i'm not sure if it's that, sometimes they just roll out the same video to everyone for some reason
like a while back, maybe half a year ago, they started recommending this video about life in some poor area of the midwest or whatever to everyone i know
and i'm not talking american Cinemaphile users, i'm talking alcoholic and autistic finns, romanian weebs, and many others
it's obvious that every so often they pick a video and decide everyone needs to see it
him using DUNC is a massive self-own for a lot of reasons
DUNC's set design is a huge offender; let's take this pic as an example >too much empty space >too clean/featureless >not enough props/furniture; no lighting fixtures in the room, no chairs, nothing on the walls >all the colors are dull and desaturated and the costuming does not effectively differentiate the characters or make them objects of interest
They receive Stilgar in this room, but what the frick would this room actually be used for? There's nothing in it, not even books or maps or writing implements
Awful movie. Do people even watch movies anymore? I suspect they're on their phones the entire time and then pretend to like it based on the current zeitgeist and if they'll get likes if they claim their allegiance.
I legitimately do not get the hate boner for DUNC, it works and its a solid 7-8/10, why is there so much hate for it?
I enjoyed it but I can still admit there were moments it looked and felt like a shampoo commercial.
That anon above with their analysis of the room is also correct. A normie won't pick up on any of that, but a person who isn't completely stupid will start to get a small nagging feeling that something is off, or feel the scene is boring.
It's definitely something you see in 2049, but I think the idea is that the sets and rooms are 'alien' even though everyone is human. The idea is that they aren't modern humans, they're so far in the future that shit is just weird and different.
Awful movie. Do people even watch movies anymore? I suspect they're on their phones the entire time and then pretend to like it based on the current zeitgeist and if they'll get likes if they claim their allegiance.
that isn't such an unpopular or wild opinion
or, rather, even if it's wrong, everyone says it
99% of people i come across say shit like >lol film is for fricking morons, everyone knows you use digital and make it look like film nowadays, new film is nothing like old film, you gotta use digital if you want to make something look old
i'm too much of a pleb to know who is right
Back in the day, those "film emulation" technologies looked ridiculously fake and goofy for Windows XP Movie Maker-tier effects.
Only amateurs dared use them seriously, and it's mostly used as a joke.
Until Studio Ghibli invented their own improved version of that filter, which looks really great. Because they want that retro 35mm anime look to their films.
It's internally called the Ponyo Filter, since it was made for their film Ponyo. And then they used it for all their later films like The Wind Rises and The Boy and the Heron, and remasters of older digital films like Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle.
Hell, they even used it for their 3D film Earwig and the Witch.
And then Ghibli allowed other people to use their Ponyo Filter to emulate 35mm film.
Now people won't stop going to Ghibli for their tech while filming digitally, and using it for films like Knives Out.
Back in the day, those "film emulation" technologies looked ridiculously fake and goofy for Windows XP Movie Maker-tier effects.
Only amateurs dared use them seriously, and it's mostly used as a joke.
Until Studio Ghibli invented their own improved version of that filter, which looks really great. Because they want that retro 35mm anime look to their films.
It's internally called the Ponyo Filter, since it was made for their film Ponyo. And then they used it for all their later films like The Wind Rises and The Boy and the Heron, and remasters of older digital films like Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle.
Hell, they even used it for their 3D film Earwig and the Witch.
And then Ghibli allowed other people to use their Ponyo Filter to emulate 35mm film.
Now people won't stop going to Ghibli for their tech while filming digitally, and using it for films like Knives Out.
Still. This new and improved film emulation tech was invented by Ghibli.
And other competitors just cropped up thanks to them.
No. Ghibli didn't invent anything. Plenty of other companies have created filters that emulate film stock and film grain for digital video. This is nothing new.
>Now people won't stop going to Ghibli for their tech while filming digitally, and using it for films like Knives Out.
Knives Out used film emulation tech developed by the cinematographer Steve Yedlin himself. Nothing to do with Ghibli.
Eh, I'd say Yedlin's own tech is much better. I saw The Boy and the Heron in a theater recently and not for a second did I think it looked like Ghibli's 35mm features.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's a lot more subtle. But it does bring a warmth and texture to their films compared to modern digital 2D animation. While still looking pretty clean.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Subtle to the point of looking like digital with a very fine grain filter on top of it, and a bit of softening so the lines aren't too sharp. It's nice, but hardly impressive to me. You could do that in Resolve in less than two minutes.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Look at that pic from Nausicaä, I wouldn't say Ghibli's modern films look anywhere near as filmic. The grain is much stronger, and the colors have that film stock look that they're not really even trying to emulate.
