Vaseline Effect with Premiere Pro

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

Use a gaussian blur
"Tom" <tom@tom.tom> wrote in message
news:clr00p$9fl$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi guys.
>
> Is there an effect on Premiere Pro (or a combo of effects) which allows
> you
> to get that soft lens vaseline on the lens look? I can't seem to figure it
> out!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

Duplicate the layer , put the blur on the duplicate layer and play with the
blur level until you get what you want.


"Tom" <tom@tom.tom> wrote in message
news:clr2e4$hvo$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I see, thanks,
>
> I was hoping too, to achive a kind of soft white glow from the picture,
can
> this be achieved?
>
> Cheers
>
> a-e-i-o-u- wrote:
> :: Use a gaussian blur
> :: "Tom" <tom@tom.tom> wrote in message
> :: news:clr00p$9fl$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> ::: Hi guys.
> :::
> ::: Is there an effect on Premiere Pro (or a combo of effects) which
> ::: allows you
> ::: to get that soft lens vaseline on the lens look? I can't seem to
> ::: figure it out!
> :::
> ::: Cheers,
> :::
> ::: Tom
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

> > Duplicate the layer , put the blur on the duplicate layer and play with
> > the
> > blur level until you get what you want.

Or put Vaseline on the monitor...

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

I was waiting for someone to type something like that, LOL
If you hadn't I was ready to suggest adding Vaseline to the lens, LOL

AnthonyR.

"G Hardy" <gareth.hardy1@ntlwrold.com> wrote in message
news:%fdgd.223$ni.205@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> > Duplicate the layer , put the blur on the duplicate layer and play with
>> > the
>> > blur level until you get what you want.
>
> Or put Vaseline on the monitor...
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

> If you hadn't I was ready to suggest adding Vaseline to the lens, LOL

I forget where I saw it, but I recall a DVD with a "making of" feature where
the director suggests using Vaseline on the lens to hide wires or something.
I can see it as a legitimate technique for getting that absurdly soft focus
and flare that K-Tel use when advertising '70s hippy music compilations.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"RS" <idontthinkso@mail.com> wrote in message
news:418270d7$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
>I think you can get some effects like this by putting a nylon stocking over
> the lens. The sheerness of the material will determine the blur.
>
These are substantially different looks.

Stockings mostly provide diffusion, which reduces the contrast
more than blurring out the image. The result is a "softer" image
rather than a blurring of the image.

Vaseline is more of a blurry effect. It is often used to create a vignette
sort of effect by leaving the center fairly clear and the edges fairly
thick.

As another person mentioned, you don't put anything on the lens itself,
you put it on a filter, knowing that you may never be able to get it truly
clean ever again.

David

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <SIugd.15116$6q2.1805@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, a-e-i-o-u-
<joseft@sbcglobal.net> writes
>Oh.. sure.. It was a common technique to hide wrinkles for female stars
>in features made up into the 60's .

An urban myth. Soft focus portrait lenses have been available since the
20's on large-format and medium-format cameras. In later 35mm SLR days
there were lenses available for that camera format. And soft-focus
lenses are vaseline-free :-)

Using a soft focus lens is not the same as using a diffusion filter on a
conventional lens, nor is it the same as stopping down a conventional
lens. A diffusion filter causes a random scattering of the rays at all
points across the aperture. The image obtained with a soft-focus lens
retains all of the subject detail over a wider depth of field than with
a conventional lens set to the same aperture, but the emphasis is on the
fine detail or the bolder elements.

All the medium-format camera manufacturers offered one or more
soft-focus lenses, but none offered a jar of vaseline :-)
An example of medium format SF is the Mamiya Telephoto 150mm f/4 Soft
Focus Lens for RB67 Cameras.

A 35mm examples are the Canon FD 85mm f/2.8 and 135mm F2.8 Soft Focus
Lens. Cheaper options were the Spiratone Portragon or Sima Soft Focus
(T-mount).

