So true. Kino doesn't exist anymore

So true. Kino doesn't exist anymore

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >zoomers discover digital was a mistake

    quentin has been saying this for 20 years now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's no reason why you can't have highly stylized lighting with modern digital cameras. Cinematographers became lazy hacks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Still, I blame the people using the tools, not the tools themselves.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            True, but the tool has laziness as inevitable consequence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's a cycle, anon. Whichever side you want to blame is irrelevant. Both sides are unwitting cogs in a machine.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yup, doing flat lighting on set for CGI is a cancer.

          >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'.

          Heat is one of the very few films where guns sound like they should.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          SOULESS
          L
          O
          P

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I fricking HATE white sky

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I never liked MCU movies for actually good cinematography, only for the action and bizarre stories, but this looks embarrasing, jesus christ

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You say that as if they have good action.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >this was an acceptable crime-fighting outfit in 2016

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you could say it's the audience's fault for letting them get away with this shit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The audience was never bright enough to appreciate lighting, photography and editing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To add to this, it has been hollywoods mantra from the beginning to have all of these things invisible to general audiences

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Go back to sniffing Uma's feet Quentin.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Gladly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Then why have his latest films looked so fricking bad

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >t.blind homosexual

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hi Quentin. What was up with the piss filter in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I can’t stand people who have 6500K bulbs all over their house. Feels like I’m in a hospital or a store

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Absolutely blessed post

              I can’t stand people who have 6500K bulbs all over their house. Feels like I’m in a hospital or a store

              I use 4500K in my bathrooms, don't sue me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What does lighting and cinematography have to do with digital vs film?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Digital wants as flat-looking lighting as possible to make it easier to CGI shit in later.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Don’t think the camera “wants” anything

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lynch may be the only one who can work with digital. Lynch is an artist. He uses digital as a tool for the artist.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Kyle McLaughlin is a good looking old man

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t.ranny

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's the internet being accessed by normies in general
      we should've posted more gore to gatekeep it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        normalgay spheres do not react well to this comic

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >naturalistic lighting
    Piss filters, blue filters. brown filters, desaturation…

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      if you want a summary of pure image cancer, look for "cinematic tutorials" in youtube

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Funny thing is that Renoir was b***hing about color films in this interview.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Non sequitur.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but how is that in any way a non sequitor?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 1 month 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.

              • 1 month 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.

              • 1 month 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,

              • 1 month 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.

              • 1 month 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.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I made that distinction in my comment.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >RAN is an absolute masterpiece in color design
          It looks tacky as hell. Like Kurosawa woke one day and discovered color exists.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Color is shit today.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      funny coming from a fraud who never managed to make a good movie

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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'.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Guns seldom sound "cool" IRL. Maybe I've watched too much war footage, but I find that real firefights can sound pretty horrifying.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      shooting long guns hurts

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone knows why movie sucks but no one will say it. Say it, anon.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Goyslop Park
    >good

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because blurry make the CG less visible and blend more easily

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >le NTA good gentleser

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good riddance. Actors don't deserve to work. Most of them anyway.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Endless algorithm-generated goyslop

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Natural cinema will never exist outside of Indies
      bollywood will be first to use ai to do films

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i blame Jean-Luc Godard and the whole Nouvelle Vague, Cinema du Réel shitshow
    they killed art

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      all the shitmovies in OP came after the French new wave, go eat a burger moron

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The filters in napelon were so bad it made everything blue and bland.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >naturalistic
    Which movies? All I see is Fisher-Price color graded filters for mood.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >2004
    >beauty light, white balance, soft fill to the face, backlight, foreground and background with totally different setup
    >2024
    >dude yellow keylight lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Looking at these two images you'd never guess Lohan was the crackhead

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Top looks better doe

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        shut up Black person

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no you see digital is still a moderm medium, we need at least 50 more years til we have a normal good looking movie

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By Spielberg standards JP looked like a TV movie.
    Shit's gotten really bad.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When was the last time a film looked sweaty? Where you could feel the heat?

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    modern cinema sucks

  28. 1 month ago
    Weaver.

    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

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    having stylish lighting makes the cgi that every film's stuffed with today harder and more expensive

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >me, watching Masters of Air the next day
      >wow, green shadows and muddy grays, amazingsh

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    10-15 years ago this would be considered "edgy lighting" and be criticized for not having enough color.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how can we blame women for this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Women are genuinely to blame for everything wrong with the current world

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Jfc Newman is Peter griffin, how have I not seen this before

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *