The answer is COLOR
Modern movies looks washed out and bland, nothing stands out
Older films had great composing because people back then knew they were creating a MOTION PICTURE
>The answer is COLOR
Read something about this, apparently doing lots of coke makes the directors love vision or something, thats why everything is gray/blue-osh
>thats why everything is gray/blue-osh
Color grading helps hide CG more, that's why its done. There's more CG in shots than most people realize, like subtle steam coming off a bowl of soup and other little touches.
Really though why do they overdo the DOF so hard on new movies? It looks bad when overdone and it also just looks off when there's no grain at all to the picture, it's just perfectly blurry.
No still not right. It's not a modern movie I'd you don't put the camera claustrophobicly close to the subject and jump cut every 3 seconds unless spinning the camera around something with a completely different background in every shot, zooming in on anything important because zoomers are too stupid and lack the attention span to follow the story otherwise
Film is a hell of a format, and westerns are the most aesthetic genre
https://i.imgur.com/sSvh7gT.jpg
Old movies look good
New movies look bad
Depth and location scouting. Shooting at f1.4 and blowing background away because you're lazy, is easy. Shooting at f8 and planning your shot is hard. Damien Chazelle is one of the rare modern directors today that learned well from the past masters. He can do some genuine kino, even today. His stories are stoner nonsese, but his movies should be watched just for the scenes.
Something as simple as blocking and framing isn't done well anymore. They're all so visually flat and uninteresting.
What the frick happened? Did the people who now make films never watch them?
>What the frick happened?
Nepotism and cronyism.
Poorgays with lived experience and unique points of view, the type that made most of your beloved old-timey kino, don't have the money or connections required to make it these days.
The system isn't broken, it's working exactly as intended.
guys sitting at the computers and studios only wanting money happened
not saying filmmaking wasn't always into making money but when the corporations started meddling too much into movie business this shit we watch today happened
but I can't really blame them, since the audiences exclusively want to watch superhero movies
Even if their budgets were so bloated their box office grosses aren't anything to write home about. Highly possible if there were something else to watch people would.
>Something as simple as blocking and framing isn't done well anymore.
These things in particular are so so much better then back in the day. Old movies look like a play with everyone facing the audience. Blocking and frame has been perfected to the point it's invisible.
Only because they were a trend. The best western has developed characters and emotional storytelling. The best superhero films (not counting Unbreakable) have flat characters and the only emotional reaction from the audience is "wow!"
They are theme park rides.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'll give you that the peaks are a lot higher than peak capeshit, but there was still a ridiculous amount of samey, generic, simplistic western movies/shows/books/radio primarily aimed at entertaining young boys.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah that's true. But weirdly when capeshit tries to elevate itself it still comes across as childish, like the "dark" interpretations of superheroes. I think the slop is in its genes.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>like the "dark" interpretations of superheroes
that is quite literally everyone copying alan moore and frank millers work 1:1
its not that its necessary flawed medium, its that people creating it are creatively bankrupt
moore hates his legacy precisely because of this, people took the surface aesthetics of his writing and capeshit has been basically nothing else since
instead of being silly childrens shit, now its silly childrens shit demanding to be taken seriously
11 months ago
Anonymous
>everyone copying alan moore and frank millers work 1:1 >people took the surface aesthetics
yeah on that subject here's a legendary rant
11 months ago
Anonymous
Kermode rants are kino
11 months ago
Anonymous
Kermode is a rich commie fricking homosexual. Mayo is sound though.
>Westerns were the capeshit of yesteryear and they still managed to make them look decent.
the amount of good western is so little compared to the amount of shit produced, and it was usually the ones that weren't made by americans.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>it was usually the ones that weren't made by americans.
There are a handful of foreign westerns that are genuinely great or good. There are scores of american westerns that are good. To say it’s “usual” just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about
11 months ago
Anonymous
Over 100 western movies were made in Italy in 1968 alone. In terms of average quality, American westerns blow foreign ones out of the water.
You have to remember a lot of the praise for spaghetti westerns comes from Marxist critics who ADORED that the wops (who frequently were Marxist themselves) were "deconstructing the myth of rugged individualism and american heroism on the frontier". The Great Silence is literally a stealth biopic for Che Guevara. It was anti-american political propaganda designed to convince people that the wild west was populated by violent and evil bastards who went around causing chaos and destruction for fun because there was no State to stop them.
11 months ago
Anonymous
There was always something about that film that didn't sit right with me. Thanks, anon.
>What the frick happened? Did the people who now make films never watch them?
Yes.
I've worked in film crews for several years, I've seen how dozens of directors and cinematographers work and I can assure you they don't really watch more movies than the average normie, let alone actually study what makes a shot visually interesting. They acted so proud when they did a shot that had some kind of layers (some object between the camera and the actors) because they (I'm not joking) saw it in a movie last night. It's all hacks that got to be in that position because of nepotism. Very depressing.
I kinda follow a writer-director guy on social media... all he posts is stuff about Spielberg, Scott, Jackson, plus the flavour of the day like Jordan Peele. Never anything about fancy arthouse directors, not even anything about like, Mann or Friedkin. It's like aspiring to start your own low-end fast food chain.
People that say westerns were the capeshit of the past have not watched that many westerns.
there were a lot of bad westerns that were exactly like capeshit but with the same gunfight tricks instead of the same CGI laser-kung-fu shit.
I'm not into that myself, but you'd figure someone who makes it seem like he lives, breathes and shits movies would have experienced something besides modern blockbusters made purely to put asses in seats.
I think it's because your average person is just trying to scrap by, so they don't have nearly as much time to endulge in passions and perfect them. I think that even if you make enough money to be set nowadays, having it so that most people around you are just struggling to keep their heads above water has a psychological effect on you as well and doesn't encourage passion anymore. People just waste to much timing being forced to work nowadays, that's what I think
>they don't have nearly as much time to endulge in passions and perfect them.
It’s not this at all. Some of the best directors lucked out or fought the odds.
It’s tiktok YouTube social media stealing our attention and the barriers to entry discouraging people from trying
>the barriers to entry discouraging people from trying
I think it's this more than anything else. Back in the day Lucas, Spielburg, Coppola and the rest of that gang just went out and started making movies and made it, but nowdays nobody can do that because you're straight fricked if you're not already friends with someone high up in the business. Fricking hell, just look at slop like She-Hulk and tell me there was one person on that production who was barely competent.
Thanks to MIchael Bay every action movie makes the camera constantly spin around over and over, slow spin for dialogue and fast spin for action the camera always has to be moving, gives me nausea
Yes
Most of the people who go to film school or study related careers don't actually watch movies (and they actually despise them), only social media and the trending Netflix series
>t. I studied Audiovisual Comm and I hate my classmates
A 4K DCP (Digital Cinema Package) file has bitrates above and beyond 4K BluRays. And seeing it on the big screen, projected by a very high quality projector (most likely a Christie)? What's not to love?
I was rewatching Heat the other day and was amazed at how good the crane/helicopter shots looked. Now everyone triss to shoehorn in a drone shot into their movie and they all look like ass.
No it isn't. Not at all. However, I will say that this might be my favorite example of a god tier cover-to-cover layout of any film ever. The opening and climax are so awesome; that I suppose you could say some things in the middle sag by comparison, but there's still so much goddamn merit in the bulk of the movie.
The harmonica music scene in the climax might be the most perfectly short and powerfully emotional scene ever pur to film. I actually started tearing up while watching it
I don't understand what I'm looking at. Why is there no slightly-unreal glossy sheen to everything? Where are the hyper-realistic colors? Why aren't their heads awkwardly out of sync with their unnaturally moving bodies? I mean it's like these actors were all in the same real place at the same time, that's just weird.
villeneuve has the opposite issue, its all negative space, no blocking and br2049 looks like absolute trash for it
how people think that movie is some aesthetic masterpiece i will never understand
BR2049 had some spectacular set design, but whenever it doesn't have futuristic constructions or apocalyptic statues on screen, and ventures into the more mundane environments like the factory or scrapyard, the visual interest completely tanks.
>The profound moronation of not understanding that the negative space is to convey the loneliness of K.
So you must also hate 28 days later and Playtime right?
it looks like shit
is my point
its cool to use these kinda techniques to communicate something indirectly, its even cooler when you actually make the movie look good while at it
It's not like it's never in anything post 2000 or anything. Here Zootopia employing it. It helps guide your eye to what to look at, and frames scenes. Yes, LESS IS MORE.
And here is the new film Elemental in comparison which has zero negative space. It's just jam packed, and actually looks flat. There's no depth, and I have no idea what to look at. Everything is just as detailed so it becomes a wash.
When I rewatch old movies after learning a bit more about film I am in awe over all the small details and just the pure mastery everyone involved in the film displays. I just don't get this feeling from any new movies anymore.
Funny how there were no university for cinema back then and they made it much better than any educated professional noawadays
Same can be said about any field. University seems like the biggest scam of all
High Plains Drifter is the only western I think I genuinely liked
not seen it in many yrs and prob has the same corny old tropes that are the downfall of so many other westerns but its kino in its overall execution
They say this about every western witu a dark or reflective tone >The Gunfighter >The Searchers >Shane >Man of the West >The Shootist
You can probably go back pre-50s a d find more examples. Unforgiven is a good movie but it's not novel in any way.
