Ask Adam Savage: Why Costumes Look Different in Person vs Onscreen
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 сер 2024
- Why do costumes look so much different in person vs. a screen? How does Adam determine when to stop weathering an item? Adam answers these questions from Tested members Supremepizzaman and Jason D., whom we appreciate for their support! Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam questions:
/ @tested
Light Gray, NY Soot and Black: www.wardrobesu...
Adam's jacket: Ship John of Portland: shipjohn.us/co...
Subscribe for more videos (and click the bell for notifications): www.youtube.com...
Tested and Adam Savage Ts, stickers, (de) merit badges and more: tested-store.com
About Tested: www.tested.com...
Twitter: / testedcom
Facebook: / testedcom
Instagram: / testedcom
Discord: / discord
Amazon Storefront: www.amazon.com/...
Intro bumper by Abe Dieckman
Thanks for watching!
oin this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam questions:
ua-cam.com/channels/iDJtJKMICpb9B1qf7qjEOA.htmljoin
Light Gray, NY Soot and Black: www.wardrobesupplies.com/
Oin???
Hey Adam, do you know any videos you could recommend on teaching the principle of movement as it relates to Renaissance paintings, for those of us who were not taught this in art history? Thanks
J
You dropped this :p
I'm surprised that no part of Adam's answer on how much weathering included story. The weathering of a prop should tell a story. If you're talking about Starfleet equipment in Star Trek, or space marine equipment in Aliens, you're talking about an organization that has a lot of funding and discipline. In Star Wars, you obviously should have more weathering in the underfunded rebel ships than in the Imperial ships. With Ghostbusters, you're asking how well the guys are doing financially. They probably are not replacing their suits at every turn and operating on a budget so the question is - at what point does Peter Venkman break down and go get a new suit? That's about character, plot, etc.
How can he not know about the colour adjustment in the filming and post processing?
I think it also comes down to lighting. In movies you have people whos only job is to make everything on screen look awesome just through setting up lights, keylights spotlights highlights etc. whereas in a workshop you usually have cheap and harsh bright white light that is good for working and illuminating the whole room but doesn't make the props look flattering
After the lighting a bit of color timing can change everything
On top of that, colorgrading the entire film using LUTs also exists.
Don't forget just the quality of the lens used.
About 5 years ago I did a Halloween make up on my son after watching Frank on Tested. Looked great and freaked everyone out thinking he'd had a bad accident LOL.
I took a pic to show family and it was totally washed out by the camera flash, looked like i'd stuck white putty on his face but under normal incandesant and LED lighting it was spot on.
So a long way to agree, sorry 😁.
The Star Trek (TOS) costumes famously reacted weird to the stage lighting due to their fibres and the velvet like surface being just too "shiny" (IIRC), making the actually green costume parts look more mustard colored ("goldshirts") and then when similar costumes were made out of a less reflective cloth like the Jumpsuits on the Prisonplanets or Kirks "luxury" Captain's wraparound tunic, they failed to colormatch the normal velvety csotumes and instead looked more the true green. Leadin g to fan confusion where suddenly a "green department" came from, when it otherwise was always red, yellow, blue. ;)
Never knew about the powders. Back ages ago I painted figures and dioramas, and I crushed up pastel art chalks and used them. Then set them with hairspray. Would have loved to have had Adam back then to learn from.
I did the same! Still worked very well ☺️
i still use chalk pastels, even cheap make up powders from Dollar Tree
@@MagnaRyuuDesigns I had to give up doing my dioramas after I had a stroke sadly. I had so much fun making them though and yes it's very cost effective 😉
With cosplay, I also kinda feel we're often going for a moment in time, not just a general idea of the character. Some of that is comically extreme like the characters midway through being eaten by the monster in an iconic scene, but there's also more subtle things. You prefer after the characters have lived in their costume and added their story to it, but there is also the story of their humble beginning such as when the Ghostbusters first got their suits and looked intentionally awkward in them. I think my favorite of those costume moments was the ill-fitting and conspicuously unused Ghostbusters uniform on Rick Moranis in the sequel.
