Live data from Hacker News

It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

youtube.com

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

#61
post #32
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely this makes your actors feel sick? And wouldn’t it make your motion blur look dashed and also cause artifacts at the edge of the mask if there’s a lot of motion?

Incandescent and fluorescent lights already flicker at your AC power frequency. Just gotta be higher than that

No.

Incandescent lights flicker at twice your AC power frequency -- to a decent approximation, their power is proportional to V^2. But this is input power -- the cooling of the filament is slowish and the modulation depth is low. Most people aren't bothered by this.

Fluorescent lights with old or very crappy "magnetic" ballasts flicker at twice the mains frequency, with deep modulation. The effect on people varies from moderate to extremely unpleasant, and it's extra bad if anything is moving quickly (gyms, etc). There are even studies showing that office workers perform worse under such lighting even if they don't experience personally perceptible symptoms. The effect is so severe that people invented the "electronic ballast", which flickers at much, much higher frequency and avoids low-frequency components. Phew. (The light might still be a nasty color, but the temporal output is okay.)

"Driverless LEDs" are deeply modulated at twice the mains frequency. These are very nasty.

If you actually have a light that flickers at the AC power frequency (certain LED sources in a two-brightness diode-dimmed kitchen appliance fixture will do this, as will driverless LEDs with certain types of failures), then it's extra nasty.

There are plenty of people around who find (depending on the actual waveform) 60Hz flicker intolerable and 120Hz flicker extremely unpleasant. And there are plenty of people who can often perceive flicker under appropriate circumstances up to at least several hundred Hz and even into the low kHz with certain shapes of light sources. You can read up on IEEE 1789 to find a standard based on actual research on what lighting waveforms should look like.

The effect of 120 Hz flicker is bad enough that energy codes in some places (e.g. California) have started to require that LED sources minimize this flicker, but, sadly, it's poorly enforced.

Re: It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

#63

Anyone tried using lidar and just cut/measure distance to the object?

That would require calibration with the camera, and even then the camera and lidar sensor can’t be in exactly the same place. I doubt results would be better.

Re: It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

#64

From ~04:10 till 05:00 they talk about sodium-vapor lights and how Disney has the exclusive rights to use it. From what I read the knowledge on how to make them is a trade secret, so it's not patented. Seems weird that it would be hard to recreate something from the 1950's. I also wonder how many hours were wasted by people who had to use inferior technology because Disney kept it secret. Cutting out animals and obje…

Even if it had been patented, patents from the 1950s would have long expired. In fact, patents from 2005 would have expired - the US patent term is only 20 years.

Didn't know that, thanks. Although 20 years seems too much for some things, especially computer-related fields that move much quicklier than other fields. But now pretty much everything depends on or runs on computers so 20 years seem too much. I don't know if I phrased it correctly, but I mean to say that before computers, things moved much more slowly. Even a century for a patent would've been fine 500 years ago, but now almost every field has been changed by computers in the past few decades and will change even more rapidly. Letting 1 company have the advantage for 20 whole years now is much more impactful than it must've been before.

Re: It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called “ghost frame” and already exists in Red cameras and virtual production wall tools like Disguise.

You need to basically timecode/genlock the greenscreen "illumination LEDs" to the camera so the greenscreen lights up only exactly at every other frame. Not sure if there exists any off the shelf solution which can do that but if not it can't be super hard to cobble together.

https://evermorestud.io/retroreflective-chromakey-experiment...

Re: It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

#67
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lights are relatively easy to get. iirc (it's been a bit since I watched their full video on the subject[1]) the hard part to find was the splitter that sends the sodium-vapor light to one camera and everything else to another camera. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQuIVsNzqDk

It would seem to me to be relatively easy to build something like that if you're okay shooting with effectively a full stop less light (just split the image with a half-silvered reflector and use a dichroic filter to pass the sodium-vapor light one one side. The splitter would have to be behind the lens, so it would require a custom camera setup (probably a longer lens-to-sensor distance than most lenses are designed…

At the end of this video they link to another video from a year ago [1] (this is the same link as the comment you were commenting on, whoops), where they recreate the sodium vapor process with a rig with a beam splitter, one side had a filter to reject sodium vapor light and the other has one to reject everything but sodium vapor light, and then a camera on each side.

The Disney process had the filter essentially built into the beam splitter, but afaik, nobody knows how to make that happen again (or nobody who knows how, knows it's a desirable thing). Seems like the optics might be cumbersome, but the results seem wortwhile.

Also, you need still need careful lighting, you don't want your foreground illuminated by sodium vapor, but I wonder if you could light the background screen from behind (like a rear projection setup) to reduce the amount of sodium vapor light that reflects from the foreground to the camera.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQuIVsNzqDk

Re: It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

#68

Anyone tried using lidar and just cut/measure distance to the object?

Well sort of, the industry tried to go way beyond that by capturing the entire light field: https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/11/lytro-cinema-is-giving-fil...

Re: It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

#69
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there’s no way that’s going to happen automatically They train their model in a pretty straightforward way, it can also be used to capture the distortion as well, just use a non-monochrome (possibly moving) background optimized for this. It's a matter of effort and attention to detail during training (uneven green screen lighting, reflections, etc), not fundamental impossibility

Yes. But the main issue is in the way they formulate the problem. Their output is always a transparency mask, which of course will never handle distortions.

Right. Things like this are why it’s difficult integrating AI into professional movie pipelines— they’re super complex in ways AI cannot (yet) replicate for very good reasons that seem superfluous or trivially replaceable by people not familiar with them.

Re: It Took Me 30 Years to Solve This VFX Problem – Green Screen Problem [video]

#70
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could strobe at some multiple of the sensor frame rate as long as your strobes are continuous through the integration period of the sensor and the lighting fades very quickly. This probably wouldn't work with incandescents but people strobe LEDs a lot to boost the instantaneous illumination without going past the continuous power rating in the datasheet.

You mean do strobe, strobe, strobe, strobe, pause, pause, pause, pause? I bet that's at least as bad as holding the source on for the first four intervals and then off for the latter four intervals. In any case, if you actually have a scene bright for 1/24th of a second and then dark for 1/24th of a second, repeating, you're well within photosensitive epilepsy range. Don't do that to your actors unless you've discuss…

So, shoot at 240 fps and strobe set lights for 1/240s and backdrop for 1/240s.
Post reply on HN