Soft Focus

slowtiger · Post by **slowtiger** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:37 pm

For instance camera blur. There is no need for it in digital production.

Oh yes, there is. (Maybe we should use the term "motion blur" because most here are more familiar with that.)

There is an important relation between film speed (fps), the amount of overlap of moving objects on one frame relative to the next frame, and the speed of said objects (relative to screen size), which is necessary to create the illusion of movement in the audience.

The more you increase the film speed, the less you have the need for motion blurring. Right now cameramen and -women who work digitally all face the problem of having a too short aperture time for our standard film/video speed of 24 fps - 30 fps. If not taken care of, this leads to a very distracting viewing experience, especially in fast movements.

Film grain added to digital output is another useless unneeded effect.

Remember why Spielberg deliberately chose 1K resolution for exposing his digital dinosaurs onto film? Because grain, like most other living textures, blur the edges of any montage and so helps the illusion.

Then there's the problem of banding (see elsewhere in this forum). Grain, or any other stochastic noise, prevents banding.

And everything textured pleases the eye, in contrast to something coloured perfectly flat. I'd point you to Herbert W. Franke's "Phänomen Kunst" if it were available somewhere for you; he gave a quantitative explanation for this kind of effect. Also don't forget neurophysiological effects: a certain "noise level" actually sharpens perception, whereas plain flat signals cause erros.

Aside from those still convincing technical reasons, there's also the conscious decision of any director to use these means of stylization to his purpose. So I don't think those artifacts are just technological ballast to be overcome with time and newer technology.

(And AS still has the "noise grain" option in the project settings. Quite usefull sometimes.)

heyvern · Post by **heyvern** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:10 pm

I agree with you Slowtiger. I LOVE motion blur. It looks so cool. I remember as a kid trying to figure out exactly why Harryhausen stuff just... wasn't quite real. I loved it but could tell there was something missing. Then Lucas figured it out for Return by adding motion blur (somehow... it was before digital editing) during the stop motion.

Adding film grain does relieve banding and hide... stuff.

I guess my point was that ALL of those things, motion blur, film grain, started out as aspects of the technology. They weren't "choices" made when the technology was being invented and developed. They were inherent limitations to the process. Maybe limitations is not the correct word. These days we all LOVE those limitations... but how many SFX movies still use stop motion? Those of us who grew up during this change over in film making and animation want those "artifacts" but the next generation will slowly move away from it. With higher FPS motion blur won't be needed. "motion blur" will be in the viewers eye naturally.

The 72 or 75 FPS film that has been experimented with is the maximum number of frames per second the eye can perceive. Beyond that the human eye can't percieve a difference from reality. So eventually there won't be annoying effects with fast motion on film.

As video and projection technology improve the aspect of "motion blur" in film will be "real". If a car zooms past on screen and you don't focus on it, it will appear to be "blurred". If however you lock onto it visually the car will appear sharp and in focus as it would in "real life".

-vern

slowtiger · Post by **slowtiger** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:44 pm

heyvern wrote:Those of us who grew up during this change over in film making and animation want those "artifacts" but the next generation will slowly move away from it. With higher FPS motion blur won't be needed.

Right. Of course technology will develop further, and how people will relate to certain aspects will always depend on their upbringing.

Technical restrictions always shape artistic expression, this is true for every medium. But the moment a restriction is overcome, it will still be used, but this time as a means of choice by the artist. That's the point I like very much, and I'm happy to be at this point in history where affordable digital technology allows me to consciously choose my means of expression.

(Today I spent some time to photograph a piece of cardboard and make it into an Ingres Paper texture in Photoshop, to use it as paper structure in TVP with my self-defined crayon tool. Talk about old-fashioned!)

Rudiger · Post by **Rudiger** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:34 am

Wow, really great discussion guys. I try to have discussions like these with my real-world friends, but I see them start to reach for the nearest sharp object as soon as I get going.

I agree with slowtiger, in that certain artifacts can be aesthetically pleasing (aside from the familiarty aspect). For example, I'm familiar with seeing MPEG-2 block-artifacts in digital video, but I don't think we'll be seeing an After Effects plugin for emulating them any time soon! Therefore, I think there may still be a call for certain analog-type effects in the future, even when technology allows them to be optional. IMO, the goal of cinema has never been 100% realism or as close as your technology will allow anyway.

