Thread 214024444

Why do modern films all have this "look" to them?

Top was made with chemicals. Bottom was made by computer presets.

>low talent
>shot with digital
>half-assed lighting
>zero prep
>"we'll fix it in post" mentality

>>214024444 (OP)
Checked.
The Gilded Age is the worst at this. They purposefully make scenes look hazy, and it hurts my eyes.

>>214024482
>shot with digital
This is the main reason. Digital just looks like shit compared to actual film and everybody knows it.

Digital cameras and shit lighting.
Everything looks like a set.

>>214024444 (OP)
Why are you comparing outside shots with inside shots? Are you mildly retarded?

>>214024444 (OP)
Film vs digital, doy

>>214024529
its even worse then

>>214024525
There's nothing wrong with the format. They can even look it look like film. They just choose to make it look like shit.

>>214024444 (OP)
yeah, her skin is all dark
very peculiar

>>214024539
Do they have rosacea? What, specifically are you crying about now?

>>214024766
Retarded trolling like this isn't a good look

>>214024526
Top looks like a fucking green screen.

>>214024662
You got any examples there chief? Cuz digital has always been shit since 28 Days Later.

>>214024444 (OP)
Ok yeah I bet you chose the bottom part with no specific thing in mind other than the picture quality

Why can't right wingers make their own movies instead of whining about actual creators? I mean you are literally free to do it

>>214024444 (OP)
Too much post processing, which makes everything looks blurred or "soft".

>>214025198
I've seen music videos shot in digital that replicated the film look.

>>214025224
>Why can't right wingers make their own movies
But they do

>>214024444 (OP)
HDR ruining lighting

>>214024444 (OP)
>that bottom pic
Holy shit that hair just screams "I hate White people".

>>214024444 (OP)
I think a lot of it has to do with a shift to natural lighting and color correction. I'm not willing to say it has anything to do with film vs digital, but that probably does have an indirect consequence as to how a scene is shot. I also think that actors are now more about taking direction rather than infusing the role with their personality and that's a practice that has since stopped.

>>214025224
>Why can't right wingers make their own movies instead of whining about actual creators?
Anon, did you get so upset in the drumf thread that you came over here to blast some butthurt in a (relative) safe space

>>214024444 (OP)
>>214024539
Man...niggers are fucking disgusting...

>>214024662
the problem is that the format allows this flat grey lifeless look to be created because with digital you can use very little light

Regardless of your stance on digital, there is 100% an effort to make everything look like shit. You can tell with Furiosa, where George Miller personally chose to make practically shot effects look like the worst backalley jeet CGI.

>>214026596
Yeah. It's hard to come up with any other reason than they want it to look bad.

>>214024444 (OP)
Tbf, old movies had a problem with dark scenes too, they were often too fucking dark

>>214025198
>>214024662
>>214025273
a common technique now is to shoot on film, then print it out onto reels and then film that again. basically the movie is shot and edited on digital then the final cut is rerecorded through real film

>>214026866
Post some examples.

>>214026898
Who's doing that?

>>214026898
shoot on digital*

>>214024444 (OP)
Because when they active CERN in 2012 it killed all life and also made a black hole so now we are all trapped in this weird limbo.

Digital removing the need for real lighting techniques has made everything look flat and boring unless it's specifically trying to be surreal and stylistic. There's no good dramatic "natural" lighting anymore.

>>214026866
examples? even bar scenes from older movies look fine

>>214026970
is that paul simon?

>>214024525
No reason why digital films can't look good, the flat look that modern movies have is all voluntary, it's not a limitation of the technology but a choice by the producers

>>214027028
yeah, Annie Hall was a woody allen vanity project that had a lot of cameos from other actors and musicians

>>214027028
Yes.

>>214026249
Sovl vs sovlless

>>214026249
The old live action asterix movies are so kino

>>214027040
>>214027047
woody allen just never appealed to me. i have the orson welles view of him. heard some of his films are good though.

>>214027040
Jeff Goldblum wasn't a name then. Can't really be considered a cameo.

