The Movie Photoshopping Thread

[4K2K]

Is the photoshopping (blurring) of people in movies, where the script doesn't require it generally good or bad? Should they stop applying this technique to movies unless the script really requires it?

Examples of movies with photoshopping (blurring) applied:
Iron Man
The Island
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Ultraviolet
Resident Evil: Extinction

edit:
By photoshopping I mean someone going through the film on a computer and applying a digital gaussian blur filter or other blur/softening to the film (especially people) - I don't mean using the photoshop program but with whatever software they use. Blu-ray is being promoted as being "high definition", yet films are getting gaussian blur or similar techniques applied, and in some cases, parts of the frames can have less resolution than on a standard definition PAL DVD, if we want a movie on Blu-ray in high definition - shouldn't we get the high definition instead of blurring all the resolution away with gaussian blurs?

I've copied these links from a few posts down so people know what I mean:

See this thread for photoshopping (blurring) info in Iron Man: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=66014

See this post from Penton Man: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3158

See this website/post about Sweeney Todd & Resident Evil: Extinction
http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc...in_london.html

[doctorsteve]

Um, could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by photoshopping someone into iron man.

(and, yes, I know what ps is, I'm just not sure who you mean was ps'd into the movie)

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

Um, could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by photoshopping someone into iron man.

(and, yes, I know what ps is, I'm just not sure who you mean was ps'd into the movie)

See this thread for photoshopping info in Iron Man:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=66014

See this post from Penton Man:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3158

See this website/post about Sweeney Todd & Resident Evil: Extinction
http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc...in_london.html

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

See this thread for photoshopping info in Iron Man:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=66014

See this post from Penton Man:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3158

See this website/post about Sweeney Todd & Resident Evil: Extinction
http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc...in_london.html

Gotcha. Enjoyed the movie the othr night. didn't see a damn thing and believe me, I was closely watching miss paltrow

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...9&postcount=38


ok, so it was her bum i was watching...

[4K2K]

I haven't seen the Iron Man movie yet - I was just going by what the people said in that thread

[GreenScar]

I noticed it at the theater when they were outside of the Gala (just after they danced and there were close ups of both Downey Jr and Palthrow). Her face was blurred and it was jarring. I don't mind it if it's not too noticeable but there are some case where their quest for perfection is a little too much.

[Gremal]

You shouldn't be so quick to spread rumors. This is how lies get spread on the net. First of all, the director and cinematographer can opt to shoot someone "soft" and without comments from the original crew involved, I would not feel comfortable making a judgment call about whether something is shot a certain way or postproduced to look a certain way. None of the claims I've seen here have been substantiated by anyone in the know.

Secondly, photoshop is not used in film postproduction. Claims that it is just prove the ignorance of the accuser.

Thirdly, who the heck is some dood on a bulletin board online to question the decisions of a director or cinematographer, or even a studio account exec?

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Gremal

You shouldn't be so quick to spread rumors. This is how lies get spread on the net. First of all, the director and cinematographer can opt to shoot someone "soft" and without comments from the original crew involved, I would not feel comfortable making a judgment call about whether something is shot a certain way or postproduced to look a certain way. None of the claims I've seen here have been substantiated by anyone in the know.

Secondly, photoshop is not used in film postproduction. Claims that it is just prove the ignorance of the accuser.

Thirdly, who the heck is some dood on a bulletin board online to question the decisions of a director or cinematographer, or even a studio account exec?

The post I referenced is by Penton Man and he is on this forum as a Hollywood Insider, and says that this technique is used often and is in peoples contracts etc.

Yes I know it's very unlikely that the program they use is "photoshop" I was just using that as the term "photoshopping" has become a common term or verb to mean "altering an image" or "digital airbrushing" (should I have called it the "movie gaussian blur" thread?) - call it what you want it's just a term I used to give an idea to everyone what I meant. According to Penton Man - the Hollywood Insider - the program some of them actually use is the "Da Vinci 2K Plus system" which has a "defocus PowerWindow option".

Technically wasn't photoshop at one time used by ILM and partially created by ILM Visual Effects Supervisor John Knoll? Though that's really off topic and by photoshopping in this thread I'm referring to what I say in the above paragraph (ie. digitally altering/blurring).

Also, it's a free country, people have a right to question things, including the quality of things they intend to buy or have bought. I personally think if this is is going to be a common thing among new films, particularly films that have had a digital intermediate (or if they use too much DNR on films that didn't have a DI when they transfer them to blu-ray), then I think the quality of films will be poorer, and there will be less point of having things in high definition if due to gaussian blurs some scenes/parts of scenes have less resolution than PAL standard definition DVD. As a Blu-ray reviewer, shouldn't you too be questioning the quality of movies also, and not just saying "who are we to question the director's/film-maker's decisions"? You seem to be criticising the decisions of the film-makers and the quality of the film "Natural Born Killers" on Blu-ray, so why can't other forum members question film-makers who choose to use gaussian blur filters on high definition/SD movies?

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Secondly, photoshop is not used in film postproduction. Claims that it is just prove the ignorance of the accuser.

According to industry insider Jeff Kleist photoshop has and is being used in film post-production
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...7&postcount=43

[Deciazulado]

This has been done since the dawn of Cinema. Ladies stockings, diffusion filters, soft focus, photoshop, it's only rock 'n roll.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

This has been done since the dawn of Cinema. Ladies stockings, diffusion filters, soft focus, photoshop, it's only rock 'n roll.

Except that every other method except using CGI or digital manipulation of the footage gives a more correct result.

ie. add a soft focus filter on the actual camera and everything (or certain areas of the frame) will be softer, but still "3d" (2d picture but the shadows and everything will be correct, giving depth to the image). When a person moves during the scene everything will still also be correct (but still softer than without the camera filter).