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"a-e-i-o-u-" <josef4t4@4sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1Vxgd.2243$zx1.1609@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Not a myth at all. Vaseline was commonly used. I recall a get-together
> with the older guys from the ASC, the ones who actually SHOT the stuff,
> while working at a visual effects house in Los Angeles in the 80's. We had
> a short discussion about it and indeed it was certainly one of the
> techniques used. We're not talking SLRs here.. Panavision Lenses, Mitchell
> cameras, 65mm cameras..
65, huh? that's almost surprising.

There are a wide variety of over the counter diffusion and distortion
effects,
but they aren't quite the same thing as a hand made effect (like Vaseline on
the lens). Now that's the good news and the bad news. The over the counter
filters are much more consistent than anything you are likely to accomplish,
but that can be a good thing. If you need a vignette effect where it is only
a little diffused on the part of the image while going fuzzy around the
edges.
You can buy various filters and combine them in a matte box. You don't have
as much control over the shape and density, but your fingers don't get all
gooey.

David

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <rYX9RBHpErgBFwKX@zen54488.dircon.co.uk>, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net> writes
>In message <1Vxgd.2243$zx1.1609@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, a-e-i-o-u-
><josef4t4@4sbcglobal.net> writes
>>Not a myth at all. Vaseline was commonly used.
>
>Just think about it. Do you think that the camera manufacturers would
>even think about developing/manufacturing/selling soft-focus lenses
>when all that was required was a jar of vaseline?

Snipped...

Sorry to follow-up on my own post, but a quick Google threw up some
still-image examples of the soft-focus options at:
http://www.escrappers.com/softfocus.html

Though this is specifically for PhotoShop, everything there is exactly
as with a video editor which gives the FX options.

The significant thing, though, is that you can see the difference in
detail between diffusion (aka vaseline on the lens) and on the layering
technique where detail is retained.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net> wrote in message
news:x447p6HXQrgBFwKP@zen54488.dircon.co.uk...
> In message <rYX9RBHpErgBFwKX@zen54488.dircon.co.uk>, Tony Morgan
> <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net> writes
>>In message <1Vxgd.2243$zx1.1609@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, a-e-i-o-u-
>><josef4t4@4sbcglobal.net> writes
>>>Not a myth at all. Vaseline was commonly used.
>>
>>Just think about it. Do you think that the camera manufacturers would even
>>think about developing/manufacturing/selling soft-focus lenses when all
>>that was required was a jar of vaseline?
>
> Snipped...
>
> Sorry to follow-up on my own post, but a quick Google threw up some
> still-image examples of the soft-focus options at:
> http://www.escrappers.com/softfocus.html
>
> Though this is specifically for PhotoShop, everything there is exactly as
> with a video editor which gives the FX options.
>
> The significant thing, though, is that you can see the difference in
> detail between diffusion (aka vaseline on the lens) and on the layering
> technique where detail is retained.
> --
> Tony Morgan
> http://www.camcord.info

Tony,
Cool web link, thanks..
option 1, the use of a simple Gaussian blur on a second layer looks the best
of them all in my opinion.
Neat trick to use in Post and no lens filter needed.


AnthonyR.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <dof5o09ncbqtldrdo41nsdvcbi2sng2iar@4ax.com>, Stuart McKears
<postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> writes
>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:40:58 +0100, Tony Morgan <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net>
>wrote:
>
>>An urban myth.
>
>Afraid not. Almost every cameraman/DoP will have used vaseline at some time in
>their career.
>
>Of course, never actually onto the lens but onto plain glass somewhere front
>lens. This means that only a portion of the image can be made soft. You can
>often see this most marked in quota films - a 2 shot with the male lead sharp
>and rugged, the female lead soft and vulnerable!!
>
>Almost everything has been tried, heard of HP sauce, sugar/oil mixture,
>you name
>it.
I'm not suggesting that it's never done.

What I am saying that the difference in a "grease-job" and a soft-focus
lens the picture (either still or movie) is clear to see. With the
latter the detail is retained, with the former it isn't.