One thing I love about cosplay is seeing what parts of the characters' stories stuck with people. The mid-action ones are my favorite because of the comic juxtaposition of an inherently ephemeral scene made static and walking around the con but it also lets everyone take in that iconic moment in a new and fun way. And then there's the delightfully obscure where only the most detail oriented fans will know exactly what you were going for, but others learn a new facet of a beloved franchise.
One of the characters I struggled with was very "simple" but the catch is he wore a very clearly weathered all-black riding cloak. The tattering I figured out, but the fading and coloring of black I didn't. After watching you weather things, I think I could do it now, if perhaps a lot nervously. My health doesn't allow for me to do all the process of making my own cosplay anymore, but I occasionally have the opportunity to help others with their cosplays. Which is more terrifying since it's for someone else.
You’re not rambling, Adam. You’re sharing your strategies with us. Techniques are helpful, but you share strategies which point to the “why” of the techniques you use. Strategies are priceless because we can use those to develop our own techniques. Keep on ramblin’!!
That's really interesting about randomness in clothes weathering.
You mentioned random numbers and natural sums. I think the idea that it's random and _should_ be random, is why we get it wrong.
The lichen growing on the bridge isn't random. It grew there because conditions were right for it to both end up there and grow there. The shape the lichen takes is dictated by tiny shapes and bumps in the metal, and how lichen has evolved to move to get the most out of adhering to surfaces, gathering the right amount of light or water, not being too windy before it settles, and whatever else affects lichen establishment.
The coffee stain isn't random. As the cup falls over and spills coffee all over the table and into your lap, it's obeying a huge number of rules. How viscous is the coffee? How hot is it? What is the surface like? How full was the cup? How hard was it tipped over? How absorbent is the fabric of your clothing as it makes its way onto your front? It's all a physics engine and the coffee is following all that. People are bad at accounting for all of that, yet we can see when it doesn't look real, when it doesn't match the "natural"... which isn't random.
*smiles* I am a retired scenic painter, and my rule of thumb is always" if you don't know where/why the paint/your brush is going - STOP!
Budget, lighting, costume quality. Camera angle.
The costumes at the scifi museum in Seattle look like pajamas.
Another thing that makes costumes look good on screen is that they are being worn by the actor for whom the costume was commissioned. Even though a lot of big budget movies nowadays don't always give enough time to the costuming team to build amazing costumes, what they do give to the actors usually is tailored precisely for the actor's bodies. However, afterwards when they put them on display at special museum exhibits, for example, the manikin may not be the exact same size as the actor who wore it, and so it doesn't always sit quite the right way while on display.
Fillipo Brunelleschi!! 14th C artist who combined painting/design with linear convergence perspective using a measured grid system - there is math behind a LOT of art and why we find it awe-inspiring. Thank you James Burke! I have rewatched Connnections so many times if it was VHS the tape would be long corroded! Excelsior!
he also built the largest masonry dome in the world! good ol Duomo.
@@maltedmilkball2985 "Nice Domes" -- Renaissance Paulie Shore :p
Back when I was finishing my Imperial Snowtrooper costume and got to the weathering stage I found one of BEST pieces of advice-
Go out to your garage in winter wearing the costume and kneel/sit crawl around on the gross wet floor.
All of the dirt and grit and semi-frozen road grease gets rubbed into the right wear spots, and it perfectly mimicked the weathering seen on the troopers during the Hoth invasion.
I did both crushed pastels AND acrylic washes for my Sandtrooper weathering.
Adam, your reply on weathering costumes reminded me of when I went to see the original production of 'Man of La Mancha' on Broadway. We, of course, got the souvenir book, and I remember that there was a section on the costumes. Once they were made, they were allowed to weather naturally during rehearsals, and though they were, of course, washed, they were hung on hooks instead of hangers, and 'never ironed again', giving them an authentic hard-worn look.
I love you you view yourself as rambling. Where as I see you just oozing passion and joy in being able to take the most simple question and really get into it. Always answering in a thought provoking manner. Please do not ever stop talking the way you do!
