How come movies don't have natural looking lighting anymore? Everything looks so fake and slathered in shit.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
How come movies don't have natural looking lighting anymore? Everything looks so fake and slathered in shit.
Cause you aren't using an oled
I use a Oled TV, but everything is so fricking dark lit that I can't see anything if they walk into a unlit building or do a scene in the middle of the night.
Scenes in the middle of the day, or outside with a clear blue sky looks amazing though.
That sounds like you don't have a good enough oled, your model isn't calibrated, or the source material isn't good enough. I don't know your situation. But your oled should rival the screens they use in cinemas. An OLED should have visible blacks. Did you calibrate your system?
This.
You really gotta spend some time get it setup. There are plenty of resources online for ideal calibrations that you can use to get started. You have to factor in your exact situation though, if you have a lot of windows with light coming in in the room, you'll have to adjust.
Did an AI write this?
As an AI learning model, I can't comment on whether or not that comment was written by an AI. By I can draw your attention to characteristics of AIs to note: stilted prose, prevarication, and a noticeable leftist bent.
Black person
Increasing advancements in technology have made filmmakers lazy. See also, CGI vs practical effects
probably why most movies are frickin dark. gotta obscure the shitty effects
This right here. Technology has made everyone lazy and the quality has plummeted all around. Not just in film, either.
They use LEDs for everything. Just step outside and look at the streetlights, they're all fricking shit too.
places with some sanity left still use sodium bulbs.
>seething about leds
It's not the technology, it's the implementation. You can make leds mimic whatever light type you want. They just don't.
Shooting on film forced directors to actually light a scene well, now with digital you don't have to care at all.
Kinda...
Until pretty recently, film had a much higher dynamic range than digital which actually made lighting a set for film *easier* than digital. Instead of working harder to achieve well-lit scenes, directors and lighting techs collectively said "frick it" and started filming with shitty contrasty lighting as an "artistic choice". After a while it became a popular aesthetic and the industry kept the shitty lighting despite improvements in digital camera technology.
Also so studios can edit whole scenes in post production based off focus testing. That’s why so many Disney movies have looked so dingy and murky.
I gotchu senpai,
Make Tarzan one hard ass brutha wit a big ass dick out dem loin cloth n shiiit.
Kerchak gotta be some butthole homey some white dude know what I'm sayin like some ben affleck homie feel me
Tarzan will be the bufoonish white guy that Jane (Zendaya) has to civilize with Power of Love. Her father will be the ruthless white capitalist villain.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Disney hasn't been able to do anything with Tarzan since at least the first Kingdom Hearts: It's not a public domain property and they don't own the rights to it.
Tarzan went into Public Domain in 2020, ERB died in 1950. It appears that the estate trademarked the name 'Tarzan' so they'd have to pay to call it Tarzan but could call it 'lord of the apes' or just about anything else.
But... isn't there already a live action Tarzan movie? Am I losing my mind?
There are several. It was a big franchise long before Disney and 2016 The Legend of Tarzan with Alexander Sakrsgård, Margot Robbie and Sam Jackson was pretty good.
People here don't watch or follow movies
Eh, they are all bad now
The Tarzan movie predates LA little mermaid and Peter Pan
with a Black person?
It wasn't a Disney movie, but a different adaptation, kinda like Andy Serkis' Mowgli that came out around the same time as live action Jungle Book.
>dark lighting
>dark people
I sense a pattern
>and started filming with shitty contrasty lighting as an "artistic choice".
You could argue the contrast here
is more severe than in OP's post. Assuming we are talking about contrast between highlights, mid tones and shadows. The actors are very illuminated but the background actually gets completely crushed (=black). Whereas in OP's lower picture we retain lots of shadow detail even though the shot has overall lower light levels
There's a edge light on Goldblum's left side of face and otherwise him and Dern are lit quite brightly and softly. It is about a 3/4 Key on the right side on Dern. Based on eye reflection it is probably HMI pushing through a diffusion. Maybe a 8x8 frame of silk or something, I don't know what was the most popular during that time. The light is relatively high based on the nose shadow on Dern's face. But her key is definitely to the side because you don't get the paramount style butterfly shadow under her nose.
Same light source might be lighting Goldblum as well, based on reflections in the eyes, and you can see the reflection of his edge light on his eyes as well.
