FORUMS: list search recent posts

Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame

COW Forums : VEGAS Pro

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Debbie King
Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 15, 2014 at 4:10:28 pm

Hello Everyone:

I have a dilemma. In quite a few of my frames, I see shadows of a person who is not suppose to be in frame. We used three cameras on this shoot, and it is the camera operator moving his hands an sometimes his head in frame.

I thought to create a separate track and then cookie cut the area where he is and then create a snap shot of it. Any advise?

There is also a door with a window where people are periodically looking in that is constantly in frame because the actors are standing in front of it. Sometimes their bodies cover the door and sometimes not.

I'm assuming this is a masking issue, but I only want to cover those areas. This can be complicated because the actors are standing and sitting to those areas.

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index

Graham Bernard
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 16, 2014 at 2:19:27 am

I understand Debbie. A real pain! Can you supply JPGs of the 3 situations?

1/- What you WANT

2/- People looking through DOOR

3/- Actors IN FRONT of door

Are these the 3 situs?

I've done a "Piece To Camera". To one side of the Talent there was a Window Blind that was being gently moved by an updraft from the AirCon - ugh..... I employed masking to eradicate it. Now, yours is more complex, 'cos of the actors moving in front of the door. But I'd like to have a go to suggest what could be done.

Grazie

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge


Return to posts index

Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 16, 2014 at 3:51:46 pm
Last Edited By Debbie King on May 16, 2014 at 3:57:37 pm

Hi Grazie to the rescue. How are you?

Yes, my situation is very complicated. The most complicated one is the shadow to the right of the actor. The shot is static, but occasionally you'll see the shadow of a hand, head or even camera.

I thought of the Jpeg idea and even went into Photoshop, cut out the portion that didn't need to be seen and left the clear area of the wall where the shadow appears. I saved it as a snapshot and tried to place it over the frame in Sony Vegas. It didn't work because the part that was transparent in Photoshop became a white background once I snapshot it. It covered the entire frame. So, now I am trying to work in After Effect to create a Prekey, but I need to find a scene where this shadowing does not happen so that I can create the Prekey to cover the area without covering the actors. The only issue with Prekeying is that it is transparent, and I still may see the shadow, but it's worth a try.

Here's a snapshot of the shadow issue, and the door too. I have resolved that the door is not as critical as the shadow, because it looks like people are looking in on the trial, although I would like to get rid of it. The shadow is really critical because no one else should be in frame.

Shadow -

Door -

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index


Graham Bernard
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 18, 2014 at 1:49:37 pm

This any good?



Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge


Return to posts index

Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 18, 2014 at 4:58:35 pm

Hi Grazie:

It's better than what I came up with. How did you do it?

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index

Graham Bernard
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 18, 2014 at 5:38:48 pm

Would you like the VEG? What release of Vegas are you running?

Grazie

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge


Return to posts index


Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 18, 2014 at 6:01:12 pm

You did this in Vegas Pro alone? Really? I am running Vegas Pro 12.

I thought for sure I would have to work with a third party to get the opacity over the shadow. As mentioned, I tried Photoshop partial transparency by cutting the photo out and leaving just the wall in 100% opacity. Darkening the wall in levels and saving it as a PNG. My discovery is that even though it is opaque in Photoshop, by my saving it as a PNG, it makes the entire file transparent, which means that some of the shadow is still seen.

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index

Graham Bernard
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 18, 2014 at 6:32:42 pm

_______________________________________________________________
[Debbie King] "You did this in Vegas Pro alone? Really?"
_______________________________________________________________
Yeah, really! It's all there.

Here's the VEG:-

7508_debbieshadowonwall1a.veg.zip

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge


Return to posts index

Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 18, 2014 at 9:24:46 pm

Hi Grazie:

I got it. What I did was go back into Photoshop cut out the picture and leave a very small portion of the wall. Then I went to fill and filled in the transparent space with the current content. I then saved it as a Jpeg and dropped into a separate video track in Sony to create a picture on top of picture effect. I went into the video/crop tool and positioned it over the shadow area. It was completely covered. Since this is not a solid color wall, the texture is a bit off, a little stretched. I think I can live with it. Since it still looks like a panel, I believe I can get away with it.

When I placed it over a duplicate video track it was superimposed and I could still see the shadow. When I used the other technique in my previous post, I could still see some of the shadow because it was a PNG which made the file transparent.