Read Katz, or even better have a look at some of the classic movies
where soft-focus is extensively used (I've just had a look at my copy of
Casablanca which well demonstrates this).

Go to the National Gallery's photographic section or the National
Portrait Gallery [1] and have a look at some of the soft-focus portraits
- OK that's still photography, but just as valid in demonstrating the
difference between grease-jobs and soft-focus (lens use) where detail is
maintained. And for those who aren't sure what to look for, just examine
hair texture and (on close-ups) eyelashes.

[1] I'm lucky that there's a satellite National Portrait Gallery close
by me
at Bodelwyddan Castle.

And it's so easy for a-e-i-o-u to make uncheckable attributions to the
ASC. Which sort of confirms my view of a lot of Americans (not all
though). Unable to make qualitative assessment of either still or movie
image, they resort to support their argument by making such
attributions.

I'm going to bow out of this thread before someone from across the pond
says "Michael Curtiz told me so...." or something similar :-)
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net> wrote in message
news:YvmBM1BuatgBFwuK@zen54488.dircon.co.uk...
> In message <erzgd.181729$4h7.34833342@twister.nyc.rr.com>, AnthonyR
> <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> writes
> Snipped...
>
>>Tony,
>>Cool web link, thanks..
>>option 1, the use of a simple Gaussian blur on a second layer looks the
>>best of them all in my opinion. Neat trick to use in Post and no lens
>>filter needed.
>>
>
> I'm glad that you could recognise where detail is retained in soft-focus
> shots. Something that the philistines seem to have difficulty in doing
> (and, according to a-e-i-o-u, that includes the ASC).


You haven't done that Google search yet have ya? You don't know much about
what you are talking about, that's clear, but to continue to ignore Google
results..

I saw your site. You're clearly an amateur.The site is pretty funny, too.
Doesn't look like you even have any experience with pro-sumer cameras let
alone film cameras. And I can tell you have never even been within 100 miles
of a professional anything. You're working with toys and yet you feel well
enough informed to .. well .. this is a waste of time...

Come back when you know what you are talking about. Maybe a few more years.

> --
> Tony Morgan
> http://www.camcord.info

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:38:04 -0500, "RS" <idontthinkso@mail.com>
wrote:

>I think you can get some effects like this by putting a nylon stocking over
>the lens. The sheerness of the material will determine the blur.

Nice suggestion, however, bear in mind the depth of field of a mini-dv
cam is practically from the front-element to infinity, if you shoot
anything but wide open. You'll see the net straight away!

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

So, what are the mechanical differences between a soft focus lens and
a....sharp focus lens?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <418343a6$0$11696$8b463f8a@news.nationwide.net>, Seattle Eric
<noone@erehwon.gov> writes
> So, what are the mechanical differences between a soft focus
>lens and a....sharp focus lens?

Spherical aberration designed into the lens.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:34:59 -0700, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov>
wrote:

> We regularly put nylon BEHIND the lens in 16mm photography, but on a
>XL-1 (only Canons let you behind the lens, right?) there doesn't appear
>to be any clearance to get a net in there.

That's a good one. Would be interesting to know.

-m-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <fWWQCxCss0gBFw8j@zen54488.dircon.co.uk>, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net> writes
>In message <418343a6$0$11696$8b463f8a@news.nationwide.net>, Seattle
>Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> writes
>> So, what are the mechanical differences between a soft focus
>>lens and a....sharp focus lens?
>
>Spherical aberration designed into the lens.

