>Cinematographers became lazy hacks
Pretty much this, and the ridiculous vfx deadlines. They keep using the "white sky" as a setting because with that weather setting, they dont have to render complex lighting and shadows.
They know they dont have time for stylized lighting, so they dont even bother with that.
What on earth were they thinking? Like seriously it's not just laziness, you'd actually have to try hard to make such a boring setting and film filter/color
>Cinematographers became lazy hacks.
Post Editors always were. The advantage those guys had was that much of the lighting was done on set and they had a director with a strong vision. But in the 2010s directors shifted to the "we'll fix it in post" mantra and vfx/lighting editors didn't know what the frick to do since not even the basic on set groundwork was done so they had to turn shit into shoe polish all on their own.
Warm temperature is just better anyways so who cares.
The color temperature of sunlight varies throughout the day from 2000K in a sunrise, to around 5500K during a clear sky noon to up to 10000K during a cloudy day. The brain is able to color correct, so when you look at a white paper during a sunrise, you will see it as white and not orange, even tough the sunlight is orange.
Usually sunlight transitions from one color temperature to another slowly, so your brain has plenty of time to adapt. When you get your remote and change from "cool" to "warm" instantly you will see white objects as yellowish because you didn't give your brain enough time. But after some time you will adapt to "warm" and then when you change to cool you will perceive it as bluish temporarily.
There's more reasons why TVs in stores are usually in cool mode and non enthusiasts prefer cool: The eye is more sensitive to the wavelengths predominant in "cool", so it seems brighter than "warm" for the same nit level. Also, the emissive layer of TVs is usually better at creating blue light, so TVs can achieve a bit higher brightness in "cool" mode.
Modern TVs have more than enough brightness for SDR. You can move from "cool" to "warm" and then increase the brightness to compensate.
Content creators use displays with a color temperature of 6500K to create content, so to be viewed as intended you should set yours to 6500K too, and that's usually "warm2". Because of the reasons I gave in the second paragraph, I don't believe it should make a big difference if you choose the "wrong" color temperature, as your brain should color correct it to the correct values. But maybe the results will not be accurate. There's probably more to it and I should do more research some day.
TLDR: When in doubt choose "warm2". It seems yellowish at first but your brain will quickly adapt. Content creators use "warm2", so it's the way it's meant to be viewed.
damn bro that's such an intellectual and human way of thinking bro. like the way you ignored all the nuance and context surrounding the discussion and just focused on the literal meanings of the words is such a raw, human and definitely not highly autistic behaviour.
With film you have one lighting paradigm that gaffers have been studying for decades. With digital all they do is try and get the lighting so there aren't any shadows on the greenscreens be cause it'll all be done in post.
It's like if the first NASCAR drivers were all former jockeys. It ain't the same sport
There's no reason why you can't have highly stylized lighting with modern digital cameras. Cinematographers became lazy hacks.
Look at muldoons introduction. It’s obviously a white light at his feet pointed up at him. This would never happen in real life but it’s cool as frick in this movie
I miss those days
>Look at muldoons introduction. It’s obviously a white light at his feet pointed up at him. This would never happen in real life but it’s cool as frick in this movie
The in-movie explanation is that the light is coming from the work lamps.
Quentin said that digital is only acceptable for low-budget student flicks, but I think being shot on grainy film makes low budget into kino. Something like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or any of those old Mondo shockumentaries from back in the day wouldn't have the same effect if they were just shot on an iPhone today.
I love film and how Twin Peaks looked, but I love how Twin Peaks The Return looks in digital also. Lighting in that show definitely wasn't realistic either and everything looked great, but there are plenty of people who prefer film, I probably do also.
i think the worst trend in human history is twitter, actually caring for even a single second what any worthless moron on that site says is worse than cancer
and it's fricking true. directors take color for granted now and don't even think about it. RAN is an absolute masterpiece in color design because Kurosawa was very cognitive about color having done black and white films before.
Why would making black and white films inherently lead to being cognitive about color? Because you spend your time not thinking about color, suddenly you're a genius with it? If anything, it could be the four color productions Kurosawa worked on before Ran that led to it looking as good as it did.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>it could be the four color productions Kurosawa worked on before Ran that led to it looking as good as it did.
