Home
entries friends calendar user info My Website Previous Previous Next Next
frankwu - Random pet peeve
frankwu
[info]frankwu
Add to Memories
Tell a Friend
Random pet peeve
I expect the Iron Man movie to be awesome, but there's something that really bugged me about the picture below.



What's wrong with this picture?

In a word, the light sources.  The two brightest things in the image are the lights on Mr. Downey's palm and chest.  And yet they cast no glow on, say, the bottoms of his fingers, or the bottom of his face.  This is what makes the lights look like thingos added in post-production with CGI.  They are not integrated.  Now, if, during filming, the costumers had actually built light sources into the palm-light and chest lights, that would have completed the illusion.  If I were working on this, I would have also dimmed the overhead lights and amped up the palm- and chest-lights.

We see this in movies a lot - bright laser explosions happen, but cast no light on surrounding objects.  Bright green light sabres are held inches from faces - yet cast no light, green or otherwise, on said faces.  This looks fake, people.

Check out, for contrast, this painting by Georges de la Tour from 1642 of St. Joseph:


A single light source, and everything's illuminated logically, consistently from that point.  Isn't that nice?  I guess we've forgotten how to do this in the intervening centuries. 
 
End of rant. 
Comments
karindira From: [info]karindira Date: May 1st, 2008 11:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
I love Georges de la Tour.
tensegritydan From: [info]tensegritydan Date: May 1st, 2008 11:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, WTF? Real-time dynamic lighting was already perfected in video games like 5 years ago and Poser had multiple pose-able, aim-able light sources like 10 years ago.
amoken From: [info]amoken Date: May 1st, 2008 11:23 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, thanks for putting your finger on the problem! I just looked at that photo and thought "Huh. That looks wrong somehow." This is why I'm not in the reality-based visual arts.
kmarkhoover From: [info]kmarkhoover Date: May 1st, 2008 11:33 pm (UTC) (Link)
Wow, you're right, it does look fake. And worse -- cheesy.
browascension From: [info]browascension Date: May 2nd, 2008 12:02 am (UTC) (Link)
Word.
bovil From: [info]bovil Date: May 2nd, 2008 12:12 am (UTC) (Link)
Studio lighting is a bit weird. A lot of lighting folks use light to draw attention while neglecting natural highlights.

Of course, this pic is "digitally enhanced" and it may just be that the CGI artist putting in the hot spots didn't think of the light they would cast on other things, so didn't paint it in.

We're talking about two different parts of the process and two (or more) different people, though. A smart director and DP will light for anticipated CGI, making life easier on the CGI artist. This was covered beautifully in the "Doctor Who Confidential" about "The Doctor Dances" and the shot where the nanogenes finally repair the little boy with the gasmask properly.
norilana From: [info]norilana Date: May 2nd, 2008 12:54 am (UTC) (Link)
Fantastic point, Frank! You'd think they would be able to accommodate a simple-seeming thing like that, the direction of illumination within their multi-million SFX budgets!
maryrobinette From: [info]maryrobinette Date: May 2nd, 2008 01:28 am (UTC) (Link)
Thank you! This drives me insane, too.
howeird From: [info]howeird Date: May 2nd, 2008 01:48 am (UTC) (Link)
Maybe I'm getting myopic in my old age, but both lights appear to be lensed, and pointed away from what you suggest they should be illuminating. The hand light looks to me like it is a focused beam pointed down and away from his fingers. The chest lamp appears to also be a focused beam, pointed away from his face, to the right.
frankwu From: [info]frankwu Date: May 2nd, 2008 04:20 am (UTC) (Link)
The beams don't look very focused to me, and even if they were, there would be light scattered from them.
frankwu From: [info]frankwu Date: May 2nd, 2008 07:10 am (UTC) (Link)
The lights also look like they are covered with rounded covers, so, again, light in many directions.

Also, the edges of the lights are fuzzy, again, indicating light in many directions. The fingers and chin protrude in front of the plane of the light. Thus, they would be illuminated. Even a little. They would not be as dark as they are - they are only illuminated from ceiling lights. It's just not right.
nimrodjcs From: [info]nimrodjcs Date: May 2nd, 2008 02:31 am (UTC) (Link)
This reminds me of a story Larry Elmore told us of back when he was still with TSR (he told this to us a few years ago).

The group of artists from there (Elmore, Parkinson, Caldwell, and a few others) were at a convention that had Tim Hildbrandt as GoH. They got together with each other (the TSR group) to choose one of their best paintings to show to Tim. They chose this one of Larry's <http://www.larryelmore.com/products/caramon_on_stairs.html> to show off. They went to Tim and he looked at it, and grimaced or something that cued Larry to ask what was wrong. Tim shook his head and wouldn't tell them.

They went off to look at the painting and try to find what Tim had seen. After a few hours, they went back to Tim to ask what was wrong, as they couldn't find it. Tim just asked what was the light source. They looked at the painting for a few moments before groaning about this very thing.

It wasn't that the light reflections and shadows were wrong (that was why they chose this painting to show), it was the robe on the apprentice (Caramon's son) is too bright for the light source (the torch). This is the cover of DragonLance Tales Vol 1: The Magic of Krynn.

Jimmy
seventorches From: [info]seventorches Date: May 2nd, 2008 04:44 am (UTC) (Link)
I've heard similar advice for writers--always know what the light source is for any scene you're writing. That way things won't "look weird" to the reader.
ericreynolds From: [info]ericreynolds Date: May 2nd, 2008 03:18 am (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, that's all too common. That and in a dark places, space helmets with lights on the inside, shining on the wearer's face, so that we, the audience, can see the wearer's face rather than the wearer see where he or she is going. And of course, we hear those rockets blasting through space. Only 2001 and Firefly got it that sound doesn't travel through space.
frankwu From: [info]frankwu Date: May 2nd, 2008 07:07 am (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, the helmet lights always bugged me, too.

It really annoyed me when they added the "whoosh" sound to the asteroids in the special edition of Empire Strikes Back. Made it worse. Dang. Almost as bad as the "Han shoots first" issue.

F