Why do movies shot on film in the 50s and 60s look better than movies shot on film in the 70s through 90s?
I know very little about moviemaking. Was the type of film used on productions like picrel some special type that stopped being manufactured after a certain point?
Technicolor
Why did it fall out of use
lost technology im not joking
sun reflectors mostly. look in the turban creases. the sand may even be doing some natural reflections too
wdym I don't see anything about that on the Wiki article
it isn't lost it would just be insanely expensive to do it today. Also directors couldn't frick up their movies with shit digital color grating.
This is fascinating, I always assumed that it was all just some creative trend that ended or some type of film that stopped being used. I had no idea it was an entire multifaceted process that fell out of use because of practicality and budget concerns
You didn't like pic related?
Technicolor wouldn't sell you the product unless you hired the inventors wife as a consultant for the entire duration of shooting. also required a frick ton of extra lights.
yes. extra lighting and reflectors. it's the only way to bring out darkened colors.
people fell for the digital meme
>Some actors and actresses claimed to have suffered permanent eye damage from the high levels of carbon arc illumination with its highly actinic ultraviolet.
Some people really suffer for their craft.
>ultraviolet
INTERESTING
Yeah there were different formulas of filmstock in various decades. But there were also different trends in cinematography depending on the time period so really it's a complicated question/answer. The simplest way I can put it is that movies started sucking hardcore in the late '60s and it's gotten worse ever since. Sure there are great films in every decade but there's been a general downward trend.
The sun was hotter and brighter in the 50's
Dirty Harry has absolutely beautiful colors and film grain. It was the last of its kind. Film probably cheaped out in the mid-70s and never recovered.
you're right there were tons of westerns that kept that look in the 70s, I wonder why it was the last genre to hold out
See the sand, the clothes, the dirt and the clouds? It's all real. No cgi, not a trace of it. Those men walked the desert and looked it.
What the frick does this have to do with CGI you moron
CGI will simulate shadows poorly and shadows are the enemy of vibrant colors
and asbestos curtains
I don't think you understand the kind of budget these movies had. The dollar is worth more pre-inflation. I's not called a Golden Age for nothing.
Their budgets were fairly modest compared to big budgets today.
I don't like it it's too colorful and unrealistic colors don't look like that I don't watch them 60s movies
it still blows my mind that picrel was made in 1947
You're the only other person I've ever seen observe this and I thought I was nuts
Just for sheer film stock reasons '50s and '60s movies look great, '70s ones look like garbage, '80s are a slight improvement but still bad, then it improves again in the '90s, then we all disappear forever into digital hell
Not speaking to anything about scripts, set design, actor quality, etc. just what the physical image looks like
is part of it just the compression from converting film to digital to edit it? music sometimes suffers the same
>'70s ones look like garbage
wtf are you talking about anon
it's a little dark and fake looking but very nice aesthetic overall
fake looking frick off you dilated niqqa, that's real frickin jungle real bodies real rebels real guns frick you want
70s is the transition period, there's a lot of great looking films but at the same time half of them look really washed out and lack the same depth that films from the previous decade had
visual depth I mean
honestly it's the new tech. 70s saw big jumps in low-light filmmaking, and everyone wanted to do that shit even if it was a little grainy
>70s is the transition period, there's a lot of great looking films but at the same time half of them look really washed out and lack the same depth that films from the previous decade had
It's also that there was an emphasis on gritty realism, so they toned colors down. I LOVE 60's cinematography as it's soo rich and color saturated. Just look at TV shows like Star Trek or Batman!
I also have this belief that if something is colorful it feels more expensive while monochromatic desaturation makes things look cheap!!!FACT!!!
70s was also an era of independent filmmakers making low budget psychologically driven flicks, I feel the big return they got compared to the cost likely convinced the producers to start cutting on costs.
>watches a painstakingly restoration of a classic epic
>"WHY DO THINGS LOOK SO MUCH BETTER"
>films from after 1970 have never been restored
moron
Don't reply to me subhuman.
you can get the same effect by upping the saturation in post but the problem is directors think it looks too cartoony and want muted dark colors
>directors
you can just say The israelites
how does that have any relevance to OP when israelites have always run hollywood?
STOP the nostalgia.
Freddie Young was the greatest cinematographer in history. This is like asking why the Patriots started sucking when Tom Brady left. Find some mid-level movies from the 60s and 50s and compare them to other mid level movies from the 80s and 70s and the quality in film is the same and mid movies in the 80s are largely better.
It all depends on the cinematographer and great ones are very rare.
my god i love this film
Looks amazing, really boring. I'm conflicted.
The only people I've known to think it was boring were women.
are you coming on to me
You should check out Samara. One of the last great attempts at capturing the world with real film.