Except that Dodes'ka-den, his first color film, already had incredible use of color, far surpassing what most directors ever do with it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
How do you know it was incredible because of his black and white work though? It's an assumption at best. Maybe it was Takao Saito's expertise, or the concept of emulating children's drawings in the color palette made them go harder with the color and it just worked, or his work on Tora Tora Tora informed him how not to shoot in color.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yep and look at other directors going to color after black and white.
Antonioni did Red Desert as his first and it is visually stunning.
Fellini I think did Juliet of the Spirits which is not only underrated as hell but beautifully vibrant.
I think Bergman’s first color film was Cries and Whispers where the colors were like a character onto themselves.
Even Masaki Kobayshi’s first color film was kwaidan. Again - he takes Full advantage of the change in medium
Great directors who worked in black and white made full use of their first color films to make some of their most visually arresting work,
3 months ago
Anonymous
How would it not though? The only non-sequitur might arguably be if that was the argument for why it's *good*. But it's good simply because Kurosawa was one of the great visual stylists in all of cinema. But unquestionably he's putting special consideration in making the switch. He's as adept with wielding the visual strengths of colour as he was with B&W and making that switch is always going to be a decisive choice for a filmmaker like that. He's going to approach that as a challenge and it's going to inform the way he makes the shift.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Because not all B&W directors transitioned nearly as well into color. Kurosawa was very much an exception. Probably had more to do with Kurosawa's background in painting.
And he is right. This whole thread is mostly about how flat realism replaced the stylized work of photography. Cinematography is always a thing about light and color.
Listening to a gun without ear protection is liable to result in hearing damage you dumb no guns zoomer homosexual so the average gun owner isn't looking to enjoy the sound of gunfire.
who is obsessed with natural lighting? people have been saying they like the non filtered lighting outdoors (blue and piss), but i haven't heard anyone say anything about natural lighting in regards to artificial lighting. maybe 10 years ago with lens flare shenanigans
Maybe I'm just being a schizo but I always felt like pre-2000s movies had more distinghuishable objects on screen at any given time, that scenes were somehow "fuller" and less sterile. This difference is most obvious when watching remakes of older movies or just current-year sequels.
>but I always felt like pre-2000s movies had more distinghuishable objects on screen at any given time
Probably has to do with the fact that back then cinematographers weren't trying to achieve the shallowest focus possible. So many try to make everything blurry nowadays. I hate this trend.
There is a lot of old movies that use focus and unfocus. Unfocus it's just shallow depth of field. That frame of interstellar dont have anything of CG, its just Nolan being cheap or using it as narrative effect to show the true isolated planet on the next scene. A true deep of field, like Kurosawa's Ran needs a lot of light, coordination and lens´s work, since you are on the verge of frick the film quality.
you're definitely not wrong
one of my favorite examples of this is the scene where Clemenza has Michael test out the gun that he's going to kill Sollozzo with—not only do mnany of the props work symbolically, but they feel perfectly natural—you'd expect someone's basement to look just like this.
I'm sure I don't even need to mention the night-and-day difference between the interior spaces of Blade Runner versus BR2049
because they lighted the faces to make they brighter than the background (or light them in a different angle)
who is obsessed with natural lighting? people have been saying they like the non filtered lighting outdoors (blue and piss), but i haven't heard anyone say anything about natural lighting in regards to artificial lighting. maybe 10 years ago with lens flare shenanigans
the word is "motivated" light as in "this is how the world would look if the light was actually coming from that window over there"
it's not exactly the same thing as "naturalistic light", which is a thing since Nestor Almendros and the Days of Heaven era
>the word is "motivated" light as in "this is how the world would look if the light was actually coming from that window over there"
Like in Barry Lyndon?
No. Motivated lighting is a pseud meme that has taken the cinematography weeks by storm. The idea is that all light has to come from windows or lamps that are actually in a scene and if there isn't a real natural light source than there shouldn't be any light.
That's why everything looks like a car insurance commercial or a dim grey blob. No one wants to light something to just look cool and aesthetically pleasing
You're moronic as shit dude, hardly anyone is a "motivated light" diehard and ONLY uses that (literally the only example I can think of is the Safides wanting to use as much motivated lighting as possible with Uncut Gems but even that wasnt 100%) and has absolutely nothing to do with the flat / car insurance lighting look (which is exactly what the person you were responding to was saying you fricking moron)
>it's not exactly the same thing as "naturalistic light", which is a thing since Nestor Almendros and the Days of Heaven era
It was done many times way before DoH. The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) being a great example of it. David Watkin was really ahead of his time as a cinematographer when it came to lighting. One of the first major British DPs to move to a more naturalistic direction from classic studio lighting. Although I'm not saying he was the first either, he wasn't. Not sure who originated it in major productions, but you could see the style here and there in the 60s.
>Maybe I'm just being a schizo but I always felt like pre-2000s movies had more distinghuishable objects on screen at any given time, that scenes were somehow "fuller" and less sterile
Its simple. Back in 80s and 90s movies used to have black for shadows, contrast was a really key element for resolution. Now black is replaced by a muddy grey, trying to show more detail on screen for 4k paradigm.
We're going to enter a point where we won't even have actors and everything will be digital AI. Natural cinema will never exist outside of Indies, accept this fact now
Stylized lightning is nice but actual realistic lighting is also great
Trouble is that it's been appropriated by too many dishonest productions, just like 4:3
>2004 >beauty light, white balance, soft fill to the face, backlight, foreground and background with totally different setup >2024 >dude yellow keylight lmao
Lighting is almost a lost art at this point
we had a sequence break in skill-passing in the mid 2000s when new cinematographers were so wowed by how easy colour gading and post production was and how modern it made everything look, they didn't bother to learn any of the fundamentals from the previous generation, and now everybody who knew how to properly light shots is retiring and that knowledge wasn't passed on like it was passed on to them, and those skills are lost and every shot looks so fricking dead like a commercial
like the britons after the romans left, they try to build villas temples out of wood and straw without any idea how to keep them up
Well, not totally lost. Thankfully there's shitloads of books on lighting written by people who've done some stunning work. It's just a shame that most DPs today are too lazy to read, experiment and learn.
Like what? People guard shit like it's gold, as it is, since it's their livelihood. Only prominent cinematographer that wrote a useful book on it is John Atlon, it's great for BW but useless for colour, since he was shit at it.
Like what? People guard shit like it's gold, as it is, since it's their livelihood. Only prominent cinematographer that wrote a useful book on it is John Atlon, it's great for BW but useless for colour, since he was shit at it.
>lighting is a lost art
No it isn't, painters have been using dramatic lighting since the renaissance.
Digital photographers still obsess over lighting for things like fashion shoots today.
Sadly, CGI and shitty color grading will do these days when pumping out shovelware films these days
Realism in EVERY aspect of film is a cancer. Modern audiences have an extremely immature palette, where if anything defies their notion of what is plausible/realistic they just outright reject it.
Can't have any different style of writing or acting, it must always be realism. So boring.
Is this guy moronic? Movies are full of shitty colour correction nowadays, the lack of lighting rays is because they film it all in front of a green screen instead of on a real set or location.
This is exactly why I hate modern cinema. Everything looks like a fricking soundstage. There is NO fricking light anymore. All the examples in the pic are beautiful shots. No Korean came in and color corrected this and photshops that on his computer, a crew of professionals used their minds and hands to create the perfect conditions for ONE fricking 30 sec shot.
cinematographers are not lazy, its directors and producers who want a specific look the one to be blamed. Alien vs Predator 2 cinematographer was tired of ask for more light, but editing fricked the movie even more.
>me, watching some Miklos Jancso flick >frick this looks great, look all those colors, that contrast, and it's just 30 dudes in a field and the camera moving around
Watching 2020s movies is like listening to a bad radio drama episode because they don't even describe what's on screen when the screen goes full black with black blobs moving in it.
even if capeshit and cgi died tomorrow the industry would still be chasing the sizeable female demo mass market who only care about interpersonal drama (cheap netflix series), they're even more aesthetically ghettoized plebs than the manchildren. just look at what women have done to the publishing industry being the primary consumer, all women in trouble "mystery" and YA fantasy-romance slop
>Self proclaimed cinephiles argue digital made shit too "realistic" and not stylized enough >Will b***h about pic related in the same breath
Y'all don't know shit about dick let alone film
Even Terrifier 2 which is supposedly an emulation of 80's horror movies has no lighting whatsoever. Just palette work. And the lighting itself is horribly flat.
But what's funny is I recently watched Le Wolverine and was surprised at how different it is in terms of lighting and staging from modern movies. And it's the same capeshit. We've really degenerated in about 10 years.
>Even Terrifier 2 which is supposedly an emulation of 80's horror movies has no lighting whatsoever. Just palette work. And the lighting itself is horribly flat.
Some screens
>zoomers discover digital was a mistake
quentin has been saying this for 20 years now
There's no reason why you can't have highly stylized lighting with modern digital cameras. Cinematographers became lazy hacks.
>Cinematographers became lazy hacks.
and why do you think that is?
it's because of digital. everyone got lazy because of digital.
they all do it in post now. everything.
Still, I blame the people using the tools, not the tools themselves.
True, but the tool has laziness as inevitable consequence.
It's a cycle, anon. Whichever side you want to blame is irrelevant. Both sides are unwitting cogs in a machine.
>Cinematographers became lazy hacks
Pretty much this, and the ridiculous vfx deadlines. They keep using the "white sky" as a setting because with that weather setting, they dont have to render complex lighting and shadows.
They know they dont have time for stylized lighting, so they dont even bother with that.
Yup, doing flat lighting on set for CGI is a cancer.
Heat is one of the very few films where guns sound like they should.
SOULESS
L
O
P
What on earth were they thinking? Like seriously it's not just laziness, you'd actually have to try hard to make such a boring setting and film filter/color
I fricking HATE white sky
I never liked MCU movies for actually good cinematography, only for the action and bizarre stories, but this looks embarrasing, jesus christ
You say that as if they have good action.
>this was an acceptable crime-fighting outfit in 2016
more like digital allowed absolute mediocre cinematgraphers to rise up to the top levels of studio filmmaking
they used to need logarithmic charts to calculate the exposure leves, now they just look to their 50 inches HDR monitor
>Cinematographers became lazy hacks.
Post Editors always were. The advantage those guys had was that much of the lighting was done on set and they had a director with a strong vision. But in the 2010s directors shifted to the "we'll fix it in post" mantra and vfx/lighting editors didn't know what the frick to do since not even the basic on set groundwork was done so they had to turn shit into shoe polish all on their own.
you could say it's the audience's fault for letting them get away with this shit
The audience was never bright enough to appreciate lighting, photography and editing.
To add to this, it has been hollywoods mantra from the beginning to have all of these things invisible to general audiences
Go back to sniffing Uma's feet Quentin.
Gladly.
Then why have his latest films looked so fricking bad
>t.blind homosexual
Hi Quentin. What was up with the piss filter in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?
Warm temperature is just better anyways so who cares.
The color temperature of sunlight varies throughout the day from 2000K in a sunrise, to around 5500K during a clear sky noon to up to 10000K during a cloudy day. The brain is able to color correct, so when you look at a white paper during a sunrise, you will see it as white and not orange, even tough the sunlight is orange.
Usually sunlight transitions from one color temperature to another slowly, so your brain has plenty of time to adapt. When you get your remote and change from "cool" to "warm" instantly you will see white objects as yellowish because you didn't give your brain enough time. But after some time you will adapt to "warm" and then when you change to cool you will perceive it as bluish temporarily.
There's more reasons why TVs in stores are usually in cool mode and non enthusiasts prefer cool: The eye is more sensitive to the wavelengths predominant in "cool", so it seems brighter than "warm" for the same nit level. Also, the emissive layer of TVs is usually better at creating blue light, so TVs can achieve a bit higher brightness in "cool" mode.
Modern TVs have more than enough brightness for SDR. You can move from "cool" to "warm" and then increase the brightness to compensate.
Content creators use displays with a color temperature of 6500K to create content, so to be viewed as intended you should set yours to 6500K too, and that's usually "warm2". Because of the reasons I gave in the second paragraph, I don't believe it should make a big difference if you choose the "wrong" color temperature, as your brain should color correct it to the correct values. But maybe the results will not be accurate. There's probably more to it and I should do more research some day.
TLDR: When in doubt choose "warm2". It seems yellowish at first but your brain will quickly adapt. Content creators use "warm2", so it's the way it's meant to be viewed.
I can’t stand people who have 6500K bulbs all over their house. Feels like I’m in a hospital or a store
Absolutely blessed post
I use 4500K in my bathrooms, don't sue me
What does lighting and cinematography have to do with digital vs film?
Digital wants as flat-looking lighting as possible to make it easier to CGI shit in later.
Don’t think the camera “wants” anything
damn bro that's such an intellectual and human way of thinking bro. like the way you ignored all the nuance and context surrounding the discussion and just focused on the literal meanings of the words is such a raw, human and definitely not highly autistic behaviour.
With film you have one lighting paradigm that gaffers have been studying for decades. With digital all they do is try and get the lighting so there aren't any shadows on the greenscreens be cause it'll all be done in post.