I should perhaps have added that all lenses exhibit spherical aberration
to a greater or less extent, and the degree of spherical aberration
(measured as 'circle of confusion') for all lenses will vary (for any
given lens) according to both focal length and aperture.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:44:09 +0100, Tony Morgan <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net>
wrote:

>In message <dof5o09ncbqtldrdo41nsdvcbi2sng2iar@4ax.com>, Stuart McKears
><postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> writes
>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:40:58 +0100, Tony Morgan <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>An urban myth.
>>
>>Afraid not. Almost every cameraman/DoP will have used vaseline at some time in
>>their career.
>>
>>Of course, never actually onto the lens but onto plain glass somewhere front
>>lens. This means that only a portion of the image can be made soft. You can
>>often see this most marked in quota films - a 2 shot with the male lead sharp
>>and rugged, the female lead soft and vulnerable!!
>>
>>Almost everything has been tried, heard of HP sauce, sugar/oil mixture,
>>you name
>>it.
>I'm not suggesting that it's never done.
>
>What I am saying that the difference in a "grease-job" and a soft-focus
>lens the picture (either still or movie) is clear to see. With the
>latter the detail is retained, with the former it isn't.
>
>Read Katz, or even better have a look at some of the classic movies
>where soft-focus is extensively used (I've just had a look at my copy of
>Casablanca which well demonstrates this).
>
>Go to the National Gallery's photographic section or the National
>Portrait Gallery [1] and have a look at some of the soft-focus portraits
>- OK that's still photography, but just as valid in demonstrating the
>difference between grease-jobs and soft-focus (lens use) where detail is
>maintained. And for those who aren't sure what to look for, just examine
>hair texture and (on close-ups) eyelashes.
>
>[1] I'm lucky that there's a satellite National Portrait Gallery close
>by me
> at Bodelwyddan Castle.
>
>And it's so easy for a-e-i-o-u to make uncheckable attributions to the
>ASC. Which sort of confirms my view of a lot of Americans (not all
>though). Unable to make qualitative assessment of either still or movie
>image, they resort to support their argument by making such
>attributions.
>

You are completely wrong about being able to see the "difference between
grease-jobs and soft-focus (lens use)".

The position of the diffuser, the amount of light behind, the amount of light in
front, the thickness of the diffuser, etc, etc all make a difference to the
visibilty/opacity and therefore it's effect of the diffuser - this is really the
most basic film knowledge.

What is the connection between Casablanca and a soft focus lens?

Why, oh why, do you try to argue about things you know nothing about and then go
on to prove you know nothing about the subject.

Stuart

www.mckears.com

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <3fg7o01m3j797nb2uc8nt4m4kp7asbkc1v@4ax.com>, Stuart McKears
<postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> writes
>What is the connection between Casablanca and a soft focus lens?

The very fact that you ask the question tells us all that in spite of
being a self-proclaimed professional, you really know sweet FA about
movies or movie camerawork.
>
>Why, oh why, do you try to argue about things you know nothing about
>and then go on to prove you know nothing about the subject.

Have you ever asked yourself the question why all the major lens
manufacturers have for many, many years offered soft-focus lenses (that
are significantly more expensive than their straight lenses) - when all
they have to do (if you are to be believed) is offer or give away a jar
of vaseline.

Insofar as knowing nothing about it, my degree was in Physics, but one
of the major options was Optics. I worked for Vision Optics at
Borehamwod on development of the F.67 photo-reconnaisance camera, but
when Thomson bought out Vision, the RAF wouldn't buy from a French
company and went for the US KA18A camera instead. 25 of us were made
redundant.

Though this period was relatively short, and a long time ago, I consider
myself to be well conversant with optics and optical design. Since you
clearly disagree, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's pointless continuing this discussion with someone who seriously
believes that smearing a lens with vaseline will give the same results
as a properly designed soft-focus lens.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:11:56 +0100, Tony Morgan <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net>
wrote:

>In message <3fg7o01m3j797nb2uc8nt4m4kp7asbkc1v@4ax.com>, Stuart McKears
><postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> writes
>>What is the connection between Casablanca and a soft focus lens?
>
>The very fact that you ask the question tells us all that in spite of
>being a self-proclaimed professional, you really know sweet FA about
>movies or movie camerawork.

Whenever you can't answer a reasonable question, you resort to attacking the
person. Very sad and very obvious that you can't answer the question.