Been a while since I've seen the film so I don't remember the full context for that shot. But might be that they are also either bouncing or doing some overheard ambience fill that we don't see. It's shot on Eastman's stocks and it being a night shot, it is most likely EXR 500T 5296. Which is fast-ish for a color negative stock. But still Cundey and Spielberg have made the creative choice to let the light contrast be very severe.
Looking at the scene in motion, I think it also a rear projection shot done in the studio
?t=74
Good assessment
snobs and elites used to gatekeep this shit so if something had bad lighting or cheap effects or low production value they would get called out on it
but now those same snobs and elites put all of their energy into gatekeeping identity politics and feminism etc instead
so everything looks cheap and is shitty but thats fine because it serves the greater narrative
Touch grass and go back to your containment board homosexual
eat shit troony
east my ass, homosexual
a post that was not refuted…
interesting…
whats the deal with her face?
That's her Dern expression.
Its how you know she's being Dern
she's quite old
WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR FAAACE
she could play a mean titanic
I think 'she' is a 'he'.
And I think it is a changeling.
dis
Bruce Dern is based and I will not hear claims to the contrary.
Yep he's a great character actor. His daughter is nothing special though.
Laura Dern already looked like she was 10-15 years older than her actual age in the original JP movie.
I figured she was about 35, but in truth she was I think 19.
Sam Neill looked about 45 then and looks about 55 now.
Hides that they used CGI body doubles.
Zoomers are actually unable to watch movies that look like the top in that image. They associate movies with having bad color filters and shitty lighting. Anything else doesn't look like a movie to them
They’ve completely normalized the unnatural to zooms
Zoomers don't watch movies anon. Their attention spam is extremely short because TikTok and social media.
I'm a zoomer and i watched that shit when i was 6. What makes you think i can't watch it now?
i don't know or talk to any zoomers and like to hate them for being the target audience that i am not anymore
Or movies are shit now and anyone who likes them is a shitliker.
They also don't cater to anyone
You're deranged
Zoomers will do that to a person.
Frick you. No one wants to watch your boring as frick paleontologist friend simulator. Bottom is an actual movie.
Zoomers have the worst taste.
I've noticed this too. Zoomers struggle to watch anything before the 2000s unless it's some monumental pop culture cine-slop like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, or Back to the Future
Start a family gramps
Can't believe your post actually triggered some babies. the age to post here should go up by 1 every year lol
>how?
White don't blight
garlic
"Fix it in post"
>top
shot during day
bottom
>shot during night
>top
shot during day
>bottom
shot on a green screen stage in full bright and then digitally graded to look like night
Atleast post two nightime shots for comparisson.
MUCHACHO DEME LA LUS
> Oh, you'll never get him out of Atlanta!
> Why not?
> Because Grant's like me... he's a Black person
>dark shot on film
I can still see it
>dark shot on digital
I have to turn brightness to maximum.
I think the biggest issue between both night shots involves the direction of the lighting and visibility of the faces. The digital shot obscures the eyes and brings more shadow to each face whereas the Jurassic Park shot, while dark, still emphasizes the actors' faces and maintains light in their eyes. In other words, one scene is lit well while the other scene is not.
>while dark, still emphasizes the actors' faces and maintains light in their eyes. In other words, one scene is lit well while the other scene is not.
This is such a blanket statement that doesn't account context and what the cinematography is trying to do storytelling wise.
>actors acting
>three of them standing immobile
>all three faces obscured by darkness
>expressions of faces cannot be clearly seen
>cannot see actors reacting with their acting
you are a pseud
Already, what storytelling is communicated by the actors' faces being indistinct shadowy blobs?
It must be some very important storytelling to be worth subjecting the audience to such an tiring viewing experience.
Last week the skies here were all smoky from the Canadian wildfires and outside actually looked like in old movies
its dark to hide all their elderly lesions like john carpenter the thing
It's shot on digital
they're all 90 years old now they have to hide it somehow
Because of the switch to digital camera. In the early and late days of film, lighting was everything. Now it can just be edited on le Mac PC and made into crap.