Fincher's digital movies don't even try do film emulation. There's nothing film-like about them. They're some of the most blatantly digital movies out there with a clean and sharp RED camera look. Even with Mank he only went for black and white, he didn't try to make it look like old film.
>lol film is for fricking morons, everyone knows you use digital and make it look like film nowadays, new film is nothing like old film, you gotta use digital if you want to make something look old
There's sort of truth in this.
When people jerk off about the "film" look, they're actually attracted to all the flaws of the way film was developed and that the projector would mark on the final output.
If you shoot with film and you use modern techniques as well as modern lighting, you'll end up with a result indistinguishable from shooting digital. Eg. The plane scene in TDKR.
The opposite is also true. If you shoot digital but use the same lighting set ups as they did in the 70s, put some grain on top and grade it with higher contrast purposely trying to emulate a 70s aesthetic, the result will be indistinguishable from actual film. Eg. Eileen
The problem is that the vast majority of people who talk about film vs digital are morons who haven't ever used either (or not in a professional manner) and don't understand this. The screeching morons on here are incapable of understanding that a film like Dunc looks the way it looks on purpose. They aren't trying to make it look like Lynch's Dune because they (Fraser and Villeneuve) prefer that look. (And so do most people. The average person isn't a basement dwelling neet who thinks that lots of film grain and natural white balance automatically makes a film look better.)
The problem is further compounded everytime people whine about remasters fricking with the colour. One of the flaws/quirks of film is that there isn't such a thing as the "correct" look. To transfer an analogue image to digital, you have to lock in a look that didn't previously exist. So it's impossible to watch an analogue film on a digital screen with complete accuracy because there was no accuracy in the first place. The look you got on your projector was determined by numerous factors that changed constantly.
>If you shoot digital but use the same lighting set ups as they did in the 70s, put some grain on top and grade it with higher contrast purposely trying to emulate a 70s aesthetic, the result will be indistinguishable from actual film. Eg. Eileen
You think this looks anything like an actual movie from the 70s?
It looks just as sterile as any Marvel movie.
Digital will never recreate the look of film because they're inherently different mediums. Disagreements are just cope.
>The average person isn't a basement dwelling neet who thinks that lots of film grain and natural white balance automatically makes a film look better.
Consoom product and don't complain. You're the type of mindless npc golem who would see nothing wrong with the LotR trilogy looking like the Hobbit trilogy
He didn’t answer the question though. So WHY do they look clean? He just kept blabbering about lenses and whatnot and what they use to make things look „clean“, didn’t say why they make them clean.
i mean, he kinda did >lighting is too perfect >camera doesn't feel like it's present in a natural environment >not even grime and dirt in some cases >too much fricking around with colors only in post
yes, i'm afraid
literally just type in "dakota johnson yellow bikini", set image size to 6mb and above, and there's at least 4 different images of her in that thing
>all these virgin incel answers avoiding the question
Women arent a different species, veganas just taste like penises. Theyre nothing special you spastics
in a world where 90% of TV owners not only have motion smoothing enabled on their tv, but they don't even know what motion smoothing is, there's no room for nuance around how clean an image looks.
as moronic as it is, most people just don't care, mainly nerds do. You could sit down and show someone taxi driver, then run b-roll from some reality show shot in new york and they wouldn't comment on the texture of the film or image, it would be the same thing, the interesting part would be "wow new york sure has changed"
Sorry but Keanu Reeves did a much better Doucmentary on this called "Side by Side" released in 2013.
To summarize.
-Digital cameras have a hyper sharp and clean look. Almost too sharp
-Digital Cameras process color very differently compared to film.
-Film has a richer and deeper mixture of colors and deeper blacks/shadows.
-New Generation of filmmakers are raised on digital cameras and don't know how to light for old school film. This changes how movies are lit and shot with cameras. They don't know how to achieve the lighting used on older films. Their efforts aren't quite as good.
-Digital cameras have nearly closed the gap with film in terms of quality but it isn't the same. But digital is just too convenient.
-Film requires much bulkier cameras, massive amounts of support gear, and paying to develop the film at a development studio.