It's like if the first NASCAR drivers were all former jockeys. It ain't the same sport
Look at muldoons introduction. It’s obviously a white light at his feet pointed up at him. This would never happen in real life but it’s cool as frick in this movie
I miss those days
>Look at muldoons introduction. It’s obviously a white light at his feet pointed up at him. This would never happen in real life but it’s cool as frick in this movie
The in-movie explanation is that the light is coming from the work lamps.
?si=6sONzn64RcQr9Loj&t=84
Quentin said that digital is only acceptable for low-budget student flicks, but I think being shot on grainy film makes low budget into kino. Something like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or any of those old Mondo shockumentaries from back in the day wouldn't have the same effect if they were just shot on an iPhone today.
I love film and how Twin Peaks looked, but I love how Twin Peaks The Return looks in digital also. Lighting in that show definitely wasn't realistic either and everything looked great, but there are plenty of people who prefer film, I probably do also.
Lynch may be the only one who can work with digital. Lynch is an artist. He uses digital as a tool for the artist.
Kyle McLaughlin is a good looking old man
i think the worst trend in human history is twitter, actually caring for even a single second what any worthless moron on that site says is worse than cancer
>t.ranny
It's the internet being accessed by normies in general
we should've posted more gore to gatekeep it
normalgay spheres do not react well to this comic
>naturalistic lighting
Piss filters, blue filters. brown filters, desaturation…
if you want a summary of pure image cancer, look for "cinematic tutorials" in youtube
Funny thing is that Renoir was b***hing about color films in this interview.
and it's fricking true. directors take color for granted now and don't even think about it. RAN is an absolute masterpiece in color design because Kurosawa was very cognitive about color having done black and white films before.
Non sequitur.
NTA but how is that in any way a non sequitor?
Why would making black and white films inherently lead to being cognitive about color? Because you spend your time not thinking about color, suddenly you're a genius with it? If anything, it could be the four color productions Kurosawa worked on before Ran that led to it looking as good as it did.
>it could be the four color productions Kurosawa worked on before Ran that led to it looking as good as it did.
Except that Dodes'ka-den, his first color film, already had incredible use of color, far surpassing what most directors ever do with it.
How do you know it was incredible because of his black and white work though? It's an assumption at best. Maybe it was Takao Saito's expertise, or the concept of emulating children's drawings in the color palette made them go harder with the color and it just worked, or his work on Tora Tora Tora informed him how not to shoot in color.
Yep and look at other directors going to color after black and white.
Antonioni did Red Desert as his first and it is visually stunning.
Fellini I think did Juliet of the Spirits which is not only underrated as hell but beautifully vibrant.
I think Bergman’s first color film was Cries and Whispers where the colors were like a character onto themselves.
Even Masaki Kobayshi’s first color film was kwaidan. Again - he takes Full advantage of the change in medium
Great directors who worked in black and white made full use of their first color films to make some of their most visually arresting work,
How would it not though? The only non-sequitur might arguably be if that was the argument for why it's *good*. But it's good simply because Kurosawa was one of the great visual stylists in all of cinema. But unquestionably he's putting special consideration in making the switch. He's as adept with wielding the visual strengths of colour as he was with B&W and making that switch is always going to be a decisive choice for a filmmaker like that. He's going to approach that as a challenge and it's going to inform the way he makes the shift.
Because not all B&W directors transitioned nearly as well into color. Kurosawa was very much an exception. Probably had more to do with Kurosawa's background in painting.
I made that distinction in my comment.
>RAN is an absolute masterpiece in color design
It looks tacky as hell. Like Kurosawa woke one day and discovered color exists.
Color is shit today.
And he is right. This whole thread is mostly about how flat realism replaced the stylized work of photography. Cinematography is always a thing about light and color.
funny coming from a fraud who never managed to make a good movie
>Sound design is not meant to be realistic
The day I found out a lot of gun sounds in movies were fake was a sad day. Do guns really sound that gay? They sounded cool in 'Heat'.
Guns seldom sound "cool" IRL. Maybe I've watched too much war footage, but I find that real firefights can sound pretty horrifying.
Listening to a gun without ear protection is liable to result in hearing damage you dumb no guns zoomer homosexual so the average gun owner isn't looking to enjoy the sound of gunfire.
shooting long guns hurts
Guns sound kinda gay irl so they have to either find other guns that sound cool and record that or just manufacture the sound from scratch
Everyone knows why movie sucks but no one will say it. Say it, anon.