I'm colorblind and I've been saying this for years. Movies today look like shit and are hard for me to see.
movies now are reminding me of metal in the 80s, where everyone was putting so many effects on their guitar tone that it all turned to indistinct mud and everything sounded the fricking same under all the phasers and flangers and octavers and choruses etc etc etc
Decent comparison. By that same logic we'll be approaching the 90s grunge era of cinema soon, where the effects are still cranked but key underlying parts are stripped down enough to allow kino to shine through again
we already have this shit and it’s called a24
>a24
A24 started strong but it's getting gayer and gayer and falling into the same trap making everything about women and asians.
they master these movies on immaculate screens with infinite contrast and perfect uniformity so it all looks great to them they don't care most people have shitty led tvs or oleds with bad uniformity
Because all the actors are 30 years older and cant convincingly be in these situations anymore. Poor lighting is a cheap way to mask the fact that all the good actors are to fricking old or they just don't give off the same feel they did 30 years ago.
My last memories of my grandfather were a tired man who could do very little for himself anymore when he was a WWII veteran who probably ran more miles and carried more kit then I ever even thought of when I was an infantry Marine.
No one cares about young actors because young people are into "content creators" not actors. And this board isn't a good place to gauge audiences off of because most of us are either oldgays or outlier zoomers who actually enjoy "classic" tv and film
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
They're fricking obsessed. It's preposterous.
Thanks, I've been meaning to re-watch this. I'll avoid the baby-poo version
What film?
Memories of Murder
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=15780&d2=12175&s1=166644&s2=120486&i=15&l=1
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=15780&d2=12175&s1=166644&s2=120486&i=15&l=1
Reminder that FR>DE>KR>DVD>Criterion
You know what they say:
>greeno means kino
we want the matrix audience
At least they fixed it in the 4K release
Did they?
where might one find the color corrected version?
Yes they did. Fellowship looks especially gorgeous.
You just posted a HDR capture that will look like shit on SDR screens.
>the tired SDR argument
I bet you enjoy the DNR too
Also the "imagine being arnold" copypasta is wrong, since it's an obvious body double there. Guy looks nothing like Arnold. They use body doubles as much as possible so that they can use the stars to shoot other scenes, and reduce their time needed on set.
example:
>some cgi iron man battle
>close up of RDJ's face inside suit
>Iron man cgi fighting
>next shot of iron man in a practical suit (body double)
>takes off suit from behind (body double)
>close up of RDJ's face
RDJ was only needed for like two quick closeups which might be a 8 minute segment of the film. Sometimes if an actor is being super b***hy, like Blade, they'll say "we already filmed all your closeups. Your stuntman can do the rest of the film."
Do you think that's even Jamie Lee? That could be anyone's ass.
Yeah if you don't see an actors face in a scene or filmed from the back it's 99% of the time a double
Now make one with the "remastered" version.
it's disgusting
there's dnr a gogo now too not only color shit
Come on it'll be fun.
it's horrific
it all went to shit somehow when they did the Remastered Extended Cut Blu-ray
the original blu ray was somehow alright but still nothing beats the original dvd
contrast and stuff is kinda fricked up as you can see in that pic
uhd is avatarblasted
ultimately the movie seems to be rather lost right now as the avatar version is the actual version we got now
TNT knows drama
the matrix.
Digital made filmmakers too reliant on post-processing and they forget how to actually light the set.
I genuinely can't stand 99% of modern movies since noticing how shitty and flat the lighting is.
>cgi set
>Cgi dinosaurs
>Cgi props
>Actors edited to look different using cgi
>Lighting changed using cgi
Gee I wonder why a screen that's 75% done on a computer looks fake
>this daytime scene looks bright and great!
>but this nighttime scene looks dark and baaaaad
What the frick? kek Compare two shots that required at least somewhat similar lighting or this means nothing
>hollywood continues to rape every good movie ever made
Digital coloring has has made movies look fake a shit.
Hard Candy started this trend, and I will never forgive it.
No humanity.
Pretty sure "O Brother Where Are Thou?" started the trend because it was the first film to digitally color correct the entire film.
Digital
one of these is set in daylight and the other one is set during the night when most of the illumination comes from artificial light sources.
hope this helped.
It’s a digital era. It’s a sad era.
Why can't we have some new actors once in a while?
because digital looks like shit compared to film. Also why is that lady to the right of Dr. Grant so fricking old?
Why can't they just make new movies?
With digital cameras you don't really have to properly light/expose the image anymore, all the dynamic range of the camera is captured at once and can be manipulated in post. That "flat" 90s look has also been out of style for a very long time.
>all the dynamic range of the camera is captured at once and can be manipulated in post.