All sergio leones, the others you can pass.
You'll never believe in the world presented to you as much as when you're watching Sergio Leone combined with Ennio Morricone kino.
The best western and the best western to watch in a room full of drunk friends are two different things.
Try something like The Quick and the Dead (1995), Shanghai Noon, or The Wild Bunch for American westerns, or any ~90 minute spaghetti western like Django, Keoma, Sabata, or Sartana
>Keoma >A half-breed ex-Union gunfighter attempts to protect his plague-ridden hometown from being overridden by his racist half-brothers and a Confederate tyrant.
The themes in these movies aren't to be taken seriously. Like most spaghettis, it's a mixture of cool and moronic, which makes it good for watching with people. You can cheer at the action and laugh at everything else.
For your first ever western you need to watch a typical classic of the genre, that is entertaining, with the core aesthetic and themes of western cinema. That's means >No neo-westerns (post 1990) >No black and white westerns (pre 1950) >I would recommend no foreign westerns (American made)
You can watch a spaghetti western 2nd so you'll be able to appreciate the style that differentiates them.
If someone is put off by black and white movies, the western genre is not for them in the first place >ew, this movie about a historic period is all old and stuff
I know this will upset a lot of gays but things look better on film simple as. Digital washes out contrast and colour fidelity and no amount of digital correction will fix that.
Filming on digital will never make a movie in my eyes. Add ugly CGI to it, uninspired dialogue, blocking, framing etc. and it's a video game cutscene to me. That's why I'll always appreciate directors like Tarantino who still shoot on film today. It's a simple rule really: if it's not shot on film, it's not a movie.
Similar shot using modern digital. What's the key difference? Resolution and clarity? Lighting? Colors? The time period itself? Whatever it is, it feels decidedly less kino.
the only thing similar about them is that it's on a subway. comparing them is for brainlets that know nothing about how movies are filmed and the insane number of variables that go into making a shot
One big difference is, that digital just lacks the texture of film. It's all clean and smooth and sharp, whereas film has grain and smoothness into it.
Also, colour grading seems to have become an issue as well. Most directors are happy to leave the scene lights somewhat flat, as they can always alter it later tonally.
>whereas film has grain and smoothness into it.
I don't think that's the issue. 65mm film is so sharp it basically looks like digital. The biggest difference IMO is the highlight lattitude and the color science/tone curve.
Only in very new digital cameras like the Alexa 35 do I think there's really enough lattitude to actually have it be of similar quality to film. More proper film color science can be kinda tricky to replicate with most digital color grading tools.
Yedlin arguably gets the closest but even his stuff you can still tell it's digital when there's any sort of bright highlights.
Anons here don't understand that it isn't the fact that it is shot on digital. You can shoot digital and have it look 1:1 with film if you are using BRAW and proper grading.
What happens is, many films shoot on mezzanine compliant cameras. Arri, etc. They then shoot in a format that is not RAW/BRAW and if you are lucky, they will shoot REC. 709 and not some god awful Sony or ProRes codec.
Rec.709 has been around since the 90s, and if you like films like Black Rain or any of the late 80s/90s film look, there you have it. This was when we had harmony of shooting on film, and editing in a digital format.
The film I am working on right now, we shoot with Blackmagic cameras because the BRAW codec by nature emulates 35mm film stock beautifully. They're pretty much the only ones I have found to do this. The problem is that streaming services and distributors want us to grade it so it looks like either a Marvel film or Euphoria. Those two get cited a lot.
That John Wick shot, they used a Blackmagic cam but the colorists and editors are so fricking moronic that they disregard the benefits of the camera, and just go with the "HD" look. Sharpness cranked, etc. This is faster, but it looks fricking hideous. You can also tell on the whites that they colored it blue (notice how nothing in there is true white).
Hope that helps. TLDR: problem is not digital cameras, the problem is homosexuals learning to edit in Premiere and not Resolve, throwing LUTs on everything, and blue filtering everything they see so people are forced to stay awake through the moronic ass movies they push.
This post is largely nonsense, and shows such a poor understanding of the concepts, I'm almost suspecting it's a bot. There is virtually no difference color-wise between shooting RAW and ProRes with professional cameras, and no one grades Hollywood movies in Premiere.
What part confused you? I'd be happy to educate you. If you think ProRes and BRAW look the same, you are either inexperienced or need to get properly calibrated monitors. There is a reason they are separated. BRAW is adaptive where as ProRes is static you nonce. There is a significant difference between the codecs and there is a reason people don't shoot natively in ProRes when given the choice.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not confused, I work with this every day. You conflate completely unrelated concepts like colorspace (Rec709) with compression codecs (ProRes). You say they should shoot in Rec709 when that's the worst they could do, since it's mainly for consumer delivery and is horribly limited in dynamic range and color gamut. The color difference between shooting RAW and ProRes with professional cameras is completely negligible because they're either stored in the exact same high-dynamic range logarithmic colorspace (Arri/Red) or can be converted with no visible loss (Sony). Mind you I'm talking the big boy cameras here, not some prosumer shit.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You can stop being a moron now. This shit is so basic, there's no way you actually think they are the same.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You're confusing shit. braw and h265 will look the same when recorded. Raw just gives you the ability to change recorded look more in post. You can change temperature to your liking.
I'm not confused, I work with this every day. You conflate completely unrelated concepts like colorspace (Rec709) with compression codecs (ProRes). You say they should shoot in Rec709 when that's the worst they could do, since it's mainly for consumer delivery and is horribly limited in dynamic range and color gamut. The color difference between shooting RAW and ProRes with professional cameras is completely negligible because they're either stored in the exact same high-dynamic range logarithmic colorspace (Arri/Red) or can be converted with no visible loss (Sony). Mind you I'm talking the big boy cameras here, not some prosumer shit.
>I'm not confused, I work with this every day
You're larping. Both of you are clueless. >he color difference between shooting RAW and ProRes with professional cameras is completely negligible because they're either stored in the exact same high-dynamic range logarithmic colorspace (Arri/Red) or can be converted with no visible loss (Sony)
False. Colour differences between the brands are visible to the naked eye, you can not transfer shit from one to the other. Nobody does it, and it's simply not done.
11 months ago
Anonymous
If I shoot BRAW and an h.265 image, they are not going to look the same at all. You can get google image results of this quick. You are correct about what RAW can do in post, but they do not look the same off recording.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>If I shoot BRAW and an h.265 image
They'll look the same colour wise when the same settings are used in camera. Same colour profile, same white balance. It may not show contrast and fine tuning adjustments, depending on editing program used.
h.265 is just a compressed codec. It'll have fixed white balance, and often some baked in noise reduction and sharpening, so results will never look identical. But it's in no way different compared to just shooting raw. Same sensor still records the data. Nothing fundamentally different is happening to the footage.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>False. Colour differences between the brands are visible to the naked eye,
Yes, because they're stored in the manufacturer's own custom colorspace.
>you can not transfer shit from one to the other. Nobody does it, and it's simply not done.
You can and people have done it forever. Seamlessly and properly moving between and matching source material from different cameras is literally the entire point of ACES:
https://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/aces
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You can and people have done it forever. Seamlessly and properly moving between and matching source material from different cameras is literally the entire point of ACES:
You're incorrect on both points. People are matching A cams with B cams, and that poorly. You have plenty of testimonials in American Cinematographer and online saying that there are major problems doing that. And that's just matching main camera with some shitty canon, used for auto scenes.
Point of aces isn't matching different cameras, it's keeping whole ecosystem consistent. It involves recorded material, screening technologies of cinemas, digital displays, and transferring it faithfully to storage. It says so on the webpage you linked. I suggest reading it in full.
11 months ago
Anonymous
A) That's some prosumer shit.
B) If they're different it's because the internal color paths in the camera were designed differently (or gimped) in the different modes, and the colorists don't understand the science behind it to work with the material properly.
BRAW is a more efficient compression and processing mode for low-end hardware, but it doesn't add any color or dynamic range that the camera sensor didn't capture in the first place, which is what's most important. If you shoot with any of the Arri Alexa models for example, there is no color difference between RAW and ProRes because both are stored in the exact same LogC/WideGamut colorspace (or in the case of the new Alexa 35 LogC4/WideGamut4) and if you want to properly change the white balance for example, all you have to do is linearize the image first. Theoretically you should be able to do this with any lower-end cameras as well, provided you have access to the linearization curves and the image is stored with sufficient bitdepth.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Again, you are talking out of your ass and had too Google the difference between ProRes and BRAW. I can tell, because now you are saying "if they are different", whereas before they were different.
If you think an Ursa 8K is prosumer, you need to see a doctor. On John Wick 4 they had a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema on set, same as Logan. The codecs and file types have nothing to do with the camera being chosen. You can use an A7III for Netflix filming by their standards. BRAW does not store any data in LogC. You can easily look this up on Blackmagic's website.
You're the same guy saying they don't use Premiere in "Hollywood" editing. Go to school, or better yet get some real world experience on set. I'd love to see your iMDB if you are claiming to do this "every day".