>Goyslop Park
>good
who is obsessed with natural lighting? people have been saying they like the non filtered lighting outdoors (blue and piss), but i haven't heard anyone say anything about natural lighting in regards to artificial lighting. maybe 10 years ago with lens flare shenanigans
Maybe I'm just being a schizo but I always felt like pre-2000s movies had more distinghuishable objects on screen at any given time, that scenes were somehow "fuller" and less sterile. This difference is most obvious when watching remakes of older movies or just current-year sequels.
>but I always felt like pre-2000s movies had more distinghuishable objects on screen at any given time
Probably has to do with the fact that back then cinematographers weren't trying to achieve the shallowest focus possible. So many try to make everything blurry nowadays. I hate this trend.
Because blurry make the CG less visible and blend more easily
There is a lot of old movies that use focus and unfocus. Unfocus it's just shallow depth of field. That frame of interstellar dont have anything of CG, its just Nolan being cheap or using it as narrative effect to show the true isolated planet on the next scene. A true deep of field, like Kurosawa's Ran needs a lot of light, coordination and lens´s work, since you are on the verge of frick the film quality.
you're definitely not wrong
one of my favorite examples of this is the scene where Clemenza has Michael test out the gun that he's going to kill Sollozzo with—not only do mnany of the props work symbolically, but they feel perfectly natural—you'd expect someone's basement to look just like this.
I'm sure I don't even need to mention the night-and-day difference between the interior spaces of Blade Runner versus BR2049
because they lighted the faces to make they brighter than the background (or light them in a different angle)
the word is "motivated" light as in "this is how the world would look if the light was actually coming from that window over there"
it's not exactly the same thing as "naturalistic light", which is a thing since Nestor Almendros and the Days of Heaven era
>the word is "motivated" light as in "this is how the world would look if the light was actually coming from that window over there"
Like in Barry Lyndon?
Barry Lyndon had a lot of scenes with motivated light yes, but lots of setups augmented with artficial light too
the main issue with cinematography isnt just to light a room, but to do it consistently to shoot for hours and hours
No. Motivated lighting is a pseud meme that has taken the cinematography weeks by storm. The idea is that all light has to come from windows or lamps that are actually in a scene and if there isn't a real natural light source than there shouldn't be any light.
That's why everything looks like a car insurance commercial or a dim grey blob. No one wants to light something to just look cool and aesthetically pleasing
You're moronic as shit dude, hardly anyone is a "motivated light" diehard and ONLY uses that (literally the only example I can think of is the Safides wanting to use as much motivated lighting as possible with Uncut Gems but even that wasnt 100%) and has absolutely nothing to do with the flat / car insurance lighting look (which is exactly what the person you were responding to was saying you fricking moron)
>it's not exactly the same thing as "naturalistic light", which is a thing since Nestor Almendros and the Days of Heaven era
It was done many times way before DoH. The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) being a great example of it. David Watkin was really ahead of his time as a cinematographer when it came to lighting. One of the first major British DPs to move to a more naturalistic direction from classic studio lighting. Although I'm not saying he was the first either, he wasn't. Not sure who originated it in major productions, but you could see the style here and there in the 60s.
>Maybe I'm just being a schizo but I always felt like pre-2000s movies had more distinghuishable objects on screen at any given time, that scenes were somehow "fuller" and less sterile
Its simple. Back in 80s and 90s movies used to have black for shadows, contrast was a really key element for resolution. Now black is replaced by a muddy grey, trying to show more detail on screen for 4k paradigm.
>le NTA good gentleser
We're going to enter a point where we won't even have actors and everything will be digital AI. Natural cinema will never exist outside of Indies, accept this fact now
Good riddance. Actors don't deserve to work. Most of them anyway.
Endless algorithm-generated goyslop
>Natural cinema will never exist outside of Indies
bollywood will be first to use ai to do films
i blame Jean-Luc Godard and the whole Nouvelle Vague, Cinema du Réel shitshow
they killed art
all the shitmovies in OP came after the French new wave, go eat a burger moron
The filters in napelon were so bad it made everything blue and bland.
Stylized lightning is nice but actual realistic lighting is also great
Trouble is that it's been appropriated by too many dishonest productions, just like 4:3
>naturalistic
Which movies? All I see is Fisher-Price color graded filters for mood.