You capture the desired dynamic range by making choices with exposure, in some cases you don't want to capture "all the dynamic range". And "all the dynamic range" is dependent on the camera you are shooting with also. And if you don't know what exposure choices you are making, no, you can't just "manipulate it in post" and expect good results.
With digital cameras you generally have more shadow detail and information, but shooting on film gives you more "dynamic range" in the highlights, which clip far quicker with digital cameras. Only now something like the Arri S35 is close to film the way it handles highlight and what it can capture.
>That "flat" 90s look has also been out of style for a very long time.
So much the worse for us.
Cinematography was perfected in the 90s.
And yet the 90s are the best decade for Hollywood.
golden age, 70s and 80s were way better
80s was mostly trash, if we're honest.
70s Hollywood had some major unmatched kino but wasn't as consistently watchable as the 90s.
If we are really honest the 80s were filled with kinos and most of what 90s had was the tail end of things started in the 80s
>the 80s were filled with kinos
Name 3
Hard mode: no slop like Predator or Commando
>Come and See
>The Thing
>Blade Runner
>The Shining
>Full Metal Jacket
>Ran
>Amadeus
>Platoon
>>The Thing
Genre slop
Runner
Genre slop
>>The Shining
Genre slop
>>Full Metal Jacket
Boomer Nam bait
>>Ran
Weeb bait
Genuinely good
Boomer Nam bait
>calling The Shining genre slop
Opinion discarded with prejudice.
>Amadeus
>portrayed Mozart as a vulgar, lazy womanizer who's musical genius was not worked for and natural
He was incredibly gifted and talented, but hebworked tirelessly to perfect his craft. He have close to 600 letters from Mozarts lifetime, mostly addressed to his father, sister and wife, and they show, among other things:
He was extremely pious in hisbreligious pracrice
He slept 4-5 hours a night
He was never not working to some degree: either composing, coaching other singers/pianists, studying Latin, conducting an opera/symphony, playing in a pit, etc
Was very chaste and faithful to his wife. It was actually her who was seemingly not faithful to him, testified to the fact that he writes her several letters decrying her behaviour at parties where she flirts woth other men, plays the then equivalent of "spin the bottle", etc.
That movie tarnishes the historical figure and who Mozart was. Not to mention he barely had anything approaching a real relatiomship with Salieri. He does mention him in 2 letters amd crtisizes his compositions, but he does this with several.composers of his time in several letters. Salieri was not unique in this regard
It's the farthwst I go into israelite conspiracy: a israelite wrote it to tarnish who Mozart really was as a man, it's anti-gentile propoganda of the highest order. That, or he felt the need to attatch the name 'Mozart- to his project so it would sell, instead of writing an original.work of a native genius composer who also happened to be a vulgar bafoon.
I mean yeah, probably, still pretty good kino.
I can seperate it from the historical figure to an extent and admit the film is not bad. I simply wish they had named it anything else, bulecause it touches on some interesting themes. However, I still believe Ilit is either anti-gentile slander or a project that the author felt would not be succesful unless he attatched Mozarts name to it. I actually think it would have been MORE succesful and far more interesting if it had been an original work, about a fictional 19th century composer.
And I should remark that from Mozart's letters, you can clearly see he had a fun, boisterous, lively personality. But his letters give no indication he was the vulgar, womanizing, lazy, piss and fart jokester the movie portrays him as, especially sinc ehe harshly.judges and condemns these types of people in several of his letters. He was not one to suffer fools or vulgarities. He was highly professional, courteous, respectful, bright, pleasant, polite, hardworking, and obsessed and devoted to his craft. This is all garnered by some 600 letters where he reveals his deepest thoughts and feelings to his loved ones, and anyone can read them. Any other "historical" accounts to the contrary are simply slander, rumor and lies.
Occam's Razor says israelites undermining western culture
Jews love the West and own it's culture. It's White anything that they hate
is this one of those situations where they can't be assed to actually shoot at night so they film during the day and go to down in post?
very possible
Lighting is cheap and come in all sorts of sizes and colors, so DPs go crazy with them, creating a more contrasting image.
Most of the professionals and experts in the industry retired or are expensive.
Everyone currently working are rookies and idiots.
Digital Cameras make everything ugly.
Wow Laura Dern looks like she's been microwaved on high for 20 minutes.