11 months ago
Anonymous
And again, if ProRes and RAW cannot be made to look equivalent on a particular camera model it's either because they intentionally designed the modes to be apples and oranges, or because you and whatever clueless colorists are sitting with the material have no idea or understanding what's actually happening under the hood, or how to properly work with the material, and are just relying on your eyes and blindly accepting whatever the application spits out from the proverbial black box.
Like I said, the vastly more expensive Arri Alexa can be made to look exactly the same color-wise in ProRes and RAW modes. That should give you a hint that it's not the storage modes themselves that are the problem, but the implementations and workflows on the particular cameras.
And I didn't say they didn't use Premiere for editing, I said they didn't use it for grading, but you seem generally very unknowledgeable so I wouldn't be surprised if you mistook them for the same thing.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>more expensive Arri Alexa can be made to look exactly the same color-wise in ProRes and RAW modes.
You're still talking codecs. I'm talking cameras. Arri Alexa can not be made to look identical to Arri LF. Nowhere, in no situation. They will look completely different. Different dynamic range, different colour capture, and they're made by the same company. Difference become insurmountable when you start mixing in other manufacturers as well.
11 months ago
Anonymous
BRAW IN THE SAME SPACE AS ARRI/RED EVEN THOUGH IT'S PROPRIETARY TO BLACKMAGIC HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA moron PROBABLY EDITS IN AVID OR PREMIERE HAHAHAHAHAH
>and no one grades Hollywood movies in Premiere
This one is completely false. You're right that film and digital are completely different.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Lol everything everywhere all at once just won an oscar for best editing in Premiere, Adobe wont shut the frick up about it. Dude needs his meds.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That and the ones advertised are just iceberg.
It's premiere or davinci. They're the standard now. It's rare that people use anything else. Other movies just aren't sponsored, so editors keep quiet on what they use.
11 months ago
Anonymous
facts. i can't go back to premiere after using resolve though, the grading options plus fusion is way better.
I think it's less about the era a film was made in than the people making it, but hen you may rightly ask, what's the difference? I would not have an answer for you.
The sad truth for us film guys is that fewer and fewer movies are shot on film as each year. The time will come when Kodak will stop manufacturing film stock, due to it no longer being profitable. And I fear that time is not too far off.
Thankfully film has become the designated format for pretentious hipsters, so there's still some demand for it, and it's not like it can get any worse than the collapse of the 90/2000s.
Let's hope that I'm wrong, and that Kodak will continue making film stock indefinitely. I surely hope so. Film is very nostalgic for me. Dad shot 8mm family movies, and I shot a ton of black & white film that I developed and printed in the darkroom.
Who cares? It's all lipstick on a pig or polishing a turd these days. Wokeism, nepotism, and "muh diversity!" killed cinema. Most directors are hacks, yes, even Tarantino. The agendas, the propaganda, it's killed film. Its all goyslop from here on out.
The same reason high-framerate stuff looks bad, it's too close to reality. Instead of being drawn into an otherworldly, fantastical reflection of reality, as if seen through a distorting veil, you instead see reality itself, and you start to notice the actors, the costumes, the props, the sets, the cameras and crews hiding just off-screen.
led lighting
bad setup 4-8k cameras with muh vintage lenses look like shit too much detail/sharpness brings out how cheap everything looks
nobody knows how to light anymore even if you got vintage lights modern morons wouldnt know what to do with them
blame 2 decades of shitty lcds making dvd-4k releases gimp the black levels i suppose these movies would even look shit on a plasma or oled and look horrid even on laser projectors and shit on lcd projectors as well
I don't really have a "favorite movie" but when I think of that phrase Once Upon A Time In The West is usually the first film that pops into my mind.
It does so much with so litlle, it looks incredibly beautiful, it introduces all of his characters perfectly, it's well paced, the acting is on point, almost every dialogue is amazing, there is no big surprise or complex storyline but it's just put together perfectly, the little ending twist just add a nice layer without getting into it too much...
Is the blue/dark a digital problem or a colour grade problem? I done some film stuff but could not imagine changing to shooting on film, it looks incredible do not get me wrong, but the flexibility of shooting digital is what wins for me.
Honestly, I think digital has the capability to look fantastic, if everything is done correctly. And it's getting better as the tech improves. I have a sneaking suspicion that you could take some new movie, shot digitally, with great lighting, color grading, and all the rest of the things a good shot-on-film movie used to have, and lie about it. "You have to see movie xyz. It was shot on film, and it looks great!" I BETCHA not a few anons would be fooled. "Oh yeah, look at the great colors. That's film, alright."
You could probably come pretty close if you really wanted to, and film look emulation is indeed a thing they do in post-production. But for some reason a lot of it just ends up looking so sharp, flat, sterile and anemic. Contrast for example the new digitally-shot Marlowe trailer in
https://youtu.be/brVF7t8VYuM
why does digital look so shot most of the time?
to the comparatively recent (1995) Devil in a Blue Dress depicting much of the same style/era. Even though the production design objectively looks competent, the digital just makes it all look so wonky and cheap and fake and bad and "wrong" compared the latter shot on film.
>Colorists are part of the problem
Film was coloured as well. Some did it while shooting with filters, others in post with tints. It was very basic. Just one colour over everything. Red, yellow, blue... same as using only one wheel in premiere.
When done of scene, everything had to be perfect, since there was little room to fix things. When done on post, base exposure had to be nailed. 90's, early 2000's thing. Matrix and initial releases of lotr are first notable cases of doing this in post on digital intermediate. They sold well, and opened pandoras box. Now everything goes this way. Film and digital.
Today dumb directors thing that they can get away with everything, and expect colourist to fix turds. They get vastly mismatched footage, and only way to save them, is throw on piss filters.
Why would you need 5,000 2x4s to build a wooden train platform when the ground is flat as frick to begin with? It's not like wood is the most abundant resource in the desert.
They needed the wood to make towns and carriages and shit, who gets a ton of wooden planks in the middle of the flat desert and says "this would make an excellent floor for outside, here make a floor the size of a football field right next to the train"
So people don't have to climb up into the train and so there's less chance of people getting caught in the bogeys and pulled under the train, same reason modern stations have platforms. Do you even think before you post?
I hate modern colour grading more than anything. Even when 99.99% of what's in a shot is likely actually physically there it still looks fake and shitty.
Digital cameras and modern low aperture lenses ruined cinema.
This is not just because they are ugly, but because they make everything too easy. There is no need to light a shot well, because digital sensors can receive information from any amount of light, and if your ISO is too high you can just bring your aperture to f1.4. There is no need to put effort into production design or blocking, because with your low depth of field you can just blur out everything outside of the principal subject. There is no need to carefully craft a sequence or composing a shot, because you have essentially unlimited data on your camera and are able to shoot as much as you want, get as much coverage as you may need, and paste it all together in the edit. You do not have to worry about the limitations of the medium or making a mistake on set, because there are no limitations, and mistakes can ultimately be remedied in post.
The limitations of shooting on film forced directors to be smart with their decisions, and every decision mattered. Now the only decision that matters is those that will save them time and effort. Nobody cares about the image anymore, because it has been totally devalued by the technology.
>and if your ISO is too high you can just bring your aperture to f1.4.
It's an illusion. ISO is a major cause for 'digital' look, it's not constant, and it's not standardized. Iso 800 in low light, will look completely different than iso 800 in bright light. Dynamic range will be different, noise, colour capture. Then you even have things like warmth and cold that effects digital noise. Proper scene evaluation needs to be as strict as in film, but like you said, it's used as an excuse to throw everything to the wind and pretend that we can pull everything off.
Can you explain this to me?
Low aperatures?apertures? ISO? f1.4?
As an outside observer, I've always been able to pick up on the techniques of framing, editing, choreography, color, composition, and visual storytelling.
But I have no understanding of the mechanism of why films look the way they do. Something I usually refer to as "texture".
Can you please explain?
Buy a cheap digital milc camera without a lens and a fairly decent evf. Buy a cheap chinese manual focus lens for it. Do some photography. You'll get it all in a month.
I'm trying to think of stuff but I'm coming up rather short for things that doesn't have that flat/desaturated/sickly or otherwise obviously digital look. I think some the nice-looking ones are the darker or nighttime movies where you don't see stuff so clearly, like Whiplash, The Equalizer, The Shape of Water, Drive.
First Reformed is always the movie I think about when I think good digital.
I think the shots of the trees are something that legitimately would not look as good on film, because the crisp image really highlight the branches.
It should not be that hard to repeat the framing and color of old movies. It’s stupid fads, ironically started by Spielberg in Saving Private Ryan with its dreary cinematography that really popularized this trend
Shitty 70s Z-grade flicks even look much better than good (there aren't great ones) 2010s/2020s films. Visually, it's really the strongest decade for movies. That anon really doesn't know what he's talking about,
Not a fan of the 70's. Woody Allen, corny comedies, dawn of horror... There are some true highlights that stand out, and are some of my favourite movies. Problem is that the average, and the pulp is downright bad. 70's is delayed 60's experimentation bringing it's ugly head to front. 60's is mainly just continuation of the 50's. Studio system is dead, we're figuring things anew. A few zany movies, the rest is old conformity, brought into wide screen and outdoors. Epic in it's final form. 80's, things come back to the fold. Standardization, order, free reign of the director that is made king and all. Action and blockbuster starts their overthrow, but they are still contained. With plethora of genres for everyone, it's the richest period in variety.