As far as costumes looking good. I have been to quite a few cosplays over the years. And seeing the costume on stage VS up close and personal makes a huge difference. When they are onstage, you aren't all that close, and the little imperfections just can't be seen. But you get up close and suddenly all those little things become visible, and you have to get past that. There are always imperfections, but that doesn't make the costume bad.
I have seen costumes that you would swear are real, but up close, you can tell that they are homemade. But homemade doesn't mean badly made, it just means you have to overlook the little imperfections or mistakes.
It also depends too with the actual costume. Some of them are on par or better than the screen use ones since they will be worn for days on end.
@@nubreed13 Adam has actually mentioned this before. The "cosplay" outfits and props people wear to cons have to be BETTER than the screen-used ones because people WILL be wearing them all day and others will be up close looking at them. The 501st has very high standards of approval of their members' Star Wars costumes for that very reason.
Adam: “cinematographers create a narrative for every frame of the film”
Jurassic park kitchen scene where a set person’s hand is visibly pushing the raptor into the room: “I am canon now”
Growing up helping a friend who was apprenticing under a very accomplished lighting designer in dance theater...... so much goes into pleasing the eye,so to speak!!!
In general, costumes and props are only built to the level they need to look good on screen. This is a far different standard than what the items look like up close or in the hand. I saw the actual screen used Darth Vader costume in a museum exhibition years ago. It was extremely rough up close, far worse than several cosplay replicas I have seen since. But it looked good on screen.
yes and the original darth vader mask and helmet are not symmetrical either.
I could listen to Adam talk about weathering all day
Adan’s camera view set up in the cave is an example of drawing your eyes to the sender of attention using perspective
One of my favorite stains is on an old labcoat I accidentally got a few drops of a solution that turns brown in sunlight. I didn't realize this, and thought I was clean until I stepped into a patch of sun while wearing it and watched the spots appear. Remember that if you want to create a spill stain it's much more natural to be below the chest area, because most stains from spills come from tabletops and held things downwards.
This is great. For me answering this question as a layman, I'd have just thought it was something to do with movie lighting and colour grading, but Adam's insight here is wonderful.
Yeah, both the natural color that film gives (both when recorded, and later when sent to theaters), and all the color grading that went along with that - will definitely affect how it looks.
Lighting as well.
The uniform section at a thrift store is the perfect reference.
Gave me a great insight into work wear processes.
Army/Navy Stores are great for this if they sell used uniforms and equipment.
Hey Mr. Adam
My name is Nicolas and i have been recently dipping my toes into leathercraft. Interestingly, i discovered they are many types of glues water based, latex based and many different types made for different purposes and functions. Could you make a video explaining the most important types of glues and their function?
Thank you for your time and effort.
I just love Adams enthusiasm no matter what the topic. Talented and quite knowledgeable on many subjects
In movie props/costumes there is also an element of knowing that no one will look at it up close like one would if the same piece was on display. When viewed as a museum piece, you will see that many accent pieces are sloppily glued or or are obvious parts from very normal consumer products (ie. the bubble wrap on the harness straps in the battle of Hoth). Anbother great example is the M41A Pulse Rifle in Aliens. The prop used in the scene where Ripley is learning how to handle the rifle is significantly more detailed than any other prop in the movie.
as to the second question, I will say that one of the greatest revelations I ever had was when I was making a wooden lightning bolt, to go on top of a pole. (long story). I realized, lightning doesn't have *A* pattern, or *A* form, it's random; and leaving some of the imperfections in things we make can often times add to the realisticness that your trying to create.
I NEVER know when to quit on a project. Fortunately, my bride has a mantra for me. "Stop now before you have to do it again." This has been so true that now, 49 years later, she only has to say it twice and I listen.
Re weathering: I am not a construction worker, but I do a *lot* of serious DIY on my house and have a bunch of well-used workwear. Pants cuffs get dirty and threadbare. Shirt cuffs can lose a button. Knees either get burnished and shiny or have some ground in dirt. Breast pocket cuffs might have an ink stain at the bottom. Gunk on a finger gets wiped on the opposite arm. Gunk on the hands gets wiped on the thighs or the butt. Paint and stain goes anywhere and everywhere; I imagine that oil would be the same. Inside collars get super grimy from sweat. Sleeves can have a snag from getting caught on something.
