Jump to content


Photo

Would it be really expensive to mix b&w and color in the same shot?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Fernando Nicolas

Fernando Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 January 2007 - 06:16 AM

I'm looking for something similar to the girl with the red dress in Schindler's list. Would I have to shoot green screen, or can I simply do it in Final Cut? Is this a problem if I want a one light transfer?

I don't have a huge budget, but I also don't want it to look cheap. It's a key moment in my narrative.

Basically, a girl's lips turn red as she puts on lipstick. Ideally, I'd love for the lips to turn red as she puts on the lipstick - meaning it turns red only when she puts the lipstick over it.


Thank you.
  • 0

#2 Nicholas Jenkins

Nicholas Jenkins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Student
  • Missoula, MT

Posted 10 January 2007 - 10:03 AM

Are you shooting film or miniDV or what? If you're shooting miniDV it could be done in a few hours at your computer. If it's on film, I can't really comment. You'd have to get the film scanned into digital format which is expensive, though I don't know how expensive.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 January 2007 - 11:04 AM

If you want a b&w face putting on red lipstick, it may be easier if it were bright green or blue lipstick -- then you can treat it as a chroma key and separate it from the face (which has a lot of red in it naturally), turn the face b&w, turn the green or blue into red.
  • 0

#4 Fernando Nicolas

Fernando Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 January 2007 - 04:10 PM

If you want a b&w face putting on red lipstick, it may be easier if it were bright green or blue lipstick -- then you can treat it as a chroma key and separate it from the face (which has a lot of red in it naturally), turn the face b&w, turn the green or blue into red.



Got it. Thank you. I am shooting film - probably 16mm - how costly would this be?
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 January 2007 - 10:46 PM

Got it. Thank you. I am shooting film - probably 16mm - how costly would this be?


I'm talking about a digital post effect; whether you shoot digitally or shoot on film and transfer it to a digital format doesn't really make a cost difference beyond the extra costs of the film and transfer.

But what is the final format of this project?
  • 0

#6 Fernando Nicolas

Fernando Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 January 2007 - 12:08 AM

I'm talking about a digital post effect; whether you shoot digitally or shoot on film and transfer it to a digital format doesn't really make a cost difference beyond the extra costs of the film and transfer.

But what is the final format of this project?


16X9 PAL/NTSC. My main concern is making this effect look as professional as possible.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 January 2007 - 01:46 AM

16X9 PAL/NTSC. My main concern is making this effect look as professional as possible.


Well, it's really a question of the quality of your efx software, your skills at pulling keys and color-correcting, etc.

I'm sure you can get excellent results if you shot on film (16mm or 35mm), lit and exposed well on good lenses, etc., then scanned it to 2K (or to 24P HD) and had a professional do the work like on a Flame/Inferno-type system. But if you're asking about efx software you can use on your own computer, someone else hopefully can answer that because it's out of my area of expertise.

Since you need both 16x9 PAL & NTSC, I suggest doing the work at a higher resolution than either (like 2K or 24P HD) and then downconverting the final results to 16x9 PAL and NTSC. As opposed to doing the work in PAL or NTSC and converting the end result to the other. But if you had to, PAL-to-NTSC looks better than NTSC-to-PAL.
  • 0

#8 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 11 January 2007 - 03:21 AM

it may be easier if it were bright green or blue lipstick


Watch the DVD extras for "Pleasantville". There's the scene where Tobey Maguire is applying b&w makeup to his mother's face. The entire sequence was shot in color as Maguire applied green makeup to her face, and all the b&w effects were done in post.

Your effect will be different, but the same technique should be used.

Using blue or green lipstick will make it a lot easier to accomplish this effect, since they're colors that won't show up in your actress's flesh tone.

Edited by Jonathan Bowerbank, 11 January 2007 - 03:24 AM.

  • 0


Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Visual Products

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Visual Products

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Wooden Camera

The Slider