If they use poor quality computer generated filters and just blur certain parts of the frame it flattens the image/can give a look similar to too much DNR and can make people look like wax/cgi.

Therefore, I'd prefer they use makeup, filters on the camera, special lighting or focusing of the actual camera (or just move the people a bit further away - or else not bother with 'vanity' filters at all as I bet most of the time they're not necessary - they should only use filters for good cinematography reasons not vanity reasons) instead of doing an effect later in post which flattens the image and can give the look I described above.

There are a few films where the script probably benefits from it like the scene in X-men 3: The Last Stand where they show a scene that is set x years in the past or scenes in films where someone's supposed to rapidly age as part of an effect, but other than things like that, I think it would be a lot better if they use the normal in-camera technique so things look correct.

[Variable]

whatever is happening, and however they are doing it... why could you possibly have a problem with it? A movie should look how the director wants it too.

edit - there is no poll option for my feelings, "who cares, the director should do whatever he wants to put out the film as he sees fit".

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Variable

whatever is happening, and however they are doing it... why could you possibly have a problem with it? A movie should look how the director wants it too.

Because
1) I want high definition movies to be high definition, not less than PAL SD definition
2) Because I think people in movies that are meant to be real people should look like real people not flat, waxy, CGI approximations of people, if I wanted that I'd watch a CGI animation

[Variable]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Because
1) I want high definition movies to be high definition, not less than PAL SD definition
2) Because I think people in movies that are meant to be real people should look like real people not flat, waxy, CGI approximations of people, if I wanted that I'd watch a CGI animation

well if a given director uses this technique poorly, I'm sorry. I don't think that means the entire concept should be thrown out the window. I'm gonna stoip posting on it now since I'm realizing I haven't experienced this to any great extent, or if I have I didn't notice. don't mind me.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Variable

well if a given director uses this technique poorly, I'm sorry. I don't think that means the entire concept should be thrown out the window. I'm gonna stoip posting on it now since I'm realizing I haven't experienced this to any great extent, or if I have I didn't notice. don't mind me.

As an example, watch the trailer for Ultraviolet and see how much actual detail you can see in people's faces, especially the main character's face (select Trailer one Large video clip)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_p...s/ultraviolet/

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

This has been done since the dawn of Cinema. Ladies stockings, diffusion filters, soft focus, photoshop, it's only rock 'n roll.

Wasn't there an SNL skit making fun of the old Elizabeth Taylor perfume commercials?

For me personally, I don't think it's needed. Some actors(actresses) have this written into their contracts I believe, to cover skin blemishes. So as long as they have a say, I don't think it's going to go away.

[LynxFX]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

As an example, watch the trailer for Ultraviolet and see how much actual detail you can see in people's faces, especially the main character's face (select Trailer one Large video clip)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_p...s/ultraviolet/

Bad example, that is how Ultraviolet is supposed to look. They wanted an ultra smooth surreal look. Pure director's intent. This is nothing like your initial complaint which is really the magazine equivalent of airbrushing out blemishes and wrinkles.

Should it or shouldn't it be used? Personally I never notice, unless they do some really bad tracking which doesn't happen much these days.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by LynxFX

Bad example, that is how Ultraviolet is supposed to look. They wanted an ultra smooth surreal look. Pure director's intent. This is nothing like your initial complaint which is really the magazine equivalent of airbrushing out blemishes and wrinkles.

Should it or shouldn't it be used? Personally I never notice, unless they do some really bad tracking which doesn't happen much these days.

I thought it was a good example of what the effect actually looks like (probably more extreme and used throughout the entire movie), but will still show the effect (they have airbrushed out practically everything in the main character's face, as well as other characters - but usually to a lesser extent than the main character).

Directors Intent? In Penton's thread he said they ran out of money while filming it, maybe that's partly why they made it look like that (as well as why the CGI buildings etc. are not as detailed as they could be). Maybe it helped remove green-spill from all the greenscreen work - that's just my guess though. Or perhaps it was just vanity and that was the best photoshopping they could do with the limited time and budget they had?

You could claim director's intent on all the movies I've listed, like Iron Man, Resident Evil Extinction, Sweeney Todd, The Island etc. but in my view films would be usually better without this effect for the reasons I described above.

Check out Penton's post here:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=4513

where he says that

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Besides other types of intentional post processing (including oversaturated colors), Ultraviolet is a good example of what I was talking about here

where he says stuff including:

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Colorists are routinely asked by the filmmaker to “soften” actors’ faces to mask imperfections. Basically, a Gaussian blur is applied to soften the face and often times a luminance key is used in tandem to put a glow on the highlights

[PCiAM]

Originally Posted by LynxFX

Bad example, that is how Ultraviolet is supposed to look. They wanted an ultra smooth surreal look. Pure director's intent. This is nothing like your initial complaint which is really the magazine equivalent of airbrushing out blemishes and wrinkles.

Should it or shouldn't it be used? Personally I never notice, unless they do some really bad tracking which doesn't happen much these days.

Exactly. You could make a case for or against "photoshopping" in most traditional movies, but Ultraviolet looked "photoshopped" as some of you would say on purpose. You could tell this was how the film was intended to look by the director--it wasn't supposed to look realistic.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by PCiAM

Exactly. You could make a case for or against "photoshopping" in most traditional movies, but Ultraviolet looked "photoshopped" as some of you would say on purpose. You could tell this was how the film was intended to look by the director--it wasn't supposed to look realistic.

Look at the posts I linked to above by Hollywood Insider Penton-Man about that film about how he said that not only were the colours over saturated (intentionally) but he links from that post to one showing that faces are softened (gaussian blurred) by the colorists on purpose to hide actor's 'blemishes' and back in the original post about Ultraviolet he further describes how they soften/gaussian blur actor's faces.