Also many films are color corrected in post-production. I learned that watching a thing about the new remaster of Star Trek the Motion Picture. The post-production was so rushed they did a terrible job in color correction which is why everything on the Enterprise looked so BEIGE. The remaster fixes that.
Thank you! I'm surprised I had to scroll down so far to find this. Color grading is absolutely the biggest bugaboo for cosplayers in the age of being able to see these things in person. You can find the screen-accurate fabric in the exact same shade, and it will still look wrong because of the color grade in the film/show. There's an ongoing discussion in the community about whether to aim for what you see on screen or what you saw in a museum with your own eyes. I prefer the former, but there are valid reasons some people prefer the latter.
Another seldom-mentioned thing, especially with soft (or mostly-soft) costumes: Exhibit mannequins are usually slightly smaller than the actor to reduce stress on the fabric. So many friends came out of the Marvel exhibit talking about "those people are SO SKINNY!" And, like, yes, but not *quite* that small.
I do WW2 historical reenacting and I participate in a lot of 'Living History' type of events throughout the year to show the general public how the basic US Army soldier lived. There is nothing more unpleasing to me than seeing a fellow reenactor in a shiny new uniform with new gear, etc and no weathering. Sure, new uniforms eventually got re-issued in the field along with new gear but almost never at the same time unless you were a replacement coming in (which most reenactors never use that in their background to the public). I myself recently started portraying a 2nd Lt. army doctor at a field aid station. The reason I started this was because nearly all aid station/field hospitals that I was seeing weren't showing the conditions of how the aid stations/hospitals were but more for those to show off their collection of equipment. One of the first things that I did was to purchase a mannequin and bandage his face up as if he'd taken shell fragments to his face and then put an operating situation around him complete with bloody instruments, used and bloody towels and sponges, bloody fragments in a kidney dish, a hanging transfusion bottle with blood coming down to hsi arm, etc. to show just how bloody a simple thing as a facial wound could be. I make no apologies when people come into my display area because I want to portray the truth in how it was. I can go to a museum and see sterile instruments and displays. I want the public to see the dirty, bloody side of the war along with the instruments and medicines which were used.
I agree with Adam in that there is nothing worse than seeing a clean outfit at an event when you know it shouldn't be.
For knowing when to stop with weathering, you can look at the inspiration and how they look. The Ghostbusters uniform were clearly modeled after firefighter outfits. They were stored, used, and put on in the same way, they were also stored in an old fire-department. So take a look at photos, take photos of yours, and compare.
The dead muppet thing is why that scene in “The Happytime Murders” when the drug addict puppet washes up on the beach and the cop wrings it out like a soggy towel, it just feels extra violent and wrong, in the best way. The amount of gore they achieved in such a seemingly mild medium throughout that whole movie was fascinating.
Lighting, lighting, lighting, and the downsampling process of capturing images to any medium.
Totally love fact he didn't actually take a sip of that bottle he had there, 100% certain he knew what he was doing.
Not that I’m an expert, but when I feel I’ve weathered something too far or a technique was too extreme, the most basic retaliation that works for me is to (try to) remove it. That sounds so obtuse, but I think of it as a real reaction to wear. Washing something or cleaning a stain with a solvent helps replace the artificially of intentionally weathering something with the authenticity of trying to remedy it. A well placed grease stain can ooze “fakeness” but trying to clean that grease stain is a very lived-in response. The imperfection of trying to clean something can both soften the blow of a technique taken too far as well as imbue the piece with a story of someone trying to care for it.
I wonder how many times Adam moved the workbench and camera placement to establish the framing of this shot, with the stacks of material storage behind him, the Wilton vise to his right and the milling machine to his left. Any single still from these episodes tells a very distinct story about Adam, and given this explanation I feel we can't chalk it up to happenstance.
