What effect does HDTV have on costume/set designers?

Now that everything’s going HDTV, does that make the jobs of costume & set designers, and makeup artists much more difficult? It used to be no one would notice the glue/tape/safety pins holding things together, or the somewhat sloppy makeup, or the occasional nail sticking out of a prop. How about now? Does everything have to be pretty much perfect?

I remember when HDTV first came out, I read about how disconcerting it could be to suddenly realize just how much makeup your favorite newscaster was wearing. Is that the case, HDTV owners? Can you see everyone’s blackheads, zits, nose hairs and too much cake makeup?

Yes. The first time I saw an HDTV broadcast, it was of the olympics. The sportscaster’s complexions were truly frightening.

I’ve heard that a whole new level of makeup has had to be developed for newscasters and such, but I don’t have a cite to back that up.

You are correct in saying that a whole new something had to be invented. What the engineering wonks have done ( and, had done successfully pre-HDTV ) is design a set of software tools that allow the Senior Video Op ( SVO ) to “paint” skin detail separate from the rest of a shot. This may sound beyond belief, but it is true. I’ve sat in quite a number of times and watched the SVO paint skin tone and detail. Similarly, I am asked by the SVO incessantly to give them a real close-up so they can do some detailing, each time we put someone new in a shot- or when the lighting cue changes.

Human skin is what it is. Make-up is what it is ( no slight to the professional make-up artists out there, to be sure ! ). One cannot re-work skin. One can alter how the electronics that are processing the (now) HDTV image perceive skin. Skin is smoothed out, etc. Tone is altered. And so on.

The first time I ever saw HDTV was in Narita Airport. I had two 4-month old infants in my arms. I saw a HDTV monitor, and a large standard resolution monitor. They were about 20 feet apart, facing eachother- playing the identical Sumo wrestling match videotape. The difference was startling.

You can see eeeeeeverything. To address the OP’s query, yes people are very careful now about how they fix up things quickly on set. Lighting is used to try to protect poorly built backdrops and sets. After all, a dimly-lit background at 725 lines is as tough to see at 1125 lines of resolution. The “dim” just looks crisper.

Art directors and props have it rough. Similarly costume folks. Aside from music videos and some very low budget projects, one very rarely finds nails and screws protruding from sets. :slight_smile: What one does find are inconsistencies in color or texture that used to kind of fuzz out a bit. Now all is clear. Truly clear.

There is one interesting by-product of the shift to HDTV. The depth of focus is much shallower in High Def. So, if you have a shitload of light ( that’s a technical term meaning, " a shit-load of light " :smiley: ) shining on someone performing in the round, the first few rows will be lit pretty well. In standard resolution, those folks would be a bit out of focus at any medium to long focal length. Now with HDTV, those folks are MORE out of focus at the identical focal length, and are fuzzy at wider focal lengths. So, you can see more critical detail in people but unless the camera is focused specifically on them, the details are likely to be a bit more out of focus. Make sense?

I got out of big-camera Steadicam work just as High Def was really hitting. I did shoot a documentary called “Swinging With The Duke” on Duke Ellington. Watching the show on a High Def monitor was amazing. One could see not only details of the instruments that were not so clear previously- but if I was close enough, I could see things reflected in the instruments. ( Horns, etc.- smooth brass areas ). My monitor was standard def, and the truck had to use a download converter panel to feed me that 725 lines image back so I was not blind. Many HDTV cameras now have a download converter chip in them, so someone shooting HDTV can see the shot on a standard res monitor. Of course, the download converter keeps the HDTV aspect ratio of 16:9, so you are still framing a letterboxed image.

No matter how high the lines of resolution go, it always comes back to content, content, content. To use that infamous quote from the feature film “Christine”,

Cartooniverse

Yes. A single strand of misplaced hair. A tiny hole where a blackhead had been. Rough cuticles when they scratch their noses. A zit in a patch of chin hair. It’s all there.

**BUT ** that’s on the really good HD channels (the ones that are broadcast at 1080i) and with really good cabling (like gold plated HDMI). Ordinary channels look even worse than they do when viewed on ordinary TV. But the right channel on the right equipment is really just amazing.