>2004
>beauty light, white balance, soft fill to the face, backlight, foreground and background with totally different setup
>2024
>dude yellow keylight lmao
Looking at these two images you'd never guess Lohan was the crackhead
Top looks better doe
shut up Black person
no you see digital is still a moderm medium, we need at least 50 more years til we have a normal good looking movie
Lighting is almost a lost art at this point
we had a sequence break in skill-passing in the mid 2000s when new cinematographers were so wowed by how easy colour gading and post production was and how modern it made everything look, they didn't bother to learn any of the fundamentals from the previous generation, and now everybody who knew how to properly light shots is retiring and that knowledge wasn't passed on like it was passed on to them, and those skills are lost and every shot looks so fricking dead like a commercial
like the britons after the romans left, they try to build villas temples out of wood and straw without any idea how to keep them up
Well, not totally lost. Thankfully there's shitloads of books on lighting written by people who've done some stunning work. It's just a shame that most DPs today are too lazy to read, experiment and learn.
Like what? People guard shit like it's gold, as it is, since it's their livelihood. Only prominent cinematographer that wrote a useful book on it is John Atlon, it's great for BW but useless for colour, since he was shit at it.
>lighting is a lost art
No it isn't, painters have been using dramatic lighting since the renaissance.
Digital photographers still obsess over lighting for things like fashion shoots today.
Sadly, CGI and shitty color grading will do these days when pumping out shovelware films these days
Realism in EVERY aspect of film is a cancer. Modern audiences have an extremely immature palette, where if anything defies their notion of what is plausible/realistic they just outright reject it.
Can't have any different style of writing or acting, it must always be realism. So boring.
It’s easier to put subtitles to films if it has consistent flat lighting
And every character talking is framed in the center of the shot
Is this guy moronic? Movies are full of shitty colour correction nowadays, the lack of lighting rays is because they film it all in front of a green screen instead of on a real set or location.
absolute moronic take anyone blanket agreeing with this in the thread is a fricking moron
everything is contextual, t here is no correct one setup solves all solution, any other opinion is incredibly low iq
This is exactly why I hate modern cinema. Everything looks like a fricking soundstage. There is NO fricking light anymore. All the examples in the pic are beautiful shots. No Korean came in and color corrected this and photshops that on his computer, a crew of professionals used their minds and hands to create the perfect conditions for ONE fricking 30 sec shot.
By Spielberg standards JP looked like a TV movie.
Shit's gotten really bad.
cinematographers are not lazy, its directors and producers who want a specific look the one to be blamed. Alien vs Predator 2 cinematographer was tired of ask for more light, but editing fricked the movie even more.
When was the last time a film looked sweaty? Where you could feel the heat?
modern cinema sucks
its the shitty digital filming on digital sets with post production frickery of the colors
you cant light that shit properly
and it looks like tv
having stylish lighting makes the cgi that every film's stuffed with today harder and more expensive
>me, watching some Miklos Jancso flick
>frick this looks great, look all those colors, that contrast, and it's just 30 dudes in a field and the camera moving around
>me, watching Masters of Air the next day
>wow, green shadows and muddy grays, amazingsh
10-15 years ago this would be considered "edgy lighting" and be criticized for not having enough color.
Watching 2020s movies is like listening to a bad radio drama episode because they don't even describe what's on screen when the screen goes full black with black blobs moving in it.
how can we blame women for this
Women are genuinely to blame for everything wrong with the current world
even if capeshit and cgi died tomorrow the industry would still be chasing the sizeable female demo mass market who only care about interpersonal drama (cheap netflix series), they're even more aesthetically ghettoized plebs than the manchildren. just look at what women have done to the publishing industry being the primary consumer, all women in trouble "mystery" and YA fantasy-romance slop
>Self proclaimed cinephiles argue digital made shit too "realistic" and not stylized enough
>Will b***h about pic related in the same breath
Y'all don't know shit about dick let alone film
Even Terrifier 2 which is supposedly an emulation of 80's horror movies has no lighting whatsoever. Just palette work. And the lighting itself is horribly flat.
But what's funny is I recently watched Le Wolverine and was surprised at how different it is in terms of lighting and staging from modern movies. And it's the same capeshit. We've really degenerated in about 10 years.
>Even Terrifier 2 which is supposedly an emulation of 80's horror movies has no lighting whatsoever. Just palette work. And the lighting itself is horribly flat.
Some screens
Jfc Newman is Peter griffin, how have I not seen this before