I used to do a lot of larp, which has a lot of crossover with cosplay circles, and the biggest reason costumes don't look "authentic" is that they're all pristine and new... if you just put it on, go outside and roll around in the dirt for 5 minutes, that's often enough to make your costume look like it's "real" - and then it'll only get more worn as you use it more.
Weathering powders from Manhattan wardrobe supply? 😆 I'm imagining a warehouse of workers processing orders: "Hey Joey, hey Bobby! We gotta nutta ordah frum one of dese Hollywood types. You'se two go sweep up a couple a bags a dirt and ship 'em to dis Savage guy! C'mon! Andiamo! "
When he showed the “New York Soot, I could see workers scurrying around scraping it off of buildings. And being New York, they wouldn’t have to work too hard finding it! 😂😂😂
Because film makers often literally change colours of items in their films. Its called "colour timing", and allows HUGE changes to colours. This can be a shock when you see the original item in normal colours. Also, lighting can make a huge difference.
Adam recently visited the original filming model of the Enterprise from the original Star Trek series at the Smithsonian. I was BLOWN AWAY when it was pointed out that there was GREEN in the paint scheme! Lighting on film changes a LOT as you say!
After working on the daleks for season 11 we used to add soo many details that stood out massively in person but on film it was barely noticeable. 🤘 You fed my brain to become a prop worker many many many thanks for the years of videos and mythbusters 🙏🙏 my dream would be to meet you one day.
“When Chris…Chris… when one of the Chris’s” hahahaha favorite part
Just finished weathering my Mandalorian cape …didn’t know about those powders so I used acrylics & my air brush … since it is wool for all the edges & holes I just took a lighter and burned the edges - gave an amazing worn, grimy look …
One of the perfect examples of this, is the golden idol from the opening of Indiana Jones... The actual prop looks so different in person than what I remember on the screen. -- But I don't know if thats the nostalgia lens, or the lighting of the scene, etc...
I’d be interested in hearing Adam’s brain about fashion and textiles because I just bought a pair of indigo selvedge jeans so I could have a personal pair that forms to me. I imagine that relationship between material and user is where Savage minds reside!
I think the idea of movement and direction in art never really vibed with me so much because I very often just didn't get that experience. Like, I don't entirely mean that it's wrong, but that I very often find I focus on things that aren't where the eye is "supposed" to focus, or I naturally view things in a different order. This clashes so much for me because this is often taught as if it's some absolute truth, that if you do this the eye does this, and people see things in this way, and draw these relations, and it's kinda true but it's less like a physical law and more like a set of rules of thumb. And I also think it corrupts the viewer to be told these things, because it then leads them to viewing things as they were taught that people view things. If you think "this trait in a painting makes people look that way" you're going to look that way after seeing that trait, even if you wouldn't have before you "knew" that's what that was supposed to do.
Your first answer reminds me why I think a neon-lit night scene frequently looks better than the same scene in the daylight. You see only what the artist(s) want you to see.
There are also instances where a costume is either partially or fully computer rendered (Iron Man, Spider-Man, Deadpool). No way to 100% match CGI in those cases
SupremePizzaMan, and everyone else, should check out the video where Adam Savage got to take a close look at the costume from "I Am Mother" (2019) (though maybe watch the movie first, it's excellent).
I don't recall ever seeing a movie costume from a movie that looked so close to just as good in just a random studio standing there talking about stuff, as it did in the film. Everyone involved did such a good job making that suit.
When Adam was talking about things drawing your eye I thought about the “YOU’LL READ THIS FIRST” meme lol
Precision dirt. LOL! I love it.
Also, in the action films they are obligated to make everything look teal & orange.
These were probably the two most helpful answers I've ever heard you give. Thank you.
Also, in my experience and opinion, it's still rare for anywhere else in the world to rival the best Connecticut pizza.
As an actor I agree with this Mr Savage Re: prop/costume
Lotta rambling in this one, and worth every minute. Great answers. 👏🙂
Having worked in construction I can absolutely relate to the, "there's a HUGE stain on something in a spot where you wouldn't expect"
Other aspects: color range captured by video/film is not same as one sees in person and can be further adjusted later, lighting is rarely natural, and polarizing filters will cut glare and reflections.