70s storytelling excels in its humanist perspective and grit. Stories about degenerates being degenerates, and getting torn apart by the underworld they call home. Dirty Harry, the Godfather, Taxi Driver, Chinatown, Scarface (Yes I know Scarface is from 1982, its tone and storytelling technique is far more 70s than it is 80s and the screenplay was originally written in the 70s). The heroes are antiheroes on their best days and downright villains on their worst. Everything is covered in a layer of sleaze and corruption and vice and melancholy, a reflection of the dirty grungy violent hedonistic age they were made in. They're a window into the darkest dankest corners of human society and the human psyche. That's what makes them appealing, as a contrast from the heroic adventurism of the 1950s-1960s, and the simpleminded masculine bravado of the 80s.
That was the New Hollywood era and it's kind of a miracle it lasted for like a whole decade with how commercialized and profit oriented american cinema is
11 months ago
Anonymous
Media is either propaganda-oriented or profit-oriented. No exceptions, pick your poison.
Kino incoming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iYxrsd59-E
Vilmos Zsigmond. Pre exposed film. It destroyed sharpness, caused bloom and desaturation, but gave up natural Rembrandt look. Experimental, almost one of a kind. Shit movie, though.
the celebration
julien donkey boy
collateral
the idiots
will you concede? or do you wish to rectify your statement?
Why is digital so bad at skin tones? I feel like that's the most obvious way to tell if something is digital or film.
combination of dynamic range, lighting, color grading, and in general what
It’s bad at gradients or things that make up multiple colors in the same spot in general, and skins an extreme example of that. Great at solid colors, terrible with the fancy stuff.
said. low dynamic range cannot capture the complexity and variations in skin tone (from a value contrast standpoint). poor lighting (which is increasingly common as explained here
Digital cameras and modern low aperture lenses ruined cinema.
This is not just because they are ugly, but because they make everything too easy. There is no need to light a shot well, because digital sensors can receive information from any amount of light, and if your ISO is too high you can just bring your aperture to f1.4. There is no need to put effort into production design or blocking, because with your low depth of field you can just blur out everything outside of the principal subject. There is no need to carefully craft a sequence or composing a shot, because you have essentially unlimited data on your camera and are able to shoot as much as you want, get as much coverage as you may need, and paste it all together in the edit. You do not have to worry about the limitations of the medium or making a mistake on set, because there are no limitations, and mistakes can ultimately be remedied in post.
The limitations of shooting on film forced directors to be smart with their decisions, and every decision mattered. Now the only decision that matters is those that will save them time and effort. Nobody cares about the image anymore, because it has been totally devalued by the technology.
) compounds with this issue. color grades are often slapdash and shitty, as making digital look really good is a lot of work, so getting the correct saturation and value of skin tones is usually not a priority. i also imagine a lot of modern cinematographers don't always take the time to correctly white balance, as you can correct it in post, but the farther off the wb is from what was captured, the more color information is lost, and those particular tones such as are found in skin are the first to go. this is just an assumption, though
>they COULD make movies look like old movies, it's just that every single director and cinematographer working in the entire world is too lazy
I find this hard to believe. There's not one example to show this?
Damien Chazelle, Tarantino. Damien, fairly successfully, copied it, Tarantino learned it when it was still taught. There's not one thing that gives you classic look. Main thing common to them both, is shooting on film, and aspherical classical lenses. The later is very important. Modern look doesn't' come just from shooting shallow depth and digital cameras. It comes from modern lenses as well. They are razor sharp, and have practically no optical defects. Old lenses could also go f1.8, but they suffered massive chromatic aberrations when they were shot at those apertures. They used smaller apertures as a consequence. They also didn't allow for fast panning on wide shots, because of optical defects.
It’s bad at gradients or things that make up multiple colors in the same spot in general, and skins an extreme example of that. Great at solid colors, terrible with the fancy stuff.
It worked with the theme of the film I guess but watching the Blade Runner 1982 after 2049 really reminded me why I love film so much. It just feels so organic and alive.
meanwhile night scenes ironically look so bad in digital for me. it's ironic because digital should be amazing at night scenes with how high you can push the ISO nowadays.
Film is a hell of a format, and westerns are the most aesthetic genre
Is that Gunfight at the OK Corral?
Second one is Warlock (1959)
What movie?
What movie?
Reverse image search you dope
It comes back as 'Gentlemen' you fricking absolute moron.
First one is once upon a time in the west
Thank you anon.
The second one's "High Noon"
Shit, got that wrong. It was B&W, misremembered that.
Yeah it looks like high noon but high noon was in black and white
Yeah I know, it's uncanny.
You are a gentleman, thank you, anon.
Happy father's day!
Sorry, it's not "High Noon." Looked into it; it's "Warlock" with Henry Fonda.
>implying I would share my semen with a lady
wew lad
Full movie
Kinda funny how every old movie gets deleted from youtube except for westerns
The Good the Bad and the Ugly in 4k: https://youtu.be/6snQBtteU68
If old westerns were deleted from youtube there'd be a vast boomer uprising
Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace
The answer is COLOR
Modern movies looks washed out and bland, nothing stands out
Older films had great composing because people back then knew they were creating a MOTION PICTURE
>The answer is COLOR
Read something about this, apparently doing lots of coke makes the directors love vision or something, thats why everything is gray/blue-osh
>thats why everything is gray/blue-osh
Color grading helps hide CG more, that's why its done. There's more CG in shots than most people realize, like subtle steam coming off a bowl of soup and other little touches.
Looks like Henry Fonda and Anthony Quinn in Warlock
edited for moden audiences
Directed by Ridley Scott
>The Batman, 2022
You are thinkng of someone else.
Make it bluer
Needs to be cropped to 16:9 because otherwise people complain that it's "wasting pixels" on their 4k walmart tv.
Where's the 4:3 release?
Man normies aren't even that smart
made me go HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
This would have been way more kino than the opening of Transformers: The Last Knight in medieval England.
WHAT I'VE DOOOOOONE!
*sigma male song starts playing
needs more blue or umbra tint color correction
beautiful
Too much color
These are very funny
Really though why do they overdo the DOF so hard on new movies? It looks bad when overdone and it also just looks off when there's no grain at all to the picture, it's just perfectly blurry.
No still not right. It's not a modern movie I'd you don't put the camera claustrophobicly close to the subject and jump cut every 3 seconds unless spinning the camera around something with a completely different background in every shot, zooming in on anything important because zoomers are too stupid and lack the attention span to follow the story otherwise
It's true.
Black Rain?
Probably yes. That movie was so shit but beautifully shot.
>Black Rain was shit
stfu
Yeah. Mediocre overall but beautiful kinography.
it's literally just a picture of a street, you snobs need to stop being so unbelievably gay about everything ever
>moron doesn't know how much work went into shooting it like that
>pointing your phone downstreet is hard
very cool anon
Troll detected.
Depth and location scouting. Shooting at f1.4 and blowing background away because you're lazy, is easy. Shooting at f8 and planning your shot is hard. Damien Chazelle is one of the rare modern directors today that learned well from the past masters. He can do some genuine kino, even today. His stories are stoner nonsese, but his movies should be watched just for the scenes.
Something as simple as blocking and framing isn't done well anymore. They're all so visually flat and uninteresting.
What the frick happened? Did the people who now make films never watch them?
>Did the people who now make films never watch them?
nope, they all follow the same contrived modern bullshit
They didn't go to films, they went to film school
>What the frick happened?
Nepotism and cronyism.
Poorgays with lived experience and unique points of view, the type that made most of your beloved old-timey kino, don't have the money or connections required to make it these days.
The system isn't broken, it's working exactly as intended.
guys sitting at the computers and studios only wanting money happened
not saying filmmaking wasn't always into making money but when the corporations started meddling too much into movie business this shit we watch today happened
but I can't really blame them, since the audiences exclusively want to watch superhero movies
>but I can't really blame them, since the audiences exclusively want to watch superhero movies
Why are they all bombing then?
because of their budget
I mean, they are still the most watched shit even if they ''bomb'' and they bomb because their budget + marketing is huge
Even if their budgets were so bloated their box office grosses aren't anything to write home about. Highly possible if there were something else to watch people would.
>Something as simple as blocking and framing isn't done well anymore.
These things in particular are so so much better then back in the day. Old movies look like a play with everyone facing the audience. Blocking and frame has been perfected to the point it's invisible.
Bait.
Old movies have the best blocking & framing
Look at Kurosawa's films from the 1960's for example. Some of the best blocking of all time
>rip off Ford
>but you're Japanese
>bugmen worship you
>Rip off ford
Shut the frick up it's clear you haven't seen any old movies besides some gay ass westerns
It’s true, bugman
Ripping off Ford is the mark of good taste
Everybody should do it
What film
Ivan's childhood
I hope you're being ironic.
