda dont live her no more!

 

[brianluce]

Kinda looks a little like the Portrait Professional filter, with similar results. Essentially, a softening filter. .

Ahem, sir, I am willing to flatter you and praise you until the end of time if you can convince your wife to join our modest community. Rumor has it she's extraordinary in every way. And you sir, your reputation precedes you, you're reported to be a genius in many fields -- a true Renaissance man.

 

[gpforet]

Wheat, I don't think any of us haven't had to face the "do it with what you have" problem when trying to produce work with limited resources. And I'm in no way bashing what you're trying to do. After having worked on sound side of things for several years, I am scratching and crawling my way into the visuals, having purchased a 60D and slowly building an arsenal of lights, ND filters, proper tripod, flags, scrims, and all the other assorted stuff I've seen used with great benefit when capturing quality visuals. And from the sound side of things, I carry sennheiser rather than Lectros, a PSC mixer rather than SD, and mid level shotguns and hypers, all because I cannot justify the costs vs. benefit (to me) of top shelf everything.

And I also subscribe to the doctrine that I will learn more by doing than by endless planning. The only point I was trying to make is that while post correction tools have their place, they ARE NOT a susbstitute for proper production techniques. I can buy a $200 dollar plugin that will help fix a shortcoming, and the result may be acceptable, but not as good as if I had spent the $200 to hire a make-up artist. Yes, I will have the plugin for future projects but using the plugin instead of a makeup artist will continue to limit the quality of the project. We all make do with what we have and yes, the quality of the output will reveal those limitations. And I don't think it's ever a bad idea to learn both the capabilities and the limitations of any tool, and the only way to learn that is to go out and use it.

I guess Im of the "get er done with wacha got" school of film making. Building up that list of "wacha got" is the part Im done with. Im all geared up, nothing between me and making films but ol Mr. Will and his buddy Idea, oh I suppose a visit from miss Talent and her big sister Skill would be of some benefit. Shoulda Coulda and Woulda dont live her no more!

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I preach "Hire a MUA" all the time. Not directed at you Wheat, I understand this particualr situation. More directed at people (kids) who have gotten this insane notion that you don't need a MUA. Yes, you do, the best one you can afford.

 

[wheatgrinder]

Feeling only love here.. Never felt bashed... getting some good chit chat on this topic. Certainly as the only "makeup" post is right out, but I can definitely see it handy for that thing that gets missed, with a lighter hand. As an example of just how far you can push it, this was a great test for me.

If I need to learn yet another real world skill.. bring it on! Makeup, how hard can it be? (thats a joke by the way, I mean everything is freakin hard to do right)

 

[directorik]

I guess Im of the "get er done with wacha got" school of film making.

Me too.

And finding someone's little sister, or someone's mom or aunt (or the
cute girl in my math class) do help cover a few blemishes was something
I always did.

But then, when I was starting I didn't have software that could fix the
make up. I guess this is part of the learning (and growing) process. Today,
unlike when I was starting, "fix it in post" seems to be the norm.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

My mad luck never ceases to amaze me. On the current film I didn't have to budget to pay the $150 a day plus kit fee I had paid the MUA on my first two films. As luck would have it, a very experienced TV and photo makeup artist responded to my casting call ad asking if I needed a MUA. She has a fairly long list of credits, but no film work, so to get the film credit she's going to work for free (just pay her kit fee of maybe $150 total). Score another one for the good guys.