There's some human physiology going on, too, I believe. Some say the human eye can see up to 240 frames per second. Add in that it is believed that humans have a very narrow focal point relative to the entire field of vision. Consider that the typical movie is shown in the cinema at 24 frames per second, and that motion blur is often added to imply movement and speed, and that the final color grading is often quite a bit different than the real life look of the set on the day it was shot and it's not hard to understand how a prop would look more 'real' in the movie that it does in person.
there is also the aspect in older films of film stock, as well as organic vs artificial lighting.
I Did Stand in on "Jennifer Eight" and watched the Props woman brand-new set of undies and in 20 minutes made them look like they where eight years old and they had them hanging on the line in the "Myopics" room. I love to be ON Set with so many people working for one goal to make the best movie ever
Don't underestimate what color grading and post processing that isn't CGI can do! In addition to all the stuff already mentioned of course!
My favorite pizza is the Supreme. Nothing like having mushrooms, pepperoni, black olives, onions, sausage and green peppers all on one pizza.
Want to weather your Ghostbusters coveralls? Loan them to a mechanic friend. Get them back in a few months. Wash/patch them as best you can.
Omg Adam you just reminded me, I have to wash my high vis best before my boss sees its still dirty and yells at me lol
I would hazard a guess that part of the reason why props/costumes look so different in "real life" (like in a documentary setting, eg: an episode of Adam Savage’s Tested or on display right in front of you in a shop or museum) is that not only is not in the movie scene (with the lighting, focal length and composition doing their "thing") is that it's often many years after production and the materials it's made from have degraded over time. Some prop/costume materials degrade, change colour and/or become brittle: an extreme example being the puppet of Hoggle from "Labyrinth" (1986) being found in a suitcase after a couple of decades and with basically all of the soft rubber/latex rotted away and it looked awful. Also, Roy Batty's leather coat from "Blade Runner" (1982) looked a bit ragged, but that was because its bright orange accents were spraypainted black, which looked good long enough to do the movie, but pretty much would have started chipping and peeling as soon as the paint dried (I have tried to make white leather recycled from a couch black the same way: this is what happens) and would have had to be continuously touched-up during shooting, but afterwards just left as-is and finally cracked off the black paint where it was flexed the most, even with the most careful handling and archival storage.
This reminds me of the time I saw a photo of the actual jacket that Arnold wore for The Terminator. It looked so different to me that I had to compare them side to side.
Working customer facing jobs (retail/ food service), we frequently have to do our own cleaning. I can't tell you how many black shirts I had to ruin before I got the memo that if I liked a shirt, I could not wear it to job X because it would get bleach cplashback on it no matter what I did.
If you think "that wouldn't happen in a workplace," tell that to all the shirts I ruined with bleach completely unknowingly/ unintentionally. Take your distressing a little further 😅
Was fun watch Adam walk right up to saying the phrase, Every Frame a Painting haha
A channel I know he's mentioned before. Boy do I miss that channel.
My prof always said humans are a poor source of entropy, which is a fancy word for randomness.
The number thing is Benford's Law. They also use it for election anomalies
I think it's easy to loose track of what actually matters as a creative person when you're stuck in details, details that are important for production but that don't necessarily show to everyone else. This whole spiel about paintings and framing and all that, I think is an example of that.
I think it's much more simple than that, it's just about context. In a film or TV show, the prop or costume will appear in its context, surrounded by sets and other props and costumes of the same type, and yes lit in a way to match the environment it has been placed in. It won't necessarily look different out of camera all the time, a similar thing can be seen in a museum display, a good display will put the item in context, surround it with other related items, perhaps give it a background and appropriate lighting, and the magic starts to happen.
If you take an item out of context, by itself, or put it in a mundane setting with mundane lighting, it starts to look mundane itself. It's a similar thing to how shadows in the night can make things look bigger or scarier than they are when you see them in the middle of the day.
He could wear the overalls while weathering something else with the intent to try to keep the overalls clean. You'll always inevitably get dirt when you don't want it.
What a wonderful commentarive answer to a great question! 🎉 a video worth watching /enjoying!