Thats what happens when you do the Holdo maneuver
Darkness helsp to hide shittyness from the cgi. There's too much cgi, done too fast.
forget lighting. I'm more bothered by the use of over-saturated colors in everything, including games and tv shows.
Because nepo babies don't have to be good at their job.
soul vs soulless
they had the guy managing set security hired poorly, hes hard of hearing
he was asked for some bad men but all they got was dat BAT
whack em
Nepotism kicked all the guys who knew how to do their job(and negotiate a good pay) out, and with digital being so easy to do even a woman can do it, here's your slop.
You will never see a movie as good looking as Lawrence of Arabia again.
Frick, probably not even as good looking as Boyz in the hood lol, even that shit looks better than today's "blockbusters".
Digital camera.
Filters.
Okay I can believe the women age like milk and men fine wine thing now
They had to hide Laura Derns corpse like face after railing miles of BBC
fix your heart
>two of them got lasik and ditched their glasses
K I N O
It’s the biggest issue in modern movies and tv. They look so disgustingly bland I actually can’t watch anything any more. Harry Potter movies are a great showcase of this problem
>The era is famous for bright uniforms.
white is green nao
>mfw I remember that brief trend in the mid 2010s where they purposely grade every channel to get an uniform histogram, getting a very flat image as result
>and they used to brag about it in social media too
>"bro look how even is my histogram"
what the frick were they thinking
A flat histo is objectively a better viewing experience, bro.
If the scene isn't lit well enough/correctly in the first place, that isn't necessarily true.
My problem is not how “natural” the light looks, my problem with modern streaming-first digital productions is that I CANT SEE ANYTHING IN THE NIGHT SCENES. Jesus Christ why do they keep making overly compressed 4k shit and shoot all night/dark scenes with minimal flat light, just because you “can technically do it” on digital
Not to mention so much shit is filmed, or meant to represent, night time or some interior where it's dark. Why??? Do people not have lights in there houses anymore?
Is this like the smoke detector problem?
I only watch 4k blurays. I haven't touched a streaming service in 5 years. Even their 4K content looks awful because of the bitrate. Practically the entirety of the planet is now watching movies wrong and nobody seems to care. Jesus, there aren't even 35mm film projectors in cinemas anymore. They're all digital.
This is a viable approach for films, but if you want to watch modern TV shows, there is no other options. Regardless if you stream from a service or pirate the content
It likely takes a lot of effort to keep streets free of mud in a medieval era. Theres no water hoses and no sewers. Doing it all by carrying water buckets would have required too many workers.
The fact is medieval households tossed their shit and urine out the window. Might be why Europeans have this custom of taking off their shoes in their homes.
Why would there be mud on cobblestone streets?
Yeah that doesn't mean every single person was walking depressed and glum looking all the time. So what if there is shit on the streets? Poo-In-Loos don't seem to be walking sacks of emo-feels.
>every single person was walking depressed and glum looking all the time
Yes, because they were devout Christians and were contemplating the fate of their eternal soul.
protestantism literally happened because catholicism was getting too fun
Germany as usual.
>useless ignorant Black person: the post
You ever wonder why antiquity is portrayed as very clean and everyone nice but medieval period as dirty then Rennaisance (which occured DURING the medieval period) goes back to being clean? All three periods had horses shitting on the streets, and people just throwing trash out their windows too yet it's only medieval that gets hit on?
We have this ridiculous post-Rennaisance bias of seeing the "dark ages" as rotten and backwards, and antiquity as perfect.
Fact is people would always try to look as good as possible, walk around the horse shit and occasional discarded dead baby, rich people living in as nice neighborhoods as they could afford, and dress as well as possible. Europe when through a real downturn, but by like 1200 it was back to being rich and building huge cathedrals. 1600 they're literally top of the god damn world better than anyone.
Renaissance was absolutely not the Middle Ages.
The term "Middle Ages" was coined during the Renaissance, when they drew inspiration from the classical world, and found there was a big stretch of ambiguous era in between and had to come up with a historiography for it.
>useless double, TRIPPLE Black folk
The period that could be called the "dark ages" was super brief. 5th to 15th centuries. Fall of Constantinople is sort of given as the "end" of the medieval period which is 1453 and is around the time of the discovery of the new World. Leo DiVinci was was 1452-1519. Would you call him a Medieval man?
He was part of the High Rennaisance because it had been going on for LITERAL CENTURIES at this point. 1250 or 1300 is often considered the start.
