what happened to lighting in movies?

>>213072501 (OP)
Digital filmmaking prefers shitty flat lighting. The colour correction is close to log which is muddy and washed out.
Physical film required lots of light and was extremely biased colourwise. You’d pick your film stock and have expected tones and grain structures. If you mixed films you had to compensate with lighting.

We live in the “fix it in post” era. Except you can’t recreate what should have been planned before shooting.

Obama fired all the burly white men (key grips, electricians, lighting techs etc)

>>213072680
fpbp
filmmaking as a craft is essentially over. it's just digital footage fishing for social media clips

>>213072680
no none of this shit is true
'it prefers', 'it's log'. all this shit is optional. you can use whatever curve you want. you can shoot a scene digital and then film and have zero people be able to tell which is which, if you want. they have decided not to, and to make 80% of the frame be grey, for their own reasons. it's nothing to to with the camera's limits

the cinematographer for Arrival is legit one of the worst of all time, all the movies he has shot look like grey muddy shit

>>213073914
my honest belief is because he's black everyone working on the movies is afraid to call the scene "too dark"

>>213074187
I don't think you're too far off the truth, it's honestly fucking nuts that he was nominated for an Oscar for Arrival

>>213072501 (OP)
60 million people in the credits and not a single one went >hey, i can't see shit, turn on the light

>>213073914
>>213074235
Yeah literally this. Idk how these made it in without any bisexual lighting.. westfalen?

>>213074360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yveaRkSkdtc
china numba one

>>213074360
what are you on about?

>>213073362
digital and film cameras DO capture light inherently differently. cameras are not captors of reality, they interpret reality. they absolutely do look different, it's not no grain vs grain. when you build a camera, even different makes of the same type, you are building a fucking EYE and the sensors *literally* SEE light differently. it is no different to the divergent ways animals perceive reality. the choice matters.

there are still certain filmmakers who still make movies with actual lighting

>>213072501 (OP)
jews finally gave up the pretense their movies are an art form
and openly turned them into neo-marxist woke bolshevik agitprop

>>213074417
Old good new bad. You may upvote me now.

>>213074470
generally it is true

>>213074412
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fp5IqkyiaA

>>213074468
calm down cletus

>>213074468
Read a dictionary.

>>213073362
He's not saying it's preferred because there's an inherent limitation to the medium. It's preferred because the digital filmmaking workflow made possible sweeping changes to the look of the shot in post. If highlights are blown or shadows crushed, there isn't much you can do with the film and it'll have to be reshot if a different aesthetic direction is desired after the fact. If you shoot everything flat with extremely diffused light it makes it possible to (albeit shittily) relight the scene in post using your army of SEA slaves in your renderfarm. The workflow is what's influencing lighting choices and the workflow was made possible by the advances in digital film capture in the last 2 decades.

>>213072680
bullshit, it's because the lighting methods and color correction are different. that's it. bottom pic just has her lit by the windows which are oversized diffused panels, but top has multiple lights. the knowledge has just been forgotten.