You do realise that capeshit is the lowest form of cinema currently?
Westerns were the capeshit of yesteryear and they still managed to make them look decent.
Only because they were a trend. The best western has developed characters and emotional storytelling. The best superhero films (not counting Unbreakable) have flat characters and the only emotional reaction from the audience is "wow!"
They are theme park rides.
I'll give you that the peaks are a lot higher than peak capeshit, but there was still a ridiculous amount of samey, generic, simplistic western movies/shows/books/radio primarily aimed at entertaining young boys.
Yeah that's true. But weirdly when capeshit tries to elevate itself it still comes across as childish, like the "dark" interpretations of superheroes. I think the slop is in its genes.
>like the "dark" interpretations of superheroes
that is quite literally everyone copying alan moore and frank millers work 1:1
its not that its necessary flawed medium, its that people creating it are creatively bankrupt
moore hates his legacy precisely because of this, people took the surface aesthetics of his writing and capeshit has been basically nothing else since
instead of being silly childrens shit, now its silly childrens shit demanding to be taken seriously
>everyone copying alan moore and frank millers work 1:1
>people took the surface aesthetics
yeah on that subject here's a legendary rant
Kermode rants are kino
Kermode is a rich commie fricking homosexual. Mayo is sound though.
Are you for real? Mayo is a squirmy little turd
A lot of westerns looked like shit
>Westerns were the capeshit of yesteryear and they still managed to make them look decent.
the amount of good western is so little compared to the amount of shit produced, and it was usually the ones that weren't made by americans.
>it was usually the ones that weren't made by americans.
There are a handful of foreign westerns that are genuinely great or good. There are scores of american westerns that are good. To say it’s “usual” just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about
Over 100 western movies were made in Italy in 1968 alone. In terms of average quality, American westerns blow foreign ones out of the water.
You have to remember a lot of the praise for spaghetti westerns comes from Marxist critics who ADORED that the wops (who frequently were Marxist themselves) were "deconstructing the myth of rugged individualism and american heroism on the frontier". The Great Silence is literally a stealth biopic for Che Guevara. It was anti-american political propaganda designed to convince people that the wild west was populated by violent and evil bastards who went around causing chaos and destruction for fun because there was no State to stop them.
There was always something about that film that didn't sit right with me. Thanks, anon.
You haven't seen shit, homosexual. Shut up.
b-but muh creamy bookeh!
>What the frick happened? Did the people who now make films never watch them?
Yes.
I've worked in film crews for several years, I've seen how dozens of directors and cinematographers work and I can assure you they don't really watch more movies than the average normie, let alone actually study what makes a shot visually interesting. They acted so proud when they did a shot that had some kind of layers (some object between the camera and the actors) because they (I'm not joking) saw it in a movie last night. It's all hacks that got to be in that position because of nepotism. Very depressing.
I kinda follow a writer-director guy on social media... all he posts is stuff about Spielberg, Scott, Jackson, plus the flavour of the day like Jordan Peele. Never anything about fancy arthouse directors, not even anything about like, Mann or Friedkin. It's like aspiring to start your own low-end fast food chain.
there were a lot of bad westerns that were exactly like capeshit but with the same gunfight tricks instead of the same CGI laser-kung-fu shit.
>Never anything about fancy arthouse directors
Can’t blame him
I'm not into that myself, but you'd figure someone who makes it seem like he lives, breathes and shits movies would have experienced something besides modern blockbusters made purely to put asses in seats.
That’s fair, but there’s a lot of space between “fancy art house” and slopmakers. I don’t know the guy so I don’t know exactly what he’s all about.
I don't wanna out him by name but look up 'Solis'
idk what Steven Ogg was thinking with that one.
>I've worked in film crews for several years
You're either not White or not currently working
nobody in the west is practicing anything as a lifelong dedication anymore. it's all listless halfassing it.
I think it's because your average person is just trying to scrap by, so they don't have nearly as much time to endulge in passions and perfect them. I think that even if you make enough money to be set nowadays, having it so that most people around you are just struggling to keep their heads above water has a psychological effect on you as well and doesn't encourage passion anymore. People just waste to much timing being forced to work nowadays, that's what I think
>they don't have nearly as much time to endulge in passions and perfect them.
It’s not this at all. Some of the best directors lucked out or fought the odds.
It’s tiktok YouTube social media stealing our attention and the barriers to entry discouraging people from trying
>the barriers to entry discouraging people from trying
I think it's this more than anything else. Back in the day Lucas, Spielburg, Coppola and the rest of that gang just went out and started making movies and made it, but nowdays nobody can do that because you're straight fricked if you're not already friends with someone high up in the business. Fricking hell, just look at slop like She-Hulk and tell me there was one person on that production who was barely competent.
Thanks to MIchael Bay every action movie makes the camera constantly spin around over and over, slow spin for dialogue and fast spin for action the camera always has to be moving, gives me nausea
>Constantly moving camera with twenty cuts per minute
I find this so fricking vile to watch.
They used to make films, now they make videos.
Not many exceptions.
dunno but everyone froths over john wick 4 i found it to look pretty bad, that movie sucks and normies are morons
Yes
Most of the people who go to film school or study related careers don't actually watch movies (and they actually despise them), only social media and the trending Netflix series
>t. I studied Audiovisual Comm and I hate my classmates
Just saw this one in 4K at the cinema. Glorious.
>4K at the cinema
Disgusting
A 4K DCP (Digital Cinema Package) file has bitrates above and beyond 4K BluRays. And seeing it on the big screen, projected by a very high quality projector (most likely a Christie)? What's not to love?
Didn't know they already made a 4K restoration of West, hopefully disc release soon.
Mise en scène is a dead art nowadays.
I was rewatching Heat the other day and was amazed at how good the crane/helicopter shots looked. Now everyone triss to shoehorn in a drone shot into their movie and they all look like ass.
Do people actually enjoy digital more than film?
no, but it costs much much less
When the budget isn't being inflated by shitty cgi and resorts, sure.
The big cost of Modern Movies is because of their purpose..for money laundering
Awesome opening, shame the rest of the movie is boring and shallow
You are boring and shallow.
Thanks
No it isn't. Not at all. However, I will say that this might be my favorite example of a god tier cover-to-cover layout of any film ever. The opening and climax are so awesome; that I suppose you could say some things in the middle sag by comparison, but there's still so much goddamn merit in the bulk of the movie.
the stuff in the middle is part of the build-up
Some of it is boring yeah but Claudia Cardinale's looks carry it
The climax is fricking god-tier, so no
The harmonica music scene in the climax might be the most perfectly short and powerfully emotional scene ever pur to film. I actually started tearing up while watching it
the correct opinion
True. Not just movies, either. Everything made today looks tacky and garish.
pareto principle applies as it does to everything
except in film/TV's case its like 95% pure shit/5 remotely decent in any era
>old italian movies look good
ftfy.
Agreed.
Old movies were made by professionals, new movies are made by diversity hires.
if they were hired, they're now professionals
Sure thing, sweetie
She looks like the guy from Empire of the Sun
Professional HACKS, not professional auteurs, Mr Lindeloff.
Diversity hire opinions
OUATITW is seriously kind of boring.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is still the best movie ever made, West is a 7/10 popcorn flick.
OUATITW is better
I don't understand what I'm looking at. Why is there no slightly-unreal glossy sheen to everything? Where are the hyper-realistic colors? Why aren't their heads awkwardly out of sync with their unnaturally moving bodies? I mean it's like these actors were all in the same real place at the same time, that's just weird.
Why old movies have that pink light? Why modern movies always have to be green tinted?
Movies don't know negative space and mis en scene anymore. They just have two giant heads of characters talking or it's jam packed with random shit.
villeneuve has the opposite issue, its all negative space, no blocking and br2049 looks like absolute trash for it
how people think that movie is some aesthetic masterpiece i will never understand
BR2049 had some spectacular set design, but whenever it doesn't have futuristic constructions or apocalyptic statues on screen, and ventures into the more mundane environments like the factory or scrapyard, the visual interest completely tanks.
every shot looks somehow flatter than the last
its precisely those scenes with "futuristic" architecture that looks incredibly bland
>the factory or scrapyard, the visual interest completely tanks.
I thought the factory was one of the best looking locations in a recent movie I've seen, really dense and decayed
>The profound moronation of not understanding that the negative space is to convey the loneliness of K.
So you must also hate 28 days later and Playtime right?
it looks like shit
is my point
its cool to use these kinda techniques to communicate something indirectly, its even cooler when you actually make the movie look good while at it
>All the empty space is really the emptiness in K's heart
Baby tier metaphor.
Oh my God yes I was unaware of that expression but that's EXACTLY what's wrong with these movies today
It's not like it's never in anything post 2000 or anything. Here Zootopia employing it. It helps guide your eye to what to look at, and frames scenes. Yes, LESS IS MORE.
And here is the new film Elemental in comparison which has zero negative space. It's just jam packed, and actually looks flat. There's no depth, and I have no idea what to look at. Everything is just as detailed so it becomes a wash.
When I rewatch old movies after learning a bit more about film I am in awe over all the small details and just the pure mastery everyone involved in the film displays. I just don't get this feeling from any new movies anymore.