Rennaisance is a CULTURAL MOVEMENT from 14th to 17th, sorta kinda and it was never one period and took off in one place, then later in another. It overlaps with the late medieval period!
The "barbarians in mud hutts in the ruins of the roman empire" is a short lived period and that's kind of over by the time of Charlemange who starts to get the ball rolling on European empires again.
1000 fricking years is not brief.
A lot of of cultural and technological advancement took place in that 1000 years.
>1000 fricking years is not brief.
>A lot of of cultural and technological advancement took place in that 1000 years.
Useless, double, tripple, quadruple Black person!
The proper "dark ages" could be described as the post collapse Roman empire and were VERY brief. They refer to this as the Migration period since they don't want terms like "dark ages".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
Renaissance and Middle-ages literally overlap so the ridiculous nature is that some will depict something from 1450 in some media as backwards, dirty, ugly, then the same time period but focus on "Renaissance" and it's all bright and positive when it's the SAME DAMN TIME PERIOD. It's just colored by our biases where middle-ages and medieval = sour, backwards, and Renaissance = positive and forward.
Ren authors themselves coined the term to refer to the time period immediately before them, which would cover the early medieval period. Their writings heavily biased everything since. Average modern people conflate dark ages and medieval, imagining people running around in muck and dirt being impoverished starving plague ridden farmers until William Shakespeare is born and everyone becomes clean and happy. Ironically, this means considering the same period of the early Ren humanist authors themselves as part of the "dark ages".
Oh and Cathedrals were utter architectural MARVELS bringing in bright light to previously dark church services. They get lumped in as "dark evil backwards" time period for some reason. Mostly because today they're covered in dirt and looking kinda grimey.
I wrote both those comments. My overall opinion is that there has been a continuous improvement in human conditions since the Roman Empire. Things were better in the so called Dark Ages than in the Roman Empire, and they continued to improve all the way along into the High Middle Ages and beyond. The Middle Ages were very civilized and clean compared to Rome.
Rome has been sanitized in the public consciousness, and the Middle Ages denigrated wrongly.
What was lost with the fall of Rome was mega-scale administration. We had to revert to local government (hence the rise of feudalism) but technology and general standard of living continued to improve.
tl;dr frick Rome
Literacy levels also took a nosedive though.
How was literacy in Rome? Genuine question, I don't know but I assume it might have been semi-high.
>Rome has been sanitized
Aren't Gladiator, Rome and Spartacus the most popular movies or shows with that setting?
>baths stop working
>roads stop being repaired
>buildings literally stripped down to use their materials in shitty new constructs
>UH ACTUALLY IT WAS BETTER
moron
>baths
only relevant for certain city dwellers
>roads
yes that was unfortunate
>buildings
times were hard
I notice you didn't mention
1) windmills
2) effective horse harnesses
3) 3-field crop rotation
none of which Romans had, all of which were developed in the dark ages and greatly improved quality of life.
>thinks it kept getting better
>keeps listing how it got worse
No shit I didn't list those other things. You're somehow claiming responsibility for them because the empire fell. You're implying the Empire didn't have technological progress because .. it fell. Do you realize how stupid that is? Crazy how Eastern Rome was using methods from antiquity too ... oh wait.
Eastern empire was a shithole and remained a shithole until it fell.
Western Europe only advanced having shaken off the Roman yoke.
The bulk of said advancement being the Rennaissance - literally the Rediscovery of Greco-Roman Science and Technology. You should learn to read before posting again.
>Renaissance and Middle-ages literally overlap so the ridiculous nature is that some will depict something from 1450 in some media as backwards, dirty, ugly, then the same time period but focus on "Renaissance" and it's all bright and positive when it's the SAME DAMN TIME PERIOD. It's just colored by our biases where middle-ages and medieval = sour, backwards, and Renaissance = positive and forward.
I've never seen poor people in a Renaissance setting. I have also never seen colorful middle age films. Every film or show I have watched set in the Roman empire was purely clean and pristine. I'm being sarcastic by the way, I feel the need to point it out because I can't tell what kind of autism you are on.
>Multiple paragraphs from anon that knows frick all about history
Imagine being this autistic but it's not the kind of autism that helps you win arguments on the internet
The Dark Ages was purely the confused, poorly documented period from the collapse of Rome until the rise of Medieval Europe. That's from about the 5th century to the 8th. 15th century is not the fricking Dark Ages holy shit.