>2013
Digital cameras are exponentially better now than they were in 2013 to the point that any judgment on their quality using cameras from then is like talking about the quality of modern planes by talking about Amelia Earhart
Tarantino might be a pedo gay, but he's right about film vs digital. Film gives you the movie magic that immerses you in the movie. It's hard or near impossible to achieve that with digital.
even then modern films shot on film look like dogshit
its probably some secret sauce shit like u have to let the film stock rot in some cookie tin for 50 years then convert it to digital, its why old films look so kino
this image needs a sharp contrast if you know what i mean
found the American
post the webm
>no webm
You had one job, OP, one job.
Im already fondling that jpg with my cursor
i got this exact same video recommended kek
they are targeting Cinemaphile users
not suprised that japanse c**t is selling our data and profiles to highest bidders for targeted ads
i'm not sure if it's that, sometimes they just roll out the same video to everyone for some reason
like a while back, maybe half a year ago, they started recommending this video about life in some poor area of the midwest or whatever to everyone i know
and i'm not talking american Cinemaphile users, i'm talking alcoholic and autistic finns, romanian weebs, and many others
it's obvious that every so often they pick a video and decide everyone needs to see it
jap doesnt need to sell out anything.
the fact is embedding the video in a website gives them all the data they need for free.
Same, and I never watched that channel before
>the fricking dumbass geezer in the comments talking about the ships in starwars looking dirty
Closed the video when he started shilling The Batman and Dune as good looking movies
him using DUNC is a massive self-own for a lot of reasons
DUNC's set design is a huge offender; let's take this pic as an example
>too much empty space
>too clean/featureless
>not enough props/furniture; no lighting fixtures in the room, no chairs, nothing on the walls
>all the colors are dull and desaturated and the costuming does not effectively differentiate the characters or make them objects of interest
They receive Stilgar in this room, but what the frick would this room actually be used for? There's nothing in it, not even books or maps or writing implements
haven't seen the movie but i just figured that was the point of this movie's whole aesthetic
It is his aesthetic
I legitimately do not get the hate boner for DUNC, it works and its a solid 7-8/10, why is there so much hate for it?
I enjoyed it but I can still admit there were moments it looked and felt like a shampoo commercial.
That anon above with their analysis of the room is also correct. A normie won't pick up on any of that, but a person who isn't completely stupid will start to get a small nagging feeling that something is off, or feel the scene is boring.
It's definitely something you see in 2049, but I think the idea is that the sets and rooms are 'alien' even though everyone is human. The idea is that they aren't modern humans, they're so far in the future that shit is just weird and different.
after reading the book i understood how shit the movie is.
Are they soifacing because the bristles aren't blue?
Yes.
Awful movie. Do people even watch movies anymore? I suspect they're on their phones the entire time and then pretend to like it based on the current zeitgeist and if they'll get likes if they claim their allegiance.
Dune looks unique because it was shot on digital, then transfered to film after post and then transfered back to digital.
>it was shot on digital, then transfered to film after post and then transfered back to digital
For what purpose?
homie literally says that Fincher's digital movies look like film to him lmao
that isn't such an unpopular or wild opinion
or, rather, even if it's wrong, everyone says it
99% of people i come across say shit like
>lol film is for fricking morons, everyone knows you use digital and make it look like film nowadays, new film is nothing like old film, you gotta use digital if you want to make something look old
i'm too much of a pleb to know who is right
Back in the day, those "film emulation" technologies looked ridiculously fake and goofy for Windows XP Movie Maker-tier effects.
Only amateurs dared use them seriously, and it's mostly used as a joke.
Until Studio Ghibli invented their own improved version of that filter, which looks really great. Because they want that retro 35mm anime look to their films.
It's internally called the Ponyo Filter, since it was made for their film Ponyo. And then they used it for all their later films like The Wind Rises and The Boy and the Heron, and remasters of older digital films like Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle.
Hell, they even used it for their 3D film Earwig and the Witch.
And then Ghibli allowed other people to use their Ponyo Filter to emulate 35mm film.
Now people won't stop going to Ghibli for their tech while filming digitally, and using it for films like Knives Out.
This is what the Ponyo Filter looks like when Studio Ghibli uses it themselves.
This is from the very first film that used it: Ponyo.
No. Ghibli didn't invent anything. Plenty of other companies have created filters that emulate film stock and film grain for digital video. This is nothing new.
>Now people won't stop going to Ghibli for their tech while filming digitally, and using it for films like Knives Out.
Knives Out used film emulation tech developed by the cinematographer Steve Yedlin himself. Nothing to do with Ghibli.