People that say westerns were the capeshit of the past have not watched that many westerns.
Funny how there were no university for cinema back then and they made it much better than any educated professional noawadays
Same can be said about any field. University seems like the biggest scam of all
All institutions are bullshit; self-taught people were always the people who did shit, mastered their craft, and broke "rules".
What is the best western to watch? Never ever seen one before as they weren't existent here.
Want to watch one with some beers and a buddy tonight.
Great movie, but that's a dire fricking rip you've got there.
watch Magnificent Seven
this is a great watch-with-buddies western. the original of course
I'm not going to tell you to start with it but Good, Bad and the Ugly is actually fricking amazing.
Lee Van Cleef kino
High Plains Drifter is the only western I think I genuinely liked
not seen it in many yrs and prob has the same corny old tropes that are the downfall of so many other westerns but its kino in its overall execution
Anybody that uses tropes as criticism is a gay
Start with Unforgiven (1992). Is also one of the best ever.
That’s the worst one to start with
Should only be watched after the Dollars trilogy at the very least.
Unforgiven should really only be watched after several classics, it's the "finale" and "deconstruction" of the genre in a way
They say this about every western witu a dark or reflective tone
>The Gunfighter
>The Searchers
>Shane
>Man of the West
>The Shootist
You can probably go back pre-50s a d find more examples. Unforgiven is a good movie but it's not novel in any way.
Il pistolero dell'ave maria
This was a pleasant surprise. If anyone is interested, it is available on Tubi (albeit dubbed).
Yeah it's pretty underrated
All sergio leones, the others you can pass.
You'll never believe in the world presented to you as much as when you're watching Sergio Leone combined with Ennio Morricone kino.
Pleb
The best western and the best western to watch in a room full of drunk friends are two different things.
Try something like The Quick and the Dead (1995), Shanghai Noon, or The Wild Bunch for American westerns, or any ~90 minute spaghetti western like Django, Keoma, Sabata, or Sartana
>Keoma
>A half-breed ex-Union gunfighter attempts to protect his plague-ridden hometown from being overridden by his racist half-brothers and a Confederate tyrant.
lol hard pass
The themes in these movies aren't to be taken seriously. Like most spaghettis, it's a mixture of cool and moronic, which makes it good for watching with people. You can cheer at the action and laugh at everything else.
holy kino
ACK- fly at risk today with them Boeing digits
3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Boss Black person [1974]
Broken lance
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid
Butch Cassidy and the Cumpants kid
Great post. I'm sure you giggled while you typed that out.
The Searchers
Rio Bravo
True Grit
Shane
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Tombstone
Unforgiven
No Country for Old Men
TOMBSTONE FRICKING SUCKS DICK! IT'S A SHIT MOVIE!
It really does suck. Not sure what everyone sees in it
For your first ever western you need to watch a typical classic of the genre, that is entertaining, with the core aesthetic and themes of western cinema. That's means
>No neo-westerns (post 1990)
>No black and white westerns (pre 1950)
>I would recommend no foreign westerns (American made)
You can watch a spaghetti western 2nd so you'll be able to appreciate the style that differentiates them.
Original True Grit
Rio Bravo
Butch Cassidy
>no black and white westerns
Not initially no, normal people would be put off
If someone is put off by black and white movies, the western genre is not for them in the first place
>ew, this movie about a historic period is all old and stuff
We're not all born cinephiles, most people have to ease themselves into it gradually
You can do that shot in digital too and it would look almost as amazing. The problem is the people behind the camera.
I know this will upset a lot of gays but things look better on film simple as. Digital washes out contrast and colour fidelity and no amount of digital correction will fix that.
Filming on digital will never make a movie in my eyes. Add ugly CGI to it, uninspired dialogue, blocking, framing etc. and it's a video game cutscene to me. That's why I'll always appreciate directors like Tarantino who still shoot on film today. It's a simple rule really: if it's not shot on film, it's not a movie.
Even intentionally dreary movies are more kino on film.
Looks great. I just know this would look like shit on digital. It would probably be blue and dark as frick for no reason as well.
The Taking of Pelham 123 is unironically a masterpiece.
Similar shot using modern digital. What's the key difference? Resolution and clarity? Lighting? Colors? The time period itself? Whatever it is, it feels decidedly less kino.
My guess would be color grading and also lightning
the only thing similar about them is that it's on a subway. comparing them is for brainlets that know nothing about how movies are filmed and the insane number of variables that go into making a shot
One big difference is, that digital just lacks the texture of film. It's all clean and smooth and sharp, whereas film has grain and smoothness into it.
Also, colour grading seems to have become an issue as well. Most directors are happy to leave the scene lights somewhat flat, as they can always alter it later tonally.
>whereas film has grain and smoothness into it.
I don't think that's the issue. 65mm film is so sharp it basically looks like digital. The biggest difference IMO is the highlight lattitude and the color science/tone curve.
Only in very new digital cameras like the Alexa 35 do I think there's really enough lattitude to actually have it be of similar quality to film. More proper film color science can be kinda tricky to replicate with most digital color grading tools.
Yedlin arguably gets the closest but even his stuff you can still tell it's digital when there's any sort of bright highlights.
Anons here don't understand that it isn't the fact that it is shot on digital. You can shoot digital and have it look 1:1 with film if you are using BRAW and proper grading.
What happens is, many films shoot on mezzanine compliant cameras. Arri, etc. They then shoot in a format that is not RAW/BRAW and if you are lucky, they will shoot REC. 709 and not some god awful Sony or ProRes codec.
Rec.709 has been around since the 90s, and if you like films like Black Rain or any of the late 80s/90s film look, there you have it. This was when we had harmony of shooting on film, and editing in a digital format.
The film I am working on right now, we shoot with Blackmagic cameras because the BRAW codec by nature emulates 35mm film stock beautifully. They're pretty much the only ones I have found to do this. The problem is that streaming services and distributors want us to grade it so it looks like either a Marvel film or Euphoria. Those two get cited a lot.
That John Wick shot, they used a Blackmagic cam but the colorists and editors are so fricking moronic that they disregard the benefits of the camera, and just go with the "HD" look. Sharpness cranked, etc. This is faster, but it looks fricking hideous. You can also tell on the whites that they colored it blue (notice how nothing in there is true white).
Hope that helps. TLDR: problem is not digital cameras, the problem is homosexuals learning to edit in Premiere and not Resolve, throwing LUTs on everything, and blue filtering everything they see so people are forced to stay awake through the moronic ass movies they push.
This post is largely nonsense, and shows such a poor understanding of the concepts, I'm almost suspecting it's a bot. There is virtually no difference color-wise between shooting RAW and ProRes with professional cameras, and no one grades Hollywood movies in Premiere.
What part confused you? I'd be happy to educate you. If you think ProRes and BRAW look the same, you are either inexperienced or need to get properly calibrated monitors. There is a reason they are separated. BRAW is adaptive where as ProRes is static you nonce. There is a significant difference between the codecs and there is a reason people don't shoot natively in ProRes when given the choice.
I'm not confused, I work with this every day. You conflate completely unrelated concepts like colorspace (Rec709) with compression codecs (ProRes). You say they should shoot in Rec709 when that's the worst they could do, since it's mainly for consumer delivery and is horribly limited in dynamic range and color gamut. The color difference between shooting RAW and ProRes with professional cameras is completely negligible because they're either stored in the exact same high-dynamic range logarithmic colorspace (Arri/Red) or can be converted with no visible loss (Sony). Mind you I'm talking the big boy cameras here, not some prosumer shit.
You can stop being a moron now. This shit is so basic, there's no way you actually think they are the same.
You're confusing shit. braw and h265 will look the same when recorded. Raw just gives you the ability to change recorded look more in post. You can change temperature to your liking.
>I'm not confused, I work with this every day
You're larping. Both of you are clueless.
>he color difference between shooting RAW and ProRes with professional cameras is completely negligible because they're either stored in the exact same high-dynamic range logarithmic colorspace (Arri/Red) or can be converted with no visible loss (Sony)
False. Colour differences between the brands are visible to the naked eye, you can not transfer shit from one to the other. Nobody does it, and it's simply not done.
If I shoot BRAW and an h.265 image, they are not going to look the same at all. You can get google image results of this quick. You are correct about what RAW can do in post, but they do not look the same off recording.
>If I shoot BRAW and an h.265 image
They'll look the same colour wise when the same settings are used in camera. Same colour profile, same white balance. It may not show contrast and fine tuning adjustments, depending on editing program used.
h.265 is just a compressed codec. It'll have fixed white balance, and often some baked in noise reduction and sharpening, so results will never look identical. But it's in no way different compared to just shooting raw. Same sensor still records the data. Nothing fundamentally different is happening to the footage.
>False. Colour differences between the brands are visible to the naked eye,
Yes, because they're stored in the manufacturer's own custom colorspace.
>you can not transfer shit from one to the other. Nobody does it, and it's simply not done.