Oh and thanks for the info about the double-exposure with soft-focus pass, slowtiger. I will try some experiments to see how this looks when done digitally.

chucky · Post by **chucky** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:48 am

you could do the same with AS using copies of layers in the same way.
Set the blur on the copied layer and opacity use layer blending mode ADD or screen, (play with these to get the desired look also layer order could play a part here.)
NikNak with layer copy on add with 50% opacity blur radius on 20

Rudiger · Post by **Rudiger** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:05 am

Wow, that would be a great look for a dream sequence or something. Thanks.

heyvern · Post by **heyvern** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:08 am

Rudiger wrote:I'm familiar with seeing MPEG-2 block-artifacts in digital video, but I don't think we'll be seeing an After Effects plugin for emulating them any time soon!

Hah! the irony! You can already see that effect simulated for movies and television. I wonder if they just compress the heck out if and screen capture it or maybe someone does have a filter for this (like the "TV" filter I have in Photoshop).

p.s. Someday they will have a reality show on PBS where several families will volunteer for 3 months to live in a primitive village with one computer hooked to a 14k modem that only connects to a BBS, one TV per house hold and a single phone that is connected to the wall. And some of them might have a VHS videocamera that they have to balance on their shoulder (my parents still have one of those.)

-vern

slowtiger · Post by **slowtiger** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:24 am

Rudiger wrote:I'm familiar with seeing MPEG-2 block-artifacts in digital video, but I don't think we'll be seeing an After Effects plugin for emulating them any time soon!

It has already been used. The feature animation "We Are The Strange" is full of digital textures, many of them stem from video noise, artifacts, bluescreens, and so on. The occasional glitch of a badly tracking video tape was used as early as in "Max Headroom", and I think even earlier in experimental video of that time. We all know how images of alleged survey cameras in film or TV series are peppered with visible lines, additional noise, and so on.

There's a parallel in music and sound design. There are digital emulations of all classic analogue effects, like tube amplifiers, Leslie cabinets, and so on. But there are also Bit Crushers and other plug-ins which fake digital Lo-Fi. I think we safely could say "One generation's artifact is next generation's effect (plug-in)".

chucky · Post by **chucky** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:54 am

magic bullet looks IS a bit pricey, but I bumped into this that may be useful if you have the right host app
http://www.dvshade.com/Welcome.html
At $ 49.00 it looks pretty good, -not as good of course as the magic bullet

I should have mention in my last post regarding the bloom effect using AS,that the effect using NIKNAK was limited to a light bloom.
Blooms can of course work in the opposite way to the dark end.
These effeect of course are better achieved using those proper grading apps, for realistic and sexy diffusions.

Here is the best dark diffusion I could get using anime only.

unfortunately the gif reduces the colours, and therefore the effect a bit so here's a png -oh for png quality web anims.

Here is the recipe...
Original group layer layer settings... default visibility settings
Copy1 of original group layer settings -blending mode... multiply- blur radius 14- opacity 100%
Copy2 of original group layer settings -blending mode... screen - blur radius 0 - opacity 50% (this compensates for the general darkness of the previous layer)
Notice in anime you can leave the effect off layers of your choice, in this case the background.

Here is the same image using Magic bullet , aiming for the same effect- much quicker and easier, just save the preset for later.

Note: when rendering this effect with transparency from Anime unfortunately the blur is effected by the black field rendered in the background as transparency which ruins the effect e.g. below.

All in all AS slows down a fair bit if you want to imitate these post effects, and if you want to bloom both black and white or get more tricky still, just get the plugins, it is worth it.

dm · Post by dm » Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:40 am

Standard rant #17:

Throwing technology at an interpretive medium doesn't necessarily improve it. It's hard to watch a Showscan film for an extended period of time (60 FPS). It's just too vivid, and I think there's too much information for our brains to process in a happy way. It's a great experience, but not one that I would want to have regularly. Sort of like riding a roller coaster every day? Low 'data rates' actually seem easier for us to accept. Do you really go to a movie to get closer to reality?