Still. This new and improved film emulation tech was invented by Ghibli.
And other competitors just cropped up thanks to them.
Eh, I'd say Yedlin's own tech is much better. I saw The Boy and the Heron in a theater recently and not for a second did I think it looked like Ghibli's 35mm features.
It's a lot more subtle. But it does bring a warmth and texture to their films compared to modern digital 2D animation. While still looking pretty clean.
Subtle to the point of looking like digital with a very fine grain filter on top of it, and a bit of softening so the lines aren't too sharp. It's nice, but hardly impressive to me. You could do that in Resolve in less than two minutes.
Look at that pic from Nausicaä, I wouldn't say Ghibli's modern films look anywhere near as filmic. The grain is much stronger, and the colors have that film stock look that they're not really even trying to emulate.
Fincher's digital movies don't even try do film emulation. There's nothing film-like about them. They're some of the most blatantly digital movies out there with a clean and sharp RED camera look. Even with Mank he only went for black and white, he didn't try to make it look like old film.
*don't even try to do
>lol film is for fricking morons, everyone knows you use digital and make it look like film nowadays, new film is nothing like old film, you gotta use digital if you want to make something look old
There's sort of truth in this.
When people jerk off about the "film" look, they're actually attracted to all the flaws of the way film was developed and that the projector would mark on the final output.
If you shoot with film and you use modern techniques as well as modern lighting, you'll end up with a result indistinguishable from shooting digital. Eg. The plane scene in TDKR.
The opposite is also true. If you shoot digital but use the same lighting set ups as they did in the 70s, put some grain on top and grade it with higher contrast purposely trying to emulate a 70s aesthetic, the result will be indistinguishable from actual film. Eg. Eileen
The problem is that the vast majority of people who talk about film vs digital are morons who haven't ever used either (or not in a professional manner) and don't understand this. The screeching morons on here are incapable of understanding that a film like Dunc looks the way it looks on purpose. They aren't trying to make it look like Lynch's Dune because they (Fraser and Villeneuve) prefer that look. (And so do most people. The average person isn't a basement dwelling neet who thinks that lots of film grain and natural white balance automatically makes a film look better.)
The problem is further compounded everytime people whine about remasters fricking with the colour. One of the flaws/quirks of film is that there isn't such a thing as the "correct" look. To transfer an analogue image to digital, you have to lock in a look that didn't previously exist. So it's impossible to watch an analogue film on a digital screen with complete accuracy because there was no accuracy in the first place. The look you got on your projector was determined by numerous factors that changed constantly.
>If you shoot digital but use the same lighting set ups as they did in the 70s, put some grain on top and grade it with higher contrast purposely trying to emulate a 70s aesthetic, the result will be indistinguishable from actual film. Eg. Eileen
You think this looks anything like an actual movie from the 70s?
It looks just as sterile as any Marvel movie.
Digital will never recreate the look of film because they're inherently different mediums. Disagreements are just cope.
LMAO does that homie actually think this looks like a 70s movies? If you told me this was shot with an iPhone 15 pro camera i'd believe you
>The average person isn't a basement dwelling neet who thinks that lots of film grain and natural white balance automatically makes a film look better.
Consoom product and don't complain. You're the type of mindless npc golem who would see nothing wrong with the LotR trilogy looking like the Hobbit trilogy
He didn’t answer the question though. So WHY do they look clean? He just kept blabbering about lenses and whatnot and what they use to make things look „clean“, didn’t say why they make them clean.
i mean, he kinda did
>lighting is too perfect
>camera doesn't feel like it's present in a natural environment
>not even grime and dirt in some cases
>too much fricking around with colors only in post
is that Dakota
post the big high res version of the full pic PLEASE
have you heard of google, buddy?
GYATT
keyed
google only has low res garbage, you can barely see her pussy outline
no, it doesn't, i just tried it
you are lazy, stupid, or both
no
yes, i'm afraid
literally just type in "dakota johnson yellow bikini", set image size to 6mb and above, and there's at least 4 different images of her in that thing
They never kiss and jerk off each other. Wtf
Annies so fricking gross might as well have marilyn manson in the scene
gay homosexual moron Black person
she looks like if michael jackson trooned out bro that makes you hella gay bonus gay points if you listen to her music
MUMMY MILK ME
I love St Vincent
fuuucck
not enough skin.
I would prefer them to be actually naked and not caked in maked up.