I was watching an interview on INHD when the guest swatted at a gnat. Not a fly. A gnat. It really didn’t occur to me what an event that was until the guest stopped to remark, “You know what? Your show being HD and all, people probably saw that gnat.” Yes. We did.

On one of those entertainment shows a couple years back, they mentioned that for the upcoming Oscar (or was it Emmy?) show being broadcast in HD for the first time, many of the stars - female and male - were going to professional makeup artists right before the show as they were very aware of everyone on the planet seeing that zit forming next to their nose.

I have been watching the World Series on my HD and I have to admit, with close ups of the players, you really can see tiny scars, ingrown hairs, grey hairs…you sometimes feel like you should back up a few steps to give the guy some space.

Next really cool invention: Smell-O-Vision! Not only can you see your favorite sports star’s zits, now you can smell his pits!

And to think, roughly 20 years ago, Jeff Smith (aka the Frugal Gourmet) was juicing a lemon in an ECU (extreme close-up - the whole frame was pretty much filled with his hands and the lemon) and a seed or two slipped past him and into the bowl. He said something like “Did you see that seed? You must have a really good set!”

With HD, that seed would look as if a bowling ball popped out of the lemon.

The producers of the new Battlestar Galactica discuss in their behind-the-scenes material how much extra effort they’ve had to expend in set design and dressing because of the improvements in production technology. These are available in short-film form on the official website (scifi.com/battlestar).

I guess this means “Lost” has it easy. They shoot in the rain forest, and their lead actors are filthy-dirty. :slight_smile:

I was especially curious how this would affect sci-fi shows, since they seem heavy on makeup & costumes. I’m thinking something like Farscape would be tough in HDTV.

How about CGI? Does it take significantly more computer processing power to render special effects in Hi Def?

:smiley: I know exactly what you mean! Extreme face close-ups are like, “Gah! Get that guy out of my mouth!”

I just read some article recently that listed the top 5 and bottom 5 TV celebs that looked good in Hi-Def.
I don’t remember most of them but I do remember them saying David Letterman looked in bad shape on HD. They said his age really showed through with the wrinkles, thinning hair, etc.

I’ve never seen a HDTV, but from the descriptions here I am not sure it will be a good thing.

Do we really want to see those imperfections? If we don’t then of course make up, editing technology etc will have to develop to make things seem perfect again. So what have we then gained?

I don’t know what resolution they render CGI at for regualr TV / movies, but processing time certainly does increase with resolution. Especially as you get into photorealistic CGI lighting effects.

Wow. Good answer, Cartooniverse . Seriously.

I do remember reading an article a while back (sorry, no cite) that said evening news programs were spending rather more money then their budgets allowed trying to spruce up their sets for HDTV.

Sigh. I don’t have HD. Sigh.

thwartme

Good question. I don’t necessarily want to see every pore on an actors face, but it’s probably really nice for things like nature documentaries.

I wonder what sort of effect HDTV will have on political campaign events such as presidential debates and national conventions. Even more choreography and less spontaneity?

Why is the depth of field shallower with HD? Do the cameras need so much more light that they need to open the lenses another stop or two?

Just wondering as with film, it’s the lens aperture that governs depth of field, as opposed to the film’s resolution or grain size.

Here though chip size has a correlation to depth of field as well.
I’ve always preferred shallow depth of field myself but that’s probably better suited for narratives.

Although that soft audience on Weakest Link right now looks pretty nice.

The same problems with makeup, costume, and set design came up in the 1950s when Hollywood went to large format films (Cinerama, Todd-AO, MGM Camera 65, Ultra-Panavision, etc.) to better compete with television.

That’s exactly right. In fact, I just saw a documentary called “Winged Migration”, and as you can imagine, it was incredible. Other documentaries are great as well, like shots of old canons and such. NASCAR is actually cool to watch. With respect to flaws in actors’ faces, maybe simple technique would help out. Like I said, the extreme close-ups are rather startling now. So just back the camera off a bit. (In some movies, though, it still works because the close-ups are artistically effective. Like in HBO’s “Elephant”.)

One thing I meant to mention before, though, is that now I can read the fine print in the LendingTree ads and so forth. That was something that always had riled my ass.