You can and people have done it forever. Seamlessly and properly moving between and matching source material from different cameras is literally the entire point of ACES:
https://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/aces
>You can and people have done it forever. Seamlessly and properly moving between and matching source material from different cameras is literally the entire point of ACES:
You're incorrect on both points. People are matching A cams with B cams, and that poorly. You have plenty of testimonials in American Cinematographer and online saying that there are major problems doing that. And that's just matching main camera with some shitty canon, used for auto scenes.
Point of aces isn't matching different cameras, it's keeping whole ecosystem consistent. It involves recorded material, screening technologies of cinemas, digital displays, and transferring it faithfully to storage. It says so on the webpage you linked. I suggest reading it in full.
A) That's some prosumer shit.
B) If they're different it's because the internal color paths in the camera were designed differently (or gimped) in the different modes, and the colorists don't understand the science behind it to work with the material properly.
BRAW is a more efficient compression and processing mode for low-end hardware, but it doesn't add any color or dynamic range that the camera sensor didn't capture in the first place, which is what's most important. If you shoot with any of the Arri Alexa models for example, there is no color difference between RAW and ProRes because both are stored in the exact same LogC/WideGamut colorspace (or in the case of the new Alexa 35 LogC4/WideGamut4) and if you want to properly change the white balance for example, all you have to do is linearize the image first. Theoretically you should be able to do this with any lower-end cameras as well, provided you have access to the linearization curves and the image is stored with sufficient bitdepth.
Again, you are talking out of your ass and had too Google the difference between ProRes and BRAW. I can tell, because now you are saying "if they are different", whereas before they were different.
If you think an Ursa 8K is prosumer, you need to see a doctor. On John Wick 4 they had a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema on set, same as Logan. The codecs and file types have nothing to do with the camera being chosen. You can use an A7III for Netflix filming by their standards. BRAW does not store any data in LogC. You can easily look this up on Blackmagic's website.
You're the same guy saying they don't use Premiere in "Hollywood" editing. Go to school, or better yet get some real world experience on set. I'd love to see your iMDB if you are claiming to do this "every day".
And again, if ProRes and RAW cannot be made to look equivalent on a particular camera model it's either because they intentionally designed the modes to be apples and oranges, or because you and whatever clueless colorists are sitting with the material have no idea or understanding what's actually happening under the hood, or how to properly work with the material, and are just relying on your eyes and blindly accepting whatever the application spits out from the proverbial black box.
Like I said, the vastly more expensive Arri Alexa can be made to look exactly the same color-wise in ProRes and RAW modes. That should give you a hint that it's not the storage modes themselves that are the problem, but the implementations and workflows on the particular cameras.
And I didn't say they didn't use Premiere for editing, I said they didn't use it for grading, but you seem generally very unknowledgeable so I wouldn't be surprised if you mistook them for the same thing.
>more expensive Arri Alexa can be made to look exactly the same color-wise in ProRes and RAW modes.
You're still talking codecs. I'm talking cameras. Arri Alexa can not be made to look identical to Arri LF. Nowhere, in no situation. They will look completely different. Different dynamic range, different colour capture, and they're made by the same company. Difference become insurmountable when you start mixing in other manufacturers as well.
BRAW IN THE SAME SPACE AS ARRI/RED EVEN THOUGH IT'S PROPRIETARY TO BLACKMAGIC HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA moron PROBABLY EDITS IN AVID OR PREMIERE HAHAHAHAHAH
>and no one grades Hollywood movies in Premiere
This one is completely false. You're right that film and digital are completely different.
Lol everything everywhere all at once just won an oscar for best editing in Premiere, Adobe wont shut the frick up about it. Dude needs his meds.
That and the ones advertised are just iceberg.
It's premiere or davinci. They're the standard now. It's rare that people use anything else. Other movies just aren't sponsored, so editors keep quiet on what they use.
facts. i can't go back to premiere after using resolve though, the grading options plus fusion is way better.
Quick white balance fix with just a dash of blue in the highlights.
I tried to go for a early 2000's stock with a 'natural' grade.
So which working director (except boomers like Spielberg or Scorsese) actually makes interesting blocking and shots?
I think it's less about the era a film was made in than the people making it, but hen you may rightly ask, what's the difference? I would not have an answer for you.
The sad truth for us film guys is that fewer and fewer movies are shot on film as each year. The time will come when Kodak will stop manufacturing film stock, due to it no longer being profitable. And I fear that time is not too far off.
Isn't there enough quality kino shot on film to watch and enjoy for a lifetime?
Thankfully film has become the designated format for pretentious hipsters, so there's still some demand for it, and it's not like it can get any worse than the collapse of the 90/2000s.
Let's hope that I'm wrong, and that Kodak will continue making film stock indefinitely. I surely hope so. Film is very nostalgic for me. Dad shot 8mm family movies, and I shot a ton of black & white film that I developed and printed in the darkroom.
It seems I was being pessimistic. This is from 2020...
https://www.wxxinews.org/business/2020-01-31/kodak-signs-deals-to-continue-supply-of-motion-picture-film
2001 was the peak of film
Yes and 2001 came out in 1968
Who cares? It's all lipstick on a pig or polishing a turd these days. Wokeism, nepotism, and "muh diversity!" killed cinema. Most directors are hacks, yes, even Tarantino. The agendas, the propaganda, it's killed film. Its all goyslop from here on out.
as far as CGI spam and everything being shot on a soundstage is concerned, yes
why does digital look so shot most of the time?
The same reason high-framerate stuff looks bad, it's too close to reality. Instead of being drawn into an otherworldly, fantastical reflection of reality, as if seen through a distorting veil, you instead see reality itself, and you start to notice the actors, the costumes, the props, the sets, the cameras and crews hiding just off-screen.
Meanwhile this 1970s Marlowekino had a fraction of the budget this slop has and looks vastly superior.
>Marlowekino
It's the worst Marlowe ever made and that israelite is the worst Marlowe ever.
based
The Long Goodbye is horrendously overrated and Eliot Gould mumbling his lines through that movie made me wish the holocaust had happened.
It's intentional revisionism though.
>It was only pretending to be moronic
lol.lmao even.
It's a good movie on it's own but a complete butchering of Marlowe.
led lighting
bad setup 4-8k cameras with muh vintage lenses look like shit too much detail/sharpness brings out how cheap everything looks
nobody knows how to light anymore even if you got vintage lights modern morons wouldnt know what to do with them
blame 2 decades of shitty lcds making dvd-4k releases gimp the black levels i suppose these movies would even look shit on a plasma or oled and look horrid even on laser projectors and shit on lcd projectors as well
>Directed by Neil Jordan
guess hes phoning it in these days
wait until you learn about the NeRF technology
so my 2d waifus will become real?
Is NeRF available yet at a consumer or even free to use level yet? I have some 3d printing I need to do
Dunno about free but it's cheap enough for these guys to use.
I don't really have a "favorite movie" but when I think of that phrase Once Upon A Time In The West is usually the first film that pops into my mind.
It does so much with so litlle, it looks incredibly beautiful, it introduces all of his characters perfectly, it's well paced, the acting is on point, almost every dialogue is amazing, there is no big surprise or complex storyline but it's just put together perfectly, the little ending twist just add a nice layer without getting into it too much...
I love that movie.
For me it’s My Darling Clementine
you mean The Long Voyage Home
What's your process for making webms like that, anon?
VGH...
Yeah, filming in actual locations instead of CGI airports or plain fields will cause that
Is the blue/dark a digital problem or a colour grade problem? I done some film stuff but could not imagine changing to shooting on film, it looks incredible do not get me wrong, but the flexibility of shooting digital is what wins for me.
Color grading and lighting
that's what I figured, so anons are just pissed off at poorly planned lighting and not enough time given to colourists not digital footage.
Honestly, I think digital has the capability to look fantastic, if everything is done correctly. And it's getting better as the tech improves. I have a sneaking suspicion that you could take some new movie, shot digitally, with great lighting, color grading, and all the rest of the things a good shot-on-film movie used to have, and lie about it. "You have to see movie xyz. It was shot on film, and it looks great!" I BETCHA not a few anons would be fooled. "Oh yeah, look at the great colors. That's film, alright."
You could probably come pretty close if you really wanted to, and film look emulation is indeed a thing they do in post-production. But for some reason a lot of it just ends up looking so sharp, flat, sterile and anemic. Contrast for example the new digitally-shot Marlowe trailer in
to the comparatively recent (1995) Devil in a Blue Dress depicting much of the same style/era. Even though the production design objectively looks competent, the digital just makes it all look so wonky and cheap and fake and bad and "wrong" compared the latter shot on film.
Colorists are part of the problem
This is true, the problem is that such things are as rare as unicorns. Though, you do manage to find one on occasion.
Right here. Only one I've seen in recent years that looked decent though.
Flick?
The Kid Detective. Fun noir-ish movie, quite competently made all around.
Thanks anon!
>Colorists are part of the problem
Film was coloured as well. Some did it while shooting with filters, others in post with tints. It was very basic. Just one colour over everything. Red, yellow, blue... same as using only one wheel in premiere.
When done of scene, everything had to be perfect, since there was little room to fix things. When done on post, base exposure had to be nailed. 90's, early 2000's thing. Matrix and initial releases of lotr are first notable cases of doing this in post on digital intermediate. They sold well, and opened pandoras box. Now everything goes this way. Film and digital.