Remember doing camera tests in film school and professors talking about black fabric turning purple, because of the IR pollution from hot lights caught by digital camera.
"Weathering powders"... oh what a time to be alive.
"one of the Chris's" made me laugh 😂
I would imagine Supreme Pizza would be Supremepizzaman's favorite pizza.
I feel like the best way to weather a Ghostbusters jumpsuit is to douse it in slime
I think rough out of scale dry brushing look fine in photos because of focus or resolution.
You should be a meteorologist with all these weathering questions! 🤣😂
It's mostly lighting and the colour scheme a movie uses. Those differ from real life situations in a lot of cases, especially period, sci-fi or art house movies. Weathering is needed to make something used and so does scenery, but that does not explain why a particular used prop looks different when seen in real life.
Pretty energize, thanks a lot!
I don't know why this video got me thinking of Adam's handedness - probably because his drink is different than normal - but I find it interesting that he keeps his drink on the left, picks it up with the left, holds it in his right, and opens it with his left. I'm right handed, so I keep my drink on the left, then pick it up with left and open it with right and actually take a drink with the left hand which has somewhat specialized in that role as it was easier to do that than to constantly trade hands with the drink and the right is where I keep all of my main equipment. He never actually takes a drink here, so I'm not sure which hand he drinks with. I rewatched the video on his hand injury, and it was the left that was injured while cleaning his lathe, but he never actually says which hand, if either, is dominant in that one.
Adam went on a tangent about the prop. what he meant to ask is why it looks fake up close and real in the movie. and its like the comments have said. Its lighting and CGI. they paint over the costume or zoom out / in to were you dont see the brush strokes or the material its made of and blend it to the movie/scene. Color correcting basically. and some part is like Adam said its not the center piece.
Great explanation 👏
o the old weathering, reminds me of an old saying "That an Artist is never finished with a painting "... he only accepts the end result...but NEVER , NEVER let him/her go back and alter it...
Somebody tell Steven Spielberg.
Enjoyed your understanding of costumes and context for SuperPizzaMan. By the way, where's your Bundaberg Ginger Beer?
Reminds me when you view old outtakes and it's not color graded and looks awful (and more real life to what it really looks like).
I am older than Adam, but I just about had it with the old guy tells..
In a nutshell, context is everything. 😉
I've actually used crushed pastels to weather some clothing before. They're very forgiving, but I think they're almost too forgiving. Even Scotchgarding them afterward they still looked too light and faded.
Loved the deadline comment!
Lighting and angles can change everything.
For anyone who’s going to be using powders, please wear a 3M half mask only. Do not use an N95 mask or a surgical mask.
a source to look for work worn uniforms, US Navy shipboard photos. especially flight deck crews on the aircraft carriers.
Color grading. That's a huge part of it.
Good stuff!!
I would say a couple of properties as part of that would be lighting and fps or frames per second.
From what I understand having a lower fps makes the scene look less like real life and more fantasy. I think it's one of the problems the hoobit films had (the high fps variants in the cinema)
MWS (Manhattan Wardrobe Supply). I have been using this place for 20 years, my wife even longer, for film, and TV. Two big boxes, marked 'Distressing'. One for the Shop, one for the Wardrobe Truck. Wire brushes, scouring pads, paint pens, marking pens, knives, and blades...and big bags, marked 'dirt', and "New York Soot" is the one that gets used the most. Not counting the 'Blood Bank', a .50cal ammo box filled with sponges, brushes, applicators, and off the shelf, and home-made blood. Directors ALWAYS want more blood. Oh, he got shot by a .22? I want blood spray! I want his clothes to be soaked!! I want the detectives wading through a pool of blood two inches deep!!! And I want it NOW!
First movie was that they were new… but the stains did build
I notice with the first Fantastic Four movie, The Thing looks great, but if you turn off the sound, he looks like a guy in a rubber suit hitting people with balsa chairs
Let’s just make sure appreciate the original Batman costume in 1989 even more. What do you think about today like the latest Thor movie all their muscles were CGI on the chicks. Back in those days it was lighting in costume that was it.