>>214027033
can you provide an example of a digital film you think looks good without specifically being an incredibly stylstic piece?

>>214027054
true

>>214026596
Anon, look up the credits of that movie and look at the names of the CGI team

>>214026902
>>214026970
80% of horror movies

>>214026959
>thought advances with cgi and digital would make super stylized movies like Sin City more common
>they went completely extinct
I fucking hate everyone chasing realism. Tenet was probably the fucking worst example of that, especially the final big battle scene. It somehow managed to make incredibly cool premise straight out of TTGL so fake and gay i was laughing through the entire thing.

>>214027081
huh didnt realize that, i figured he was somebody by then because they paused the camera on him and framed him all alone like that. now that im thinking, the Fly didnt come out either

>>214027076
The Purple Rose of Cairo is great, Woody doesn't act in it

>>214025273
>I've seen music videos shot in digital that replicated the film look.
Post a few. Of you can't, faggot.

>>214024444 (OP)
Because they're fake and gay.

>>214027033
>the flat look that modern movies have is all voluntary, it's not a limitation of the technology but a choice by the producers
As in they chose for it to look that ass ugly because they wanted it to look that way or they knew it would look ugly by taking lazy shortcuts but were willing to accept it looking like shit because they don't care?

>>214027146
Nolan sucks really, really bad at big practical. The "hospital" in Dark Knight and whatever the mess was in the last act of Tenet were shit.

>>214027100
>can you provide an example of a digital film you think looks good without specifically being an incredibly stylstic piece?
Of course that faggot can't. These are just kike retards that "defend the current thing"

>>214027147
Because his character has a punchline illustrating how vacuous the Hollywood party guests are.

>>214027147
He's a jew and they were working him into the business. Same with his rapist role in Death Wish

>>214027139
Doesn't look too dark to me.

>>214025198
Not that anon but 1917 was shot on a digital camera.

>>214026921
DUNC and The Batman

>>214027271
This pic literally looks like the bottom in OP pic.

>>214027271
We can tell.

>>214027100
Nta but the 28 days/weeks/years later movies look perfectly fine. Robert Eggers' movies also looked fine when I saw them years ago, and I'm pretty sure they are digital but correct me if I'm wrong. Also a German TV show or miniseries called Cleo, and Breaking Bad. These are just the top of my head.
The real problem that may actually be because of digital is all the blurriness I see in either foreground or background.

>>214027285
>>214027298
How about this one?

>>214027339
Or this one?

>>214027353
and this one.

>>214027339
Why don't they make the uniforms more worn and lived in? That's way too clean. It's so obviously new clothes with some light mud dusted on them. Makes it look like a high school production instead of a film.

the problem is so much digital vs film they are just fucking clueless at lighting and colour, everything about film has gone downhill from costumes to recording sound

>>214027339
This one looks ok. Some film grain would give it more grit, especially considering that it's a war movie.
>>214027353
Too dark overall too tell.

>>214024525
Digital is it's own thing and can be good in it's own right
https://youtu.be/lm-b6DDPGwc?si=FsslZB0gRYQzF6aH

>>214027339
>>214027353
>>214027371
It does not look like chemical coloring at all.

>>214027183
Former i'd say, the flat, desaturated, low contrast, style does have its uses, but it became the norm around 2018-2020 and by now the snake is eating its own tail, new filmmakers are being taught how movies should look on these flat looking movies, and disregard the high contrast, older ones as something undesirable.

>>214027373
Digital coloring hides it.

>>214026866
Quit repeating dumb shit you heard on YouTube. You sound like a retard.

>>214027631
Is this AI?

>>214024539
>>214024444 (OP)
they call it "the arri look" even though RED looks the same (sony looks a little better i.e. closer to top pic) and that's not even the point
the point is that
1. even a monkey can press a few buttons
2. investors need their money
3. people actually passionate about movies were kicked out (e.g. weinstein) or brainwashed (e.g. ridley scott, fincher) since the late 2010s

>>214027665
maybe

>>214027631
Interesting, this one also has a long article about its cinematography.
https://www.fdtimes.com/2016/12/30/vittorio-storaro/

>>214026596
It's incidental not intentional. Hollywood got taken over by corporations and nepo babies, neither of whom know how to or care to make movies for lower class Americans. They're obsessed with concepts and technology yet are extremely stingy and frugal to a fault but about the wrong things, so they'll blow a quarter million on a movie building entire warehouses just to paint green and filming on the very cutting edge latest digital cameras while neglecting to pay for competent cinematographers and mercing their CGI out to Indian companies.

The old generation stopped caring years ago and is now happy to inflate their salaries and fleece the corps for massive paydays while they sit comfy womfy in a climate controlled warehouse 2 minutes away from their mansions. They made their bones decades ago and have nothing left to prove and probably understand the public today isn't worthy of art anyways.

>>214027033
>can teleport around and move fast enough to dodge bullets and explosions
>can't outrun a slow moving boomer crawling up some stairs

It still astounds me you retards not just watch but actually enjoy this fucking garbage.

Eddington was digital or film?

I imagine color grading and color direction being a prestigious job, something that some guys specialize in and something that directors ask for. You don't want your stuff to look dated, you want it to look like the latest hotness, so there are trends to follow or to go against but it's all very subtle so you need that expertise. Obviously everything is a job in film making (props, sets, makeup etc) but I think color grading is specifically something that can make or break a production in terms of convincing audiences that it's a serious work of art

I assume they decide on a very flat and neutral type of lighting in camera for several reasons. It's easier to set up, it's easier to bring the scene to different places with different color gradings depending on what the script calls for and they're also avoiding anything too dramatic which I think could be seen as "dated"

When color grading they seem to often settle for a very hazy look. Like there's a tinted gas floating around. It gives it a sleepy, subdued and "undecided" look, it makes the audience sense that something is trying to lull them into a false sense of security, so the paradox is that this "hazy" look actually makes people more alert, looking out for whatever is about to come through the mist

>>214028286
how did you color correct that?

>>214028286
much better, but this exposes the ugly dof.

>>214028286
bottom is made to "appeal" AI algorithm, i.e. to streamline the absorption of content and data

>>214024444 (OP)
bokeh is what talentless brainlets rely on to make up for their lack of skill.

>>214028305
photoshop, removed the yellow and changed some contrasts overall and in specific places. I don't think I made it better, just tried to find something more neutral but also with more contrast, finding out how black or light you can even make it

>>214028334
yea the dof really adds a claustrophobic layer. they pile these things on

>>214024444 (OP)
Jews and negroids

Nice quads by the way

>>214028443
How would Orson Welles sum up bokeh in word?

>>214027121
>reds, greens, AND blues all in the same movie
Like an oasis in a desert.

>>214027545
>you heard on Youtube
Nice projecting. I grew up watching all that shit and thinking to myself why the fuck they were all so dark and loud for no reason

See this?
This is it.
This is the film stock that most if not all of your favourite movies and any significant film of the 20th century was recorded on. Down the line for nearly half a century.
In order to get the absolute best that one can get out of the film, the most basic and first principals of making movies hasn't changed and that is understanding light. What it can do, what it can't do, and what stories can be told using its pros and cons. If there are ANY anons here that have even the slightest bit of interest in making films of your own or are passionate about movies, you have GOT to understand photography first and have a grasp of it. With the way things are going, having even the absolute bottom of the barrel understanding of it is and will put you at an advantage over everyone else and make your vision amazing to the eye.

It's not just lighting; its colour grading, its choice of lens, its depth of field, its shutter speed; hell, if you look closely above Billy Crystal's head, you can see what appears to be a scratch on the film negative in the skyline.

You're looking at two different pieces of technology; one is an evolution from still frame cameras using film and the other is digital cameras using pixels. Make no mistake, however; a lot of the differences in the two frames rest on the skill of the people involved who made it.

>>214028286
Top looks like Mad Men (derogatory)