Today dumb directors thing that they can get away with everything, and expect colourist to fix turds. They get vastly mismatched footage, and only way to save them, is throw on piss filters.
I just mean they’re doing a bad job not thag their existence is a problem
Why would you need 5,000 2x4s to build a wooden train platform when the ground is flat as frick to begin with? It's not like wood is the most abundant resource in the desert.
My guess is it prevents people from walking in mud during rain.
Both are good explanations
In the movie? Because the squeaking of the floor when they walk on it creates tension
In real life? No idea. Humans are stupid
If only there was some sort of transport system nearby to bring the needed materials from afar.
They needed the wood to make towns and carriages and shit, who gets a ton of wooden planks in the middle of the flat desert and says "this would make an excellent floor for outside, here make a floor the size of a football field right next to the train"
The wooden platform acts as a platform to move things on and off of the train
So people don't have to climb up into the train and so there's less chance of people getting caught in the bogeys and pulled under the train, same reason modern stations have platforms. Do you even think before you post?
In the words of the greatest film ever made, John Wayne was a homosexual. Westerns are and have always been shit.
I watched hang em high with my dad last night it was awesome love my dad
In the running for greatest ost in a western too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN52vq7xmas
>John Wayne was a gay
Its true anon, he was, there are plenty of stories of people catching him giving or getting a blowjob to another guy.
No love for Peckinpah?
ride the high country belongs in the top 20 westerns of all time
The Wild Bunch is great it was one of if not the most violent movie of it's time and paved the way for more realistic, brutal portrayal of violence.
I hate modern colour grading more than anything. Even when 99.99% of what's in a shot is likely actually physically there it still looks fake and shitty.
Color was a mistake.
blurry = good?
This movie looks good
Other movies look bad
Wat movie?
Portrait of a lady on fire
Digital cameras and modern low aperture lenses ruined cinema.
This is not just because they are ugly, but because they make everything too easy. There is no need to light a shot well, because digital sensors can receive information from any amount of light, and if your ISO is too high you can just bring your aperture to f1.4. There is no need to put effort into production design or blocking, because with your low depth of field you can just blur out everything outside of the principal subject. There is no need to carefully craft a sequence or composing a shot, because you have essentially unlimited data on your camera and are able to shoot as much as you want, get as much coverage as you may need, and paste it all together in the edit. You do not have to worry about the limitations of the medium or making a mistake on set, because there are no limitations, and mistakes can ultimately be remedied in post.
The limitations of shooting on film forced directors to be smart with their decisions, and every decision mattered. Now the only decision that matters is those that will save them time and effort. Nobody cares about the image anymore, because it has been totally devalued by the technology.
>and if your ISO is too high you can just bring your aperture to f1.4.
It's an illusion. ISO is a major cause for 'digital' look, it's not constant, and it's not standardized. Iso 800 in low light, will look completely different than iso 800 in bright light. Dynamic range will be different, noise, colour capture. Then you even have things like warmth and cold that effects digital noise. Proper scene evaluation needs to be as strict as in film, but like you said, it's used as an excuse to throw everything to the wind and pretend that we can pull everything off.
Can you explain this to me?
Low aperatures?apertures? ISO? f1.4?
As an outside observer, I've always been able to pick up on the techniques of framing, editing, choreography, color, composition, and visual storytelling.
But I have no understanding of the mechanism of why films look the way they do. Something I usually refer to as "texture".
Can you please explain?
https://improvephotography.com/photography-basics/aperture-shutter-speed-and-iso/
better than me typing it all out
Buy a cheap digital milc camera without a lens and a fairly decent evf. Buy a cheap chinese manual focus lens for it. Do some photography. You'll get it all in a month.
true in general
After sun looks good
Somebody please post some good examples of digital.
I'm trying to think of stuff but I'm coming up rather short for things that doesn't have that flat/desaturated/sickly or otherwise obviously digital look. I think some the nice-looking ones are the darker or nighttime movies where you don't see stuff so clearly, like Whiplash, The Equalizer, The Shape of Water, Drive.
First Reformed is always the movie I think about when I think good digital.
I think the shots of the trees are something that legitimately would not look as good on film, because the crisp image really highlight the branches.
Old movies ARE good.
New movies ARE bad.
The Train Robbers very nice, homage to the spaghettis western.
It was the last movie in a long list of great films that cinematographer made and it has a lot of nice shots.
It should not be that hard to repeat the framing and color of old movies. It’s stupid fads, ironically started by Spielberg in Saving Private Ryan with its dreary cinematography that really popularized this trend
Yea this. Saving Private Ryan with its washed out palette started a fad that still hasn't ended.
You're cherry picking. The vast majority of older films look like dogshit, especially 60's and 70's slop
Shitty 70s flicks look much better than a shitty 2010s/2020s flick.
Shitty 70s Z-grade flicks even look much better than good (there aren't great ones) 2010s/2020s films. Visually, it's really the strongest decade for movies. That anon really doesn't know what he's talking about,
Not a fan of the 70's. Woody Allen, corny comedies, dawn of horror... There are some true highlights that stand out, and are some of my favourite movies. Problem is that the average, and the pulp is downright bad. 70's is delayed 60's experimentation bringing it's ugly head to front. 60's is mainly just continuation of the 50's. Studio system is dead, we're figuring things anew. A few zany movies, the rest is old conformity, brought into wide screen and outdoors. Epic in it's final form. 80's, things come back to the fold. Standardization, order, free reign of the director that is made king and all. Action and blockbuster starts their overthrow, but they are still contained. With plethora of genres for everyone, it's the richest period in variety.
70s storytelling excels in its humanist perspective and grit. Stories about degenerates being degenerates, and getting torn apart by the underworld they call home. Dirty Harry, the Godfather, Taxi Driver, Chinatown, Scarface (Yes I know Scarface is from 1982, its tone and storytelling technique is far more 70s than it is 80s and the screenplay was originally written in the 70s). The heroes are antiheroes on their best days and downright villains on their worst. Everything is covered in a layer of sleaze and corruption and vice and melancholy, a reflection of the dirty grungy violent hedonistic age they were made in. They're a window into the darkest dankest corners of human society and the human psyche. That's what makes them appealing, as a contrast from the heroic adventurism of the 1950s-1960s, and the simpleminded masculine bravado of the 80s.
That was the New Hollywood era and it's kind of a miracle it lasted for like a whole decade with how commercialized and profit oriented american cinema is
Media is either propaganda-oriented or profit-oriented. No exceptions, pick your poison.
Spiderman 1:
?t=156
Spiderman 2:
?t=192
Both phenomenal shots that I'll never forget.
Kino incoming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iYxrsd59-E
Vilmos Zsigmond. Pre exposed film. It destroyed sharpness, caused bloom and desaturation, but gave up natural Rembrandt look. Experimental, almost one of a kind. Shit movie, though.
Agree
Name 1 good looking movie shot on digital
you can't
digital movies look all plastic-y and muddy
the celebration
julien donkey boy
collateral
the idiots
will you concede? or do you wish to rectify your statement?
combination of dynamic range, lighting, color grading, and in general what
said. low dynamic range cannot capture the complexity and variations in skin tone (from a value contrast standpoint). poor lighting (which is increasingly common as explained here
) compounds with this issue. color grades are often slapdash and shitty, as making digital look really good is a lot of work, so getting the correct saturation and value of skin tones is usually not a priority. i also imagine a lot of modern cinematographers don't always take the time to correctly white balance, as you can correct it in post, but the farther off the wb is from what was captured, the more color information is lost, and those particular tones such as are found in skin are the first to go. this is just an assumption, though
>low dynamic range cannot capture the complexity and variations in skin tone
doesnt digital, especially expensive cinema cameras have better dynamic range than film though?
no, film has a much higher dynamic range. it also has a different contrast curve than digital does
>they COULD make movies look like old movies, it's just that every single director and cinematographer working in the entire world is too lazy
I find this hard to believe. There's not one example to show this?
Damien Chazelle, Tarantino. Damien, fairly successfully, copied it, Tarantino learned it when it was still taught. There's not one thing that gives you classic look. Main thing common to them both, is shooting on film, and aspherical classical lenses. The later is very important. Modern look doesn't' come just from shooting shallow depth and digital cameras. It comes from modern lenses as well. They are razor sharp, and have practically no optical defects. Old lenses could also go f1.8, but they suffered massive chromatic aberrations when they were shot at those apertures. They used smaller apertures as a consequence. They also didn't allow for fast panning on wide shots, because of optical defects.
Why is digital so bad at skin tones? I feel like that's the most obvious way to tell if something is digital or film.
It’s bad at gradients or things that make up multiple colors in the same spot in general, and skins an extreme example of that. Great at solid colors, terrible with the fancy stuff.
It worked with the theme of the film I guess but watching the Blade Runner 1982 after 2049 really reminded me why I love film so much. It just feels so organic and alive.
meanwhile night scenes ironically look so bad in digital for me. it's ironic because digital should be amazing at night scenes with how high you can push the ISO nowadays.
hmm yes looks very flat, but then this scene likely includes a lot of CGI/digital tinkering
Film night scenes are so kino.