Why do old films look crisper compared to new movies?

>>212513750 (OP)
because in modern films the actor in this shot would be wearing a giant green retard hat just in case marketing decides that a different hat has a 2% better chance of attracting viewers between ages of 18-25.
At which point they would outsource it to china or india and itd come back looking like someone just wiped vasline all over the screen.

>>212513928
>just in case marketing decides that a different hat has a 2% better chance of attracting viewers between ages of 18-25
Sad truth of modern filmmaking. Corpofaggots have ruined everything.

>>212513750 (OP)
Film doesn't have a resolution per se, but you could easily get a 16K resolution image from 35mm film. Modern films are filmed on cameras which might support up to 4K, but usually they'll be mastered at 2K (to save money) then upscaled to 4K. So even at the same (alleged) resolution, film will look better than digital.

>>212513750 (OP)
I prefer the look of film. Especially 70 mm is superior to anything.
For some reason even shittier ones look great. I prefer the look of even grainy technicolor over digital all the time.

Deep fried in the sun.

>>212513750 (OP)
Bump

What they said + lighting today is fucking embarrassing. They used to be masters at that shit. Now everything is just flat so nothing stands out.

>>212513750 (OP)
>>212515897
Lighting + actually planned shots, setups. You wouldn't believe how much LESS planning goes into shooting the movie itself nowadays.

Old movies were made by people who actually went outside and knew what the real world was like. If once upon a time in the west was made today nobody would have tan skin, blemishes, balding or wrinkles, nobody would sweat, their clothes would just have some mud randomly slapped on instead of being realistically tattered, and they'd all have weird builds because their only exercise comes from a gym(or they get none at all).

Oh and ofc there would be no pretty landscape shots or well composed scenes like pic related, it'd just be closeups of people talking or shooting each other and nothing else

>>212513750 (OP)
Why are there no modern arthouse movies that try to look old? Why not take an old camera and equipment, shoot it on film to recreate the old beauty?

>>212515897
>world war z guy fired because he wanted a distinct look and suits wanted everything as flat as possible so it could be changed in response to test marketing

>>212516269
That would require somehow finding blank technicolor film stock and the chemicals to develop it. Not to to mention the lighting in those old films was obscenely bright to capture “natural” looking shots.

watch My Name is Nobody.

>>212513750 (OP)
because the technological limitations of the day weeded out hacks and nepobabies so cinematographers had to really know their shit
now they just hire talentless hacks, film and expect to fix all mistakes in post
having really intelligent, skilled, creative people in the technical aspects of the film making process back in the day added not only to the visual appearance of the film, but influenced the film as a whole in terms of how it conveyed story, or even the nature of the story itself

>>212513750 (OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonino_Delli_Colli

>>212516336
>technicolor
Eastmancolor would do

>>212513750 (OP)
1) different lighting
studio shots will never match real exterior shots with casting sharp shadows, but actually having to shoot at location is harder, more expensive and you are at mercy of weather for the most part

2) they were shot on film rather than cassette/digital cameras
film cameras were roughly equal to 4K whereas most TV cameras were SD or HD up until relatively recently
I bet films these day could look just as crisp now, but test audiences disliked the look because "they feel old"

>>212517877
*with sun casting sharp shadows

>>212513750 (OP)
hard lighting and hard contrast are a lot more prevalent, which makes things look sharper

I've often rolled my eyes at boomers wanking over film on photography forums, but with time I've realized that they were right. I still shoot digital out of convenience tho.
Anyways it's not just about the inherent quality of film, but also about the fact that you can't "cheat" with it in post (well not as much at least) so it forces you to think more carefully about the light and colors of your scene etc. With digital on the other hand you can just throw something together like in >>212517974 and make it work, it'll look like shit but normalfags have zero discernment when it comes to aesthetics so unless you make them compare two scenes side by side they won't be able to recognize the bad one as such, they'll just think that it's fine

>>212513750 (OP)
because bokeh balls are more cinematic

C I N E M A T I C
I
N
E
M
T
I
C

>>212513750 (OP)
Yeah what really creeps me out is the following video

https://youtu.be/24p16EEfdg8

Obviously 60 fps wasn’t the original version but still… a film from ‘69 and it looks crisper than mega blockbusters from our ‘20s hellscape

>>212513750 (OP)
>>212516235
>>212516356
funny that OP uses a spaghetti western as an example of crisp when they used techniscope (2-perf), the lowest "resolution" format

but yeah, it's probably is what this guy says >>212518095

One of the major problems with modern movies (and it's something Hollywood hates talking about) is that basically every big actor's contract includes digital cleanup of their face to look more young and perfect. If you watch a modern movie, there's a very high probability that a process similar to DNR has been used to make their skin look smoother and younger. Of course, just like DNR, this also has the side effect of giving the faces a waxy, almost blurry look.

Another problem is that the sharper and cleaner the film itself looks, the worse the CGI effects look. And so a lot of studios go for a very generic, sleek, flat style of cinematography, specifically to make it easier to plug in different lighting/effects/colors in post.

And third, with different states/countries suddenly offering major tax rebates for film, it's becoming more common than ever for film shoots to take place in obscure locations where the local crew has never worked on a major film before. And so there's a lack of skill, leading to a flatter result.