Every four years
we behold that
ritual gathering of
the tribes, the national
political conventions.
And every four years, a
new generation of television
makers discovers
the “star filter.”
The star filter, seemingly
dormant in the period between the
conventions, is suddenly embraced by
these TV mavericks who decide to employ
it as a show of their creativity.
True to form, the filter appeared this
year—extensively used in one convention
and appearing in limited, but showy use
at the other.
Though the star filter’s re-emergence is
not of the same importance as the conventions,
it does have significance for the
lighting-design professional. Unfortunately,
the star filter does not get this professional’s
vote; I find it to be a rather crude
and visually distracting effect that robs
the picture of refinement.
‘COME SEE MY ETCHINGS’
At some moment in the infancy of photography,
someone was amazed to find
that if a grid of lines is etched on a glass
filter, bright specular highlights would
produce streaks across the image—a star
effect. A rectangular grid produces a fourpointed
star while a six-pointed star is
produced by three sets of parallel lines.
Today, such filters are readily available
for little expense in configurations of up
to 12 points. The problem is that a small
use of this effect goes a long way, and it
very quickly becomes a bothersome visual
that can disturb (or wake up) the
viewer.
 |
| Fig. 1: Distracting use of the star filter |
As you can see in Fig. 1, there is very
little subtlety. I should mention that not all
is negative; surprisingly, the filter can be
used to some advantage if image softening
is desired. The star filter can act as an excellent
diffusion filter for a close-up when
it is unlikely there will be bright specular
highlights to distract.
In some conditions, the glint in a person’s
eye from the main light may “star”
very slightly for a very pleasing effect.
However, as with all effects, use with discretion.
PICTURE QUALITY
The topic of the star
filter opens the door
for a further discussion
of the level of pictorial
quality of these largescale,
high-visibility
events.
Probably the most
apparent feature is the
universal use of video displays, to the extent
that they become the main scenic
elements.
|
| Fig. 2: An example of a background being very saturated and low in brightness |
I would venture to say that, no matter
how cleverly the screens are placed and
configured, their appearance results in a
certain degree of sameness. The phrase
“wow factor” is quite prevalent at production
meetings in which the use of such
devices is discussed. In truth, the video
displays register merely a blip on the wow
meter. Using the displays, it is extremely
difficult to achieve any feeling of dimensionality
and space; everything appears
quite cramped, sparse and in the same
plane.
A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM
Many times, I have emphasized that
the basic, most important television viewpoint
is the chest shot of a single person.
It is the image of choice when we wish to
direct the viewer to listen to the words of
the speaker, whether the entertainment is
a political convention, a talk show, an episodic
or a concert.
This tight shot is the moment when
every detail and image element—lighting,
audio, costume, makeup—should be as
perfect as possible so as to enhance, not
distract. Any compromise of the significant elements of this image will decrease
the importance of this shot. Wide, impressive
panoramic shots, which illustrate the
scope of the event and define the real estate,
are reserved for pauses made for applause
and audience reaction. Fig. 2 illustrates
this point.
 |
 |
Fig. 3: The left photo fails the monochrome test. After removing the color, the photo on the right
(Fig. 4) illustrates the extreme saturation of the color and the reduced importance of the speaker. |
First of all, it is typical of the dull and
unimaginative shots that result when the
background is just the video screen with
little or no information/detail in the shot.
In this case, the background is one color,
and what a color! Blue, of course, is always
considered a safe color as it can approximate
the complement of the flesh tone of
the subject. However, this particular color
is not too handsome, being very saturated
and low in brightness as well. To me, it
looks like the color was chosen in order
that the shot be suitable for compositing,
keying in a background. The overall effect
can only be described as dismal.
FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD
Another example is Fig. 3. The left
photo fails the (my) monochrome test. If
we remove the color, we are now able to
clearly see the brightness range of the image
(Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 dramatically illustrates that we
have reduced the importance of the
speaker in the foreground, not only with
extreme saturation of the color (as displayed
in Fig. 3), but also with brightness
that is greater than the subject’s face value.
For this transgression, this image barely
gets a passing grade. We can only guess
that there was limited communication
between lighting, projection and production
departments (as well as running out
of color selections).
I do apologize for being so tough on
the group of professionals who are responsible
for creating the imagery of
these television events. But we should expect
an exemplary result from them. It’s
not about rule-breaking, but we do expect
to be “wowed” by superior image quality
(and not 4–12 streaks smeared across our
pictures).
Let’s put the star filter away for a lot
longer than four years and concentrate on
directing our resources to providing pleasing,
flattering backgrounds that display dimensionality.
Bill Klages would like to extend an
invitation to all the lighting people
out there to give him your thoughts at
billklages@roadrunner.com.