This technique the photo is 100% opaque that covers the shadow completely.

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index


Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 18, 2014 at 9:59:01 pm

Hi Grazie:

Thank you for the file. I have it open in Vegas now, and I see what you did. Amazing.

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index

Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 16, 2014 at 11:18:09 pm

Hi Grazie:

I believe I solved the shadow issue. What I did was drop the clip into Photoshop and removed everything except the wall by using the quick select tool. Then I saved it as a PNG which kept it transparent.

I then dropped the file into Sony on the duplicate track above the clip and it covered everything. The only problem I had was that I could see the wall as a different color, because the rest of the file was transparent. So, I opened the file in Video/Crop and chose the mask square tool and made the square a little shorter than the mark. Then I feathered it. So what appears is a smooth transition between the colors which looks like it might be the lighting. I'm still working on it, but at least I minimized the shadow, which is very slight now.

I would suppose another dupe track would block out the shadow altogether.

I'm still working on the door issue. That's definitely a challenge.

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index

Graham Bernard
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 19, 2014 at 2:51:45 am

You're very welcome. I like your approach. The convergence in our approaches is this understanding of using the areas of image to move and improve others and then use the mask blending/feathering to make the thing seamless. Bit like pushing oils on canvass.

Grazie

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge


Return to posts index


Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 19, 2014 at 6:42:24 pm
Last Edited By Debbie King on May 19, 2014 at 7:21:44 pm

Hi Grazie:

Here's the photo of the last attempt to cover the shadow. I used the picture on top of picture approach. As mentioned, I took a small part of the wall and filled it in with content aware. With a solid color wall, it may have been a perfect fit, but this is a patterned wall with grooves, and the grooves are stretched. I supposed I have to determine which is more distracting, a moving shadow however slight, or a part of a wall that's slightly different than the rest.

Your thoughts!

Many thanks,

Debbie

P.S. The area on top that looks like a tear. I can redo and have it placed somewhere unseen; like the bottom perhaps.


ORIGINAL


PIXALATE, FILL LIGHT AND BUMP MAP


PIXALATE OF PART OF WALL NEXT TO ATTACHED PIC



Return to posts index

Graham Bernard
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 20, 2014 at 6:03:52 am

Hmmm...

_______________________________________________________________
[Debbie King] " I supposed I have to determine which is more distracting, a moving shadow however slight, or a part of a wall that's slightly different than the rest.

Your thoughts!"

_______________________________________________________________
My thoughts? - I prefer my approach as it blends well and distracts little. My "further" thought is why you aren't using mine? You asked - I reply! But hey, it's YOUR choice at the end of the day.

My further, further thought is that you could also get busy and create a faux (false) SHALLOW DoF of that wall. Then all this would be kinda irrelevant anyway.

Cheers

Grazie

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge


Return to posts index

Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 20, 2014 at 7:28:12 am
Last Edited By Debbie King on May 20, 2014 at 7:30:30 am

Hi Grazie:

Yours would be perfect except that because the shadow was moving I could still see it even though it was less shown. If it were static, it would work perfectly. What I am trying to do is block him entirely because he is in constant movement. You're right, the patterns are not identical because what I did with the content aware stretched it. The question is what is more distracting a slightly off wall or a shadow in movement. Tough spot for me right now.

I will also try the depth of field and see how that works. Thanks for the idea.

Many thanks,

Debbie



Return to posts index


Graham Bernard
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 20, 2014 at 7:40:18 am

_______________________________________________________________
[Debbie King] "Yours would be perfect except that because the shadow was moving . . The question is what is more distracting a slightly off wall or a shadow in movement"
_______________________________________________________________
Ah, gotcha! - Could you upload a small Vid of the "worst" of the shadow-movement? No promises here, but I'm not done either!

G

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge


Return to posts index

Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 21, 2014 at 3:16:01 pm

Hi Grazie:

Good idea. I have to figure out how to block the characters, because at this stage I cannot show any part of the movie. I was told that that can disqualify films for festivals that require world premiere. I'll figure it out.

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index

Debbie King
Re: Covering Shadows That Are Not Suppose To Be In Frame
on May 21, 2014 at 4:26:59 pm

Grazie: I just looked at the photo that I shared with you, and that one is the worst of all of them. The others are a little further back, but very noticeable. This one is his head, the others are partial head, camera and tripod or hand.

Many thanks,

Debbie


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]