h a l f b a k e r yCompound disinterest.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Just saw a small embarrassing moment for a guest on a live
TV show, as the camera cut to the guest prior to the
application of makeup being finished.
Nixon famously lost the Kennedy debate by refusing
makeup and looking worse on TV.
But how is this still a thing in 2019?
TV camera software
can brighten the requisite colors as
needed automatically to make guests look lifelike, without
the need to apply makeup prior to appearing on camera.
[link]
|
| |
This is still a thing (or even a think) because, in general,
people look better with makeup, especially on TV where the
lighting may be harsh and the studio hot. What's wrong with
wanting to look good, or wanting to look at people who look
good? |
|
| |
If you can point to any examples of people who look good on
TV without any makeup, that's just because their makeup has
been done well enough that it doesn't look like makeup. |
|
| |
[MB] the point being the same camera effects that will draw
bunny ears on your face on Snapchat or Facebook could be
used to digitally "add" the makeup, hence "augmented
reality"... |
|
| |
// make guests look lifelike // |
|
| |
Teresa May is easy - just crank up the pressure of the embalming fluid to sbout 8 Bar. |
|
| |
If you mean Donald Tusk, you're going to need some astonishing software, and multiple supercomputers. |
|
| |
//digitally "add" the makeup// |
|
| |
I think the fundamental point here is that makeup artists are
cheaper by the hour than digital effectors. |
|
| |
// makeup would be seen as essential to balance out the grey response of facial features. // |
|
| |
Ahh, the notorious "John Major" problem ... |
|
| |
It’s weird when someone adds an annotation here
in which they sound like they know what they’re
talking about |
|
| |
Don't worry about it, [IT]; that was in another country: And besides, the wench is dead. |
|
| |
// I think the fundamental point here is that makeup artists are cheaper by the hour than digital effectors. // |
|
| |
I'm not sure. Have you seen that smartphone app (from Sephora, I think) that works like a mirror using your phone's front camera, but simulates makeup? It seemed to work really well the one brief time I got to try it. If that could be adapted to live TV (and I don't see why it would be difficult) then it would be pretty cheap per hour. |
|
| |
"Quick - for fucksake cut to a longshot - Terry's skintone has
just rebooted!" |
|
| |
All the old skills are dying out ... |
|
| |
//creep up behind politicians and make 'bunny
ears// |
|
| |
A certain politician is well known for his fake hare. |
|
| |
I thought the idea was to digitally subtract the
makeup, but I guess the other way works too. |
|
| |
Well, that would let you see just how many of your planet's leaders are actually reptilians ... |
|
| |
(Hint: it's a lot more than you think). |
|
| |
Too low by several orders of magnitude. |
|
| |
Think: sluggish, cold-blooded, thick scaly skin, tiny brains, vicious amoral predators. |
|
| |
That's every Democrat in elected office just to begin with ... |
|
| |