>Leo DiVinci was was 1452-1519. Would you call him a Medieval man?
he was one of the people who made reneissance possbile. 300-700 years before people like him were monks and wasted lives wondering how angel buttholes smelled
>wondering how angel buttholes smelled
did they ever reach a consensus on that?
Consensus not required - the Pope had Revealed Truth on the question of the buttholes of the Angels, and that settled the matter.
The humanist minuscule script developed in the beginning of the Italian Renaissance was based on the Carolingian minuscule from the 8th century. But the Italians wouldn't accept that it was from the "dark ages" since they thought it so classically beautiful and refined they assumed it must have been from Roman antiquity.
>Leo DiVinci was was 1452-1519. Would you call him a Medieval man?
No 15th century, in hindsight, was not Medieval. They may not have realized the change that had taken place, but it was there.
Medieval is about 11th century to 14th.
Anything before the 11 century is the Dark Ages, until you get back to Rome in about the 5th century.
Don't bother anon, most of the ignorant wienersuckers on here don't know which end to wipe!!!FACT!!!
>t it's only medieval that gets hit on?
it's almost as if medieval was bunch of barbarians living on ruins of roman empire after they destroyed it
>t. doesn't know what he's talking about
Cesspits were commonplace in the Medieval era and people were hired, on a good wage as well, to makes sure the towns/cities were clear of shit. Thinking that people back then just rolled around in human waste is post-enlightenment bullshit
Shit cgi, shit lighting
Shit everything
>Everything looks so fake and slathered in shit.
for me it's when they people keep their table lamps on, even during the day, just to make "ambience"
they fricking hate reds and rosè
Sometimes I wonder if this is literally to sell OLED tvs, they're trying to pretend we never had contrast and deep blacks in films before OLEDS were a thing and now they have to justify it by making all movies look like shit unless you have an oled, on which they look slightly better but still worse than old films
to the people saying "because its shot on digital", you're moronic.
Actual Hollywood cinematographers have done comparisons and tests with both digital cameras and film cameras and found that the difference is negligible, apart from of course the fact that film is way more of a pain in the ass to work with. Literally all cameras fricking do is capture the light information coming through the lens, that's it. Film doesn't magically make everything look better. Any cinematographer worth their salt can make beautiful films with digital cameras. The reason that movies today often look worse than movies from the past is due to laziness enabled by technological advances, especially in visual effects.
>posts comparison pic
>jpg
>laziness enabled by technological advances
i.e digital
has no effect on how the movies are shot moron
*click*
>ISO: 800
*click*
>T: 5000K
Don't know what they were thinking with this shitty grading?!?FACT!!! https://youtu.be/5Yo4-1oQVlY
>compares scene set during the day with one set during the night
Why was it set during the night tho?
I'd watch a bad 80s movie before I'd watch a "good" modern movie. Movies today give off an artificial look that is unpleasant to look at and gives me a queasy feeling.
Because everything is a green screen because directors are huge b***hes when it comes to filming on location
unironically watch Andor. Gorgeous series with little to no green screen, just real locations and sets. What a huge breath of fresh air it was.
>unironically watch Andor.
No.
suit yourself. just keep complaining.
Also the LED Screens used in Mando are good at first but then everything JUST feels so god damn claustrophobic. The claustrophobia of green screen and LED just is nuts. Everything feels so tight and cramped with shity cgi fakery trying to work around this.
better cameras/media formats that enable higher low light performance I would guess
>watching the new Evil Dead movie
>it's a scene where some dark blurry blots move on the screen while you hear screaming
>80% of the movie be like this
Too bad, it wasn't that bad, but the darkness killed it for me. Who thought putting the whole movie in a windowless building during a power outage was a good idea?
>Almost every scene has a blue around the edges
Like anybody wants a good gander of those old dried-apple faces. If anything, they're still too well-lit.
to hide the cheap CGI
because Donald
Donald Duck?
So Disney?
probably so they can save and pocket more shekels. it costs more to film on location, especially during day when they have to stop traffic or something of the like. but of course you already knew the answer OP.
You can’t just use full daytime lighting the dinosaurs will look like shit! I uh. I mean. We can’t afford to pay the CGI bill if you can see the dinos!
LOL there is a feeling of justice when you see how women are simply destroyed by aging.