A photo, a movie, animation, painting-any visual media is an isolation and interpretation of reality. Focus maintains importance. Out of focus adds atmosphere. You have your character on a white background, and it's the only focus. You have your character on a busy, in focus background, and your eyes have to dart about trying to figure out what to pay attention to. You have your character on a busy, but soft background, and you get a sense of place, but still pay attention to the main (in focus) character.

Digital projection is lacking. Slowtiger's comment on Stochastic applies here. The same pixels in the same place all of the time give your mind time to focus on them-it's a texture unto itself. Compression artifacts detract from the experience as well. Who cares how many pixels there are up there, if they're ultra-compressed? Digital projection isn't to get people into the theaters, it's to save money on print distribution.

Most of society is a victim of the advertising. You're told digital is better quality, you buy into that. You're told grain is bad, so you buy into that as well. "Sorry, Seurat, your paintings aren't valid anymore-resolution is too low." I'm amazed that people can be so thrilled with watching movies in their cell phones or on YouTube-and yet these same people have to have a Hi-Def TV with Blu-Ray-for the 'quality'. Are old movies just unwatchable because of their grain structure (and because they aren't 7.1 Dolby audio)? Is the garbage on TV any better now that it's HD? Did you know that Hi-Def shot on 35mm film actually uses less image area than 4:3 TV does? That ought to do some fun things to grain.

There's nothing wrong with cels. I still use ink and paint regularly. Planned well, it doesn't take any more time or effort than doing it all in a computer (and it often looks better too). Oh, wait. This is cutout-ville. Maybe this is beyond comprehension.

created by the Rant-O-Matic, from Ronco...

chucky · Post by **chucky** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:43 am

Good Troll work DM. Thanks for that.

synthsin75 · Post by **synthsin75** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:51 am

dm wrote:This is cutout-ville.

I was all with you until that bit. I have yet to be seriously wowed by any of the HD stuff. But I take exception to that characterization of AS. AS is capable of far more than cut-out (and with a significant savings of work time over traditional).

But I know you're no die hard AS fan, so you can feel free to take that with a grain of salt.

slowtiger · Post by **slowtiger** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:13 pm

dm wrote:It's hard to watch a Showscan film for an extended period of time (60 FPS). It's just too vivid, and I think there's too much information for our brains to process in a happy way.

Interesting. I still haven't seen any of that, so I must test this.

I have mentioned Herbert W. Franke's "Phänomen Kunst" elsewhere, it was the first expression of the idea that there's an optimum for data flow for the human brain. Since that science has found more about this. The actual numbers should be available somewhere.

"Sorry, Seurat, your paintings aren't valid anymore-resolution is too low."

May I borrow this? Pleeease!

Are old movies just unwatchable because of their grain structure (and because they aren't 7.1 Dolby audio)?

If you ever had the pleasure to see a brand new 35 mm copy directly from a nitro negative from 1920, you wouldn't believe it was film. The old b/w film stocks had a resolution far more superior than any colour film stock, and the nitro base was much clearer than any polyester one.

chucky · Post by **chucky** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:27 pm

Yeah I find reality hard to process, that's way too vivid also.

dm · Post by dm » Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:20 pm

slowtiger wrote:If you ever had the pleasure to see a brand new 35 mm copy directly from a nitro negative from 1920, you wouldn't believe it was film. The old b/w film stocks had a resolution far more superior than any colour film stock, and the nitro base was much clearer than any polyester one.

I agree. The blacks are 'velvety'. Silver does a much better job of attenuating light than dye clouds. Well done Monochromatic images are often more powerful than well done color images. (photographic, ink, charcoal, et. al.). Probably has to do with that distillation of reality thing. (often being an important modifier here).

sure, have fun with the Seurat comment.

I looked into (briefly) the concept of "Phänomen Kunst" after your earlier mention of it. What I found was science trying to attach bit rates to human perception. Hopefully, I'll find something more meaningful in the future. It is intriguing.

"cutoutville" isn't directed at AS. I don't use it [AS] that way. It's pervasive enough to be noticeable though (cutout user commentary, that is). For all it matters "Anime" doesn't do the software justice either (at least in the current, popular [mis]interpretation of the word).

How did this topic start? Something about focus? I guess the 'background' is blurring a bit, isn't it?