>Computer: Enhance
>Freeze
>ENHANCE FURTHER
You ruined the joke zoom zoom
>no armpit hair
meh
What film anons?
SPIRIT OF WHAT???? AMEBA?? AMEN?
>Imagine how immersive it would be
Movies aren't video games.
Digital cameras and digital projection were a mistake
why does thst pic look so breedable
REQUESTING THE FULL SHOT
FOR A QUICK SCIENCE PROJECT.
The image that saved Cinemaphile
I remember the same anon did a couple of more, but I don't remember what images he used
Bros, what does pussy actually taste like? And don't just give me the meme answer.
Depends on her diet
Black men cum
like precum no joke
why do you know how precum tastes
Bags of sand
salty milk and coins
fish with different rancid levels depending on the day
nice and salty like if you took all the sugar out of a Gatorade and were just left with all the minerals
A faint salty iron taste mixed in with flesh and sexual fluids
Wait until a hot day and when your nuts get really sweaty. Scratch them then lick your finger. It's similar to that but every girl is a bit different.
It's deeply unpleasant.
a bag of milk
Ask you're father
depends how washed it is. Generally the sentiment of tuna taste has a grain of truth to it
Depends on how many penises it had inside.
Lets use your mom for example, so about 10,000?
Like bags of fish from Sneeds
Metallic, like blood.
>all these virgin incel answers avoiding the question
Women arent a different species, veganas just taste like penises. Theyre nothing special you spastics
D batteries
This was the only time that women looked attractive.
There is something really off about her. But I don't know what.
I think this aesthetic shift came after we switched from incandescent light to fluorescent
The real world does look much sterile afterwards and media reflects it
Even fluorescent is old news now. Everything is slowly but surely being replaced by LEDs.
2700k 95CRI LED lighting FTW
That's a man.
Are we really advertising video essays now? Is that what we do? Cool, brb imma make a few threads.
That is the perfect video essay surface voice and comments are all AI
Villeneuve, the most generic studio filmmaker sticks to his choices and they might get him fired.
I watched the whole clip and I didn't get it
in a world where 90% of TV owners not only have motion smoothing enabled on their tv, but they don't even know what motion smoothing is, there's no room for nuance around how clean an image looks.
as moronic as it is, most people just don't care, mainly nerds do. You could sit down and show someone taxi driver, then run b-roll from some reality show shot in new york and they wouldn't comment on the texture of the film or image, it would be the same thing, the interesting part would be "wow new york sure has changed"
>youtube essay
kys
What does Cinemaphile think? Is that a little hint of pubic hair, landing strip?
its a stylistic choice
go back and look at 50s movies like Strategic Air Command or The Searchers they have that clean all american look
virgin? you have no idea how nasty a pussy really is.
pajeet shill can't even lead with the webm
i love women like you wouldn't believe
Sorry but Keanu Reeves did a much better Doucmentary on this called "Side by Side" released in 2013.
To summarize.
-Digital cameras have a hyper sharp and clean look. Almost too sharp
-Digital Cameras process color very differently compared to film.
-Film has a richer and deeper mixture of colors and deeper blacks/shadows.
-New Generation of filmmakers are raised on digital cameras and don't know how to light for old school film. This changes how movies are lit and shot with cameras. They don't know how to achieve the lighting used on older films. Their efforts aren't quite as good.
-Digital cameras have nearly closed the gap with film in terms of quality but it isn't the same. But digital is just too convenient.
-Film requires much bulkier cameras, massive amounts of support gear, and paying to develop the film at a development studio.
>2013
Digital cameras are exponentially better now than they were in 2013 to the point that any judgment on their quality using cameras from then is like talking about the quality of modern planes by talking about Amelia Earhart
Wrong. Digital still looks like Netflix slop
I'll just sum it up: modern movies use TV lighting and so everything looks like a cheap sitcom.
Tarantino might be a pedo gay, but he's right about film vs digital. Film gives you the movie magic that immerses you in the movie. It's hard or near impossible to achieve that with digital.
even then modern films shot on film look like dogshit
its probably some secret sauce shit like u have to let the film stock rot in some cookie tin for 50 years then convert it to digital, its why old films look so kino
Yep. Even watching modern Tarantino movies i can still see that damn "Transformers orange" aesthetic we can't seem to get away from since 2007
autistix 50 softboxes and some hilariously tiny sensor element. then you just color grade in whatever gay film look u want
>foot tattoo
Gross