Shooting on White Background…

[Leo Ticheli]

A white background, which at first blush appears so easy, is actually quite difficult.

The real trick is bringing the white just into clip and having just the right level on the foreground. If the background is relatively too hot, you will get milky spill around the subjects. Too low, and it looks muddy.

The problem is compounded by automatic circuits in displays and the limited dynamic range of almost all video cameras; only those at the high end are able to hold sufficient detail in the highlights without crushing the mids.

If your subjects are dark complected, the task is even more difficult.

By the way, the auto-iris is probably the most dangerous device ever put on a motion picture camera and is totally out of place for professional applications.

Good shooting!

Leo

[Jeffrey Gould]

Thank you Leo, I knew there were issues with white as I used to do still portraits, I think they were known as High Key. I’m using a fairly good camera, the Sony 450WSL. I understand about the balance between the fore and backgrounds. Thanks again…not only for replying to my post, but for being a constant source of help and inspiration.

Jeffrey S. Gould
Action Media Productions

[Philip Boal]

One of my pet peeves … and i just saw a horrific example of this on a video produced for a well known professional athlete speaking about cancer survivors … is white balances that are all over the place on interviews that are cut back-to-back all on white backgrounds. One person is on white, the next is on an orange-white, someone else is on a blue-white. Its just a pet peeve, but it bugs me.

By the way, I consider this an issue in editing more than in production. A good editor should be able to match up the whites to match. The Quantel Editbox was tremendous at this, but all Avids and onm-line bays should be able to give you consistent color.

my 2 cents. Thanks. Good Luck on your shoot.

Editor, Muscular Dystrophy Association

[Mark Suszko]

I watched the pilot episodes of “The American Inventor” this week, where they did a lot of white limbo shots that were grabbed in a hurry on location with what looked like a cheaper DV camera. Not very impressive, overly harsh.

One of the tricks I have heard of is not to use white paper, but a light gray, then you have a little more latitude in the intentional over-exposure before everything clips into oblivion. I would use soft box lighting on the talent, get as much separation from the backdrop as practical, and maybe dial down the detail control just a little on the camera, perhaps even add a light mist filter.

I will try my own advice next month: I have to shoot an entire spot with three people standing side by side, full-body shots, in white limbo, and this week I’m playing/experimenting with two ways of executing it: chromakeying them so I can composite a backdrop with maximum control in post, or shooting using a real light gray/white roll of photog’s paper, doing most of the work “in camera”, and reducing the postproduction workload.

[Jeffrey Gould]

Thanks for the replies guys. I just ordered the white paper this morning :-(. I was going to shoot green screen at first, but then I would have to deal with hair, earings and trying to get 15 people to not wear green. I always separate the talent from the background…do you think a hair light would help? I use two softboxes, key, fill and then fresnel or tota for background with diffusion. My field monitor is very accurate. There will be two different locations, so white balance shouldn’t be too much of an issue. I’ll post a link here when I’m done editing. Thanks again for the input.

Jeffrey S. Gould
Action Media Productions

[Leo Ticheli]

I just finished another white background job, which went extraordinarily well; a few tips from this, fresh in my mind.

First of all, I almost never white balance, saving this procedure for extreme situations. I must add that when the lighting is that bizarre, it’s usually discontinuous spectrum, and no amount of white balance can add color that’s just not there to begin with. I would say the white balance never fixes the problem, so I’m back to a preset and color grading in post. Those awful warehouse lamps are the scourge of our business and I pity those who have to work under them; they probably go home at the end of the day and kick their household pets.

I use the presets almost exclusively with the camera setup to my preference. There is great debate about this issue, preset v. white balance, and it’s been well covered at the Cow for anyone willing to do a search.

If you’re using the same camera, backing, and lights in different locations, your whites should match. More importantly, your skin tones will be consistent. If your lighting or backing changes from location to location, and you white balance, you may introduce variations in skin tone that will also have to be corrected.

I advise lighting the background first, bringing it just into clip. Add lighting to any areas that fall below clip and waste light that’s too far above. You must use just as much care in lighting the white backing as you would a green/blue screen; consistency is paramount.

I don’t recommend starting with a grey cyc; all this accomplishes, in my opinion, is that you need a ton more lighting to burn it out to white and you’re right back where you started, with the backing going just into clip.

