So, The Love Witch was a damn good movie.
>Technicolor look
I enjoyed that attempt. It looks good.
So, The Love Witch was a damn good movie. >Technicolor look. I enjoyed that attempt. It looks good.
So, The Love Witch was a damn good movie.
>Technicolor look
I enjoyed that attempt. It looks good.
Impressive they could replicate this old-school Hollywood look so recently. I watched A Quiet Place 2 last night and was SHOCKED to find out it was shot on 35mm film; it had the same generic look as anything shot on digital these days that is dumped on a streaming service.
>35mm
Wait really?
Apparently both A Quiet Place 1 & 2 were both shot on film, but the way they lit it and colour graded it makes it hard for me to tell. I'm surprised Tarantino didn't try to go for this Love Witch type-look for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
>I'm surprised Tarantino didn't try to go for this Love Witch type-look for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
I'm starting to get the impression that directors check out of the production process after editing
like how could they possibly allow their big budget films to be murdered in the color grading step?
Once Upon a Time was post-Weinstien. QT must have had to make some compromises or it wouldn't have gotten made at all.
I was very surprised to find out a relatively big-budget and recent Hollywood film that was shot on film could still look so generic and "digital". I can only assume that there was a lot of fricking around with the lighting and grading et cetera to implement the CGI monsters?
I thought it was more to compensate for the lack of any real money/effort being put into scene lighting like the old days
to establish mood it would take a lot of time and energy to get all the lights and color right
now it seems like they shoot from the hip with digital and mostly available light with the attitude:
>welp we'll fix all that in post
and apply some shitty 2012 instagram filter to create a synthetic mood and call it a day
>to establish mood it would take a lot of time and energy to get all the lights and color right
Power to effeciency wise? Yes, especially carbon arcs and tungsten were tricky because they required shit ton of electricity and the returns weren't terribly great. When HMI's got more popular they did speed up workflows and lots of films shot on film benefitted from them. Greater electricity to power ratio on HMI's versus tungsten. Though usually it was a mix of tungsten and HMI. Fluorescent started getting good in the 90's and they were used a lot on films shot on films, alongside tungsten and HMI fixtures. Fluorescents improved workflows as well and often fixtures like Kinoflos drew less power and werer easier to rig than let's say classic Arri Fresnels or HMI's. People b***hed about fluorescents just like they b***h about LED now by the way. Same with HMI. Even though thousands of movies shot on film utilized HMI's and fluorescent fixtures extensively.
>to establish mood it would take a lot of time and energy to get all the lights and color right
Getting the color right on film isn't very hard. You balance light fixtures to the color temperature of your film stock if you want the lighting to appear neutral. If you shoot, let's say Kodak 500T outdoors, you convert it to daylight with a filter that goes to the matterbox, in front of the lens, if you want it to appear neutral. If you don't want that, you either choose a different balanced film stock for desired effect (making things warmer for example) or you gel/change your bulbs to desired kelvins.
Taratino's long time editor died before so that's probably it
she died in 2010
that's because everything is run through a gazillion color grading steps which emits the same muddy looking schlock
it's some kind of mass media humiliation ritual, nobody is allowed to see COLOR anymore
everything has to look all washed out and fricked up so a (de-)"colorist" can have job security
Yes, I think you're right. It seems that "professional Hollywood" movies all will get the same post-production, digital workflow treatment regardless of the acquisition format, unless the director is autistic about it like P.T. Anderson, Nolan, Tarantino, etc.
35mm is a marketing trick, movie gets raped in post regardless
Movies shot on 35 mm film back in the analogue days still had a chemical & analog post process. The look of the film was partially decided by the development options and printer lights. Where do you think digital color grading originates from.
35mm stock is made differently today from the 35mm of decades ago, it's extreme high-fidelity. Add in modern ultra-sharp lenses, LED lighting, and digital intermediate and today's 35mm movies look no different from netflix slop.
The Love Witch was shot on modern Vision 3 stock like literally everything that gets shot on color negative these days, as it's the only color negative available for motion pictures now. Stock isn't as important as the lighting and how the film is handled in post.
In cinema, filters are what you call something that's put in front of the actual lens while shooting. Color grading is different from simple instagram filters, but that's the step where many modern movies tend to frick everything up
>Color grading is different from simple instagram filters
how so? obviously professional color grading is going to be more algorithmically intensive (at least I'd hope), but it all comes down to fricking with the color curves of the incoming raw data
and sadly the end result all too often looks every bit as shitty as an early 2010s instagram filter
In the sense that instagram filters are just something you slap on in two seconds, while color grading is a far more involved process with countless of different tools in the software. But yes, both boil down to manipulating data.
>and sadly the end result all too often looks every bit as shitty as an early 2010s instagram filter
Agreed. A big issue is that too many colorists, cinematographers and directors lack restraint.
Shooting on film doesn't really add anything if you then DNR and color correct the FRICK out of it and also just light your movie poorly to begin with
The thing is that modern Vision 3 film stock is so fine-grained, that I don't think anyone is really using DNR with it. If you shoot Vision 3 50D or 200T and expose it properly, the grain is nearly invisible at a normal viewing distance. 500T on the other hand has visible grain if someone wants it. The Love Witch for example was shot on Vision 3 200T and while it has a very retro look thanks to the lighting and film processing, there's very little grain visible due to the use of modern stock.