>>
>>Why, oh why, do you try to argue about things you know nothing about
>>and then go on to prove you know nothing about the subject.
>
>Have you ever asked yourself the question why all the major lens
>manufacturers have for many, many years offered soft-focus lenses (that
>are significantly more expensive than their straight lenses) - when all
>they have to do (if you are to be believed) is offer or give away a jar
>of vaseline.

Which major film and video lens manufacturers have offered for "many, many
years" soft focus lenses? I see from your later post that you have managed to
come up with a single add on soft focus attachment to a prime based on a still's
lens. I would guess, therefore, it's spherical rather than anamorphic. Keep on
trying, how about zeiss, fuijnon, angenieux, etc, etc.

The fact is that in the film/video world you can always find a specialized piece
of equipment but that doesn't mean it is the norm.

>
>Insofar as knowing nothing about it, my degree was in Physics, but one
>of the major options was Optics. I worked for Vision Optics at
>Borehamwod on development of the F.67 photo-reconnaisance camera, but
>when Thomson bought out Vision, the RAF wouldn't buy from a French
>company and went for the US KA18A camera instead. 25 of us were made
>redundant.
>
>Though this period was relatively short, and a long time ago, I consider
>myself to be well conversant with optics and optical design. Since you
>clearly disagree, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

So? Nobody is disagreeing about the existence of soft focus lenses for still
cameras.

>
>It's pointless continuing this discussion with someone who seriously
>believes that smearing a lens with vaseline will give the same results
>as a properly designed soft-focus lens.

That, of course, is not what I said, it's a pure invention of your inadequate
reasoning and symptomatic of your inability to read and comprehend what is
actually being posted.

With regard to, your comment in you later post, about googling for information,
I don't need too, not only do I actually understand the subject but I have,
also, quite a few reference books accumulated over the years.

A quote from David Samuelson's Manual for Cinematographers 2nd Edition 1998

"A fine smear of petroleum jelly makes a good diffuser and has the advantage
that it can be applied selectively across the picture area."

Oh, and by the way, I can't find any references to soft focus cinematography
lenses in any of the books/manuals (1969 to 1999)

Stuart

www.mckears.com

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

Tony Morgan <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net> wrote in
news:GEF22xEhV3gBFwue@zen54488.dircon.co.uk:

> In message <fWWQCxCss0gBFw8j@zen54488.dircon.co.uk>, Tony Morgan
> <tonymorgan@xtreme.pipex.net> writes
>>In message <418343a6$0$11696$8b463f8a@news.nationwide.net>,
>>Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> writes
>>> So, what are the mechanical differences between a soft
>>> focus
>>>lens and a....sharp focus lens?
>>
>>Spherical aberration designed into the lens.
>
> I should perhaps have added that all lenses exhibit spherical
> aberration to a greater or less extent, and the degree of
> spherical aberration (measured as 'circle of confusion') for all
> lenses will vary (for any given lens) according to both focal
> length and aperture.
>

And the old-time soft focus lenses took advantage of that variability.

Shoot wide open, get the full spherical aberration and thus the softest
focus. Stop down and get less spherical aberration and so less soft
foucs and a sharper image.

I don't remember (probably never knew) whether any of them looked
actually sharp at small apertures, or just not as soft.

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

Look in Cinefex
"G Hardy" <gareth.hardy1@ntlwrold.com> wrote in message
news:nbThd.280$vx3.216@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> If you hadn't I was ready to suggest adding Vaseline to the lens, LOL
>> >
>> >I forget where I saw it, but I recall a DVD with a "making of" feature
> where
>> >the director suggests using Vaseline on the lens to hide wires or
> something.
>> >I can see it as a legitimate technique for getting that absurdly soft
> focus
>> >and flare that K-Tel use when advertising '70s hippy music compilations.
>> >
>>
>> I recall watching a "making of" of Terminator 1 and they used vaseline to
>> simulate motion blur in some stop-motion sequences.
>
> I'll have to watch it now. It's annoying me that I can't remember where I
> saw it. I think it was someone more personable than James Cameron, though.
> Spielberg or Lucas.
>
>
>