I usually “cheat” a bit and hang a big Chimera F2 over my back cyc to produce a beautiful, smooth backing, but on this job we were hanging pictures from the grid with monofilament, so we had to use Altman’s and some 4K’s to hit dark spots.

Now light your foreground subject to an appropriate level relative to the brightness of the backing. You’ll have to change the intensity of your key depending on the skin density of the subject. Obviously, darker skin is much more of a challenge in such a high-contrast situation and the quality of the camera and format really come into play. Those cameras with limited dynamic range have a real problem achieving satisfactory results.

It’s not a complicated procedure, but it’s harder to achieve perfect results for all the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

Good shooting!

Leo

[Jeffrey Gould]

Wow Leo! Thanks. Great info. Yes, I will be using the same background and lighting. I’ll even take a digital still of my setup for the next day. I get what you are saying about lighting the white with as much care as you take for chroma. I think from all the info on this thread, I’ll be fine. I’ll post a video or still when I’m done. Thanks again.

Jeffrey S. Gould
Action Media Productions

[Jeffrey Gould]

on the subject of talking heads…I have always shot testimonials with the subject looking slightly off camera, but I read an article in Video Systems Magazine that stated the talent should talk directly into the camera. This isn’t an intro to a video, these are testimonials from healthcare workers talking about the facility they work in, in the hopes of increasing their sales. We will feed them questions, but only the reply will be used. I’m then going to encode them in flash and post on a web site. Any thoughts?

Jeffrey S. Gould
Action Media Productions

[Mark Suszko]

I read that same article, and I disagreed with it. Certain ‘forms’ in how we shoot have evolved over time because they plain WORK. While you *can* face them right into the camera, it gives a different effect than taping someone looking *past* the lens to someone off-camera. Choice of which way to go should depend greatly on the content and subtext of the material.

I was shooting a politician for some news interviews, and some bad advisor had left the politician with the wrong concept that they should ALWAYS look right into the lens, so we had a lot of awkward-looking footage where the pol was looking at someone asking the question to them, then ignoring that person and turning to the lens to deliver the answer. They had been told looking into the lens somehow made them more honest looking, but all it did was accentuate a very awkward, creepy artificiality to the responses. Especially when they did this during talk show interviews. After we played back some of the footage, this stopped and we went back to doing it the customary way.

It’s one thing for a spokesperson to address the audience directly thru the lens. Or an actor, playing a role. When it is for testimonial or interview footage, I think it looks bad to address the lens.

In this vein, I REALLY hate the T.D. Waterhouse spots with Sam Waterston, where a cutaway second or third camera shoots him from the side while he’s looking into the lens of the primary camera and pitching, acting like he doesn’t know the camera is looking at him from the profile. What this angle does is convey a “behind the scenes” look to the footage, but in doing so, it destroys the illusion that this was ever a true and direct communication with the audience. This cutaway look started to get popularized on MTV coverage and VJ stand-ups some time back. It was used a LOT in promos for network news reporters and anchors, showing the behind the scenes view to give a sense of special access, of being part of the production team, or something. It barely works IMO for that kind of promo. It takes a certain knack to pull this look off and it needs to be done in an appropriate context, and places I see it used now have completely ignored said context, and are using it for a “look” that’s supposed to be ‘edgy’ or something, but it just distracts instead.

It’s like using altogether the wrong spices and condiments on a meal, just to change things up, but not considering that hot dogs may not actually taste good done in chocolate syrup instead of mustard.

I’m from Chicago, where it’s sacriledge to put ketchup on your hot dog, and I feel the same way about unmotivated use of the wrong eyelines in these shots.

[Jeffrey Gould]

Mark, I’m so glad you agree with me. When I read that article I thought there was something wrong with me that I couldn’t see this guys point. If the talent is a host, that’s different. What do you think about moving the camera, either tilting or panning? It can be effective, but for my purposes, these are senior citizens homes and one is a hospice, I think straight and narrow is the way to go. Plus for web encoding, the less movement the better. Thanks for your insights, the COW definitely attracts a different breed of people…the good kind 🙂

Jeffrey S. Gould
Action Media Productions