why don't movies have this kind of lighting anymore? even average 90s movies look much better than modern ones

>>212698604 (OP)
Seems hard.
>clicks the automatic lighting button
This is easier.

>>212698635
Correct.
No one works on projects they give a shit about so they can't be arsed. Same reason sound mixing is so bad.
Now, that said, this is also leading to fewer and fewer people knowing *how* to do good lighting, so in 10 years maybe we just won't have the option anymore. We'll see how it goes.

>>212698604 (OP)
Its probably because they were shot on film rather than digital.

>>212699306
In 10 years, we'll be able to train AI on competently produced movies and the AI will handle the lighting.

No one says Sneed anymore.

This is what an independent comic book adaptation looked like in 1990

what do you mean? modern movies have finally unlocked the visual potential of cinema, 90s movies look like dogshit compared to the masterpieces we see today

>>212698604 (OP)
Light bouncing was different in the 90s.

>>212698604 (OP)
Because it's not "le realistic".

>>212700865
this but unironically

>>212701138
This doesn't look that impressive

>>212701546
Um it's newer chud???

>>212701138
which early 00's low budget sci-fi show is this?

>>212701546
neither does anything in OP pic

>>212702210
Lets see you try it

>>212702226
sure here you go

>>212698604 (OP)
>this thread again
>>212701138
The grid doesn't do it justice. Also, they really need to release the IMAX versions on Blu-ray.

>>212698604 (OP)
>why don't movies have this kind of lighting anymore?
Because it's too cinematic and therefore too kino for this gay era we live in.

>>212699349
>In 10 years
No, in 5 years. Maybe even less than that if AI continues advancing at its current rate.

>>212698604 (OP)
tungsten vs led and the style of lighting has changed

Same reason CGI "hasn't improved", supply and demand, the goal is to sell tickets and people wont not go see the movie if the DP didn't do a great job, so why bother paying more to make it look good
If anything what this should enable you to do is better filter out the low effort trash from the few movies with actual artistic merit

This lighting thing is such a gay hangup. Do you have anything interesting to say or are you just gonna keep crying about stylistic changes and technological progress/changes in production process like a castrated sissy?

>>212701138
looks like absolute shit

>>212700865
>31 KB
Now post a proper image.

>>212702930
I don't think Superman looks good at all but are the image sources of comparable quality?

>>212700865
oh god the artifacting

You just aren't watching the right movies.

>>212703182
>31 KB
Even VODs don't look like that. Isn't the first time that retard posted the image either. Probably same spambot as >>212702930

>>212703242
garbage

>>212698604 (OP)
They shoot for coverage now so they have a million options and pick the brightest one, it's why everything looks like bad tv, they don't have a clear aesthetic in mind.
But to be fair the iq of average audience member has declined by a lot so things do need to be dumbed down.

>>212703314
The word you're looking for is kino.

>>212702930
Dirty Work isn't dogshit you cunt

>>212703339
>But to be fair the iq of average audience member has declined by a lot so things do need to be dumbed down.
Not just that but producing with international audience in mind. That's why all the super high budget films have the characters explaining and repeating what they're doing every 5 minutes.

>>212703242
redeem the orange and blue saar

>>212703364
more like garbo

>>212703400
Capeshitter coping and seething.

>>212703457
how is a garbage slasher franchise better than capeshit exactly?

>>212703298
I've downloaded 4k movies who have the exact same problem of artefacting as that image in low light scenes. plus movies are basically designed for streaming these days and they always have shit quality.

>>212703614
I don't think that's common at all. I've had some noticeable artifacting in some VODs but it's not a problem with most movies.

>>212700865

>>212703473
It's not.

>>212703473
>actual actors in actual sets / locations interacting with actual physical props with real lighting
>a bunch of monkeys waving their arms around in front of a green screen
One of these is cinema, one of these is for third worlders.

>>212704055
>actual actors in actual sets / locations interacting with actual physical props with real lighting
Every turd worlder can do this with a shitty phone.

>bunch of monkeys
You mean tall, white, athletic actors?
>in front of a green screen
Technology? Ingenuity? Effort?

You're not Faustpilled, you lazy bum.

>>212703792
The effects in Lynch's Dune are superior, particularly shots like this, when they'd use miniatures and compositing. More detailed, more realistic, more pleasing. Not just brown turds.

>>212705306
>The effects in Lynch's Dune are superior

>>212702267
beyond based that he technically did this without a cinematographer

>>212703242
Drink bleach right now

>>212701138
Why does it seem so minimalistic and empty?