>Vision II
Vision 3.
Vision 2 was discontinued in the early 2010s.
>Vision 3
My bad.
>shoot on film
>with vintage lenses
>but scan it RAW instead of timing it first with chem and lights
>frick the original neg colours with digital 'cinematic' orange and teal 'grading'
>frick the detail with DNR
>save it as a digital file or DCP
>then print again to film, for 'the grainz and texture'
Fricking clown world.
>instead of timing it first with chem and lights
Sadly that skill set is nearly dead. There's only one facility left in the world where you can get motion picture film stock color timed chemically and with printer lights. Clown world.
Which is a fricking shame, because with modern technology and previous knowledge film should look better than ever.
There is a MIRIAD of new and independent filmmakers that know what the frick is up with film and light PLUS the new digital tools, yielding amazing results:
.be
Hollywood craftsmanship and talent is almost dead.
>frick the original neg colours with digital 'cinematic' orange and teal 'grading'
Cinema negatives are very flat on purpose so that they can be tweaked in post, whether digitally or chemically. Developed cinema negative isn't the finished article.
Yup, true. Negatives were indeed always meant to be flat. One thing that many people tend to forget nowadays is that the print stock (the one used for theatrical prints) also used to have a huge effect on how films looked. And that each step from negative to interpositive to internegative etc. made the look slightly more contrasty.
Kodak (and the most popular ones) were very flat, but I member working with some Ektachromes and foreign-produced shit back in the early 90's that had a very distinctive hue, even with account for temp colour, and they could be easily distinguished from each other from the developed strip alone just by the colour cast.
Yep. Some of Fuji's cine stocks were very distinct from Kodak's. You can still check out the difference yourself if you do some still photography on film, because Fuji continues to manufacture some of their stocks for still photography use.
They make Acros (black and white), Velvia, Ektar and Provia. C200 is definitely rebranded Kodak, Xtra400 probably as well.
Ektahcrome is a positive film, not the greatest comparison. Of course different films have a slightly different "base" look depending on the manufacturer and making process of the film. But the point is that almost no films just use the "raw" developed film, it always gets changed and adjusted in post. Same thing with still film, the way it is scanned on both hardware and software level affects how the film looks. There's lots of latitude on many negative still films as well, there's a certainly a kind of a "stock" idea of how Portra looks to people when it was scanned by a Noritsu or a Frontier, but it can also be scanned very flat and you can interpret the colors in bunch of ways.
And of course for example Ektachrome's cine and still film is the exact same film.
OG homies remember
Because it was actually shot on 35mm stock, the only one available nowadays at that (Vision II), but film, nonetheless. Also they researched on LIGHT from the period, which is way more important than just shooting on film.
For some recent examples on digital shot and lit the right way that it almost fooled me into thinking it was film, take a look at Nobody or The Creator.
I just wish Fuji would make one last attempt at cine stock because theirs had beautiful colours ;_;
>The Creator
I agree; the film itself is mediocre but some of the shots are genuinely amazing from relatively "cheap" tech; like the scene at night by the hotel pool. Film stock could NEVER replicate the lighting of that scene. Digital has come a long way, and in theory can keep improving forever until we're "looking out a window".
her michael jackson nose is too distracting
agreed
>negress cop love interest
well if that doesn't take you out of the nostalgic vintage atmosphere ...
Thankfully she's only background, and not the love interest.
Why are movies so woke nowadays guys? It's getting out of hand...
It's so weird that we have the tech, but only one low budget b-movie took advantage of it.
I also love that look wish there were more movies using it
It doubles as both a great witch flick and film in general.
where's her penis?
Sad but nothing a few tattoos wouldn't fix.
Why is OP trying to make this movie a meme on Cinemaphile?
Multiple people here post The Love Witch.
i’m one of them
I'm addicted to love.
pls show bobs an vagene
Would you get married to a cute BPD witch?
That scene near the end where he rejects her potion is pure kino.
One way of understanding why modern movies look like dogshit is by torturing yourself by visiting r/cinematography on Reddit. Shitloads of young millennials and zoomers are actually trying to make their shit look like generic Netflix trash. That's what they've been conditioned to like.
I'm convinced most people think cinematography just means "framing."
i fell asleep watching this im sorry
It is okay my son
: (
>when she gives you the leg shimmy
That fricking leg shimmy combined with the music never fails to crack me up.
Why is this movie getting shilled so hard all of a sudden? There's a new thread every day now. Is the director releasing something new or what?
Let me guess, you’re gonna say the same thing about Carrie next.
OP here, no idea why, I saw a thread on the weekend and it has interested me greatly.
as someone who posts but doesn't OP, I like the movie. Some decent crossover with filmgayging threads
Accurate
Late 60s and 70s american girls were hot af for some reason
They all had long hair and were slim and wore revealing clothes
Yeah I’m thinking based.
Theres pictures of 70s hitchikers and they were hot af
I would allow her to do sex magic on me
I know what you mean
Her “poor baby :(“ shtick would probably work on me a little too well tb h
Ive watched quite a few mommy pov videos to know that it would surely work on me