why do older movies just look better than modern ones? shouldn't it be the opposite?
Why do older movies just look better than modern ones? shouldn't it be the opposite?
film + photochemical color timing
you don't see crushed blacks like that in movies today, modern filmmakers are so afraid of shadows
Shot on film. You have to plan everything out meticulously and have people who actually know how to fucking light a scene. Can't add nearly as much stupid shit in post production. Digitalfags will cope and seethe at this but its true.
Look at the sexy ass depth in all those images, it's not all foreground. But there's still clarity, contrast and defined shapes everywhere.
Shot on film and on location. Next.
Movies were good when shot on film and with less black people and ugly women onscreen
film makes everything seem inherently cinematic
Unfortunately it's hard to beat film
can easily be replicated with modern cgi.
Those pics are digital slop and no example of why film looks better.
Complex lighting is hard for the CGIjeets to work with.
ewww
Your meat can be replaced with bugs
Color still digitally oversaturated. The oversaturation makes it hard to look at. Accurate looks good and doesn't distract.
come on now
Can't add nearly as much stupid shit in post production
Except they can and did. Often using chemicals to do so.
You can completely change the color palette and lighting with two clicks in post digitally. On film it was a pain in the ass to even change the saturation or do a simple double exposure effect, it makes you work in a completely different way. Please stop eating paint chips.
film is expensive as fuck, every second you're rolling the camera costs money so people knew to be on their game, plan everything in advance, before filming
digital costs literally nothing, there's no difference in cost between filming one minute and 3 hours on a location, and so people feel like they can half ass it and discover things as they go
larping zoomer faggot
Because there were no zoomers on set and the hiring wasn't done due to DEI principals you had to actually have skill to get hired and stay employed.
but real life is that saturated. what is this meme that realistic = desaturated. ive never seen a movie on any screen that is as colorful and vibrant as real life, which is what natural, accurate color should be striving to replicate
-Shot on film
-Lighting was very different
-Shot composition was far greater
-etc.
There was a certain barrier to entry when making a film. Nowdays you have degenerate weirdos like Sean Baker shooting movies on their iphones.
Standards have completely fallen off a cliff.
What was shocking to me was when i recently watched Shogun (remake) after watching the original.
The new one looked fake, like every shot was done on green screen with a whole bunch of stupid filters added in post. It looked like a (quite expensive) video game. Even the people looked fake.
Whereas the original was actually shot in japan, in real locations, and looked real.
film is expensive as fuck
not really
It is.
That's why studios will only let the big boys shoot on 70mm (like nolan and tarantino).
Those blacks in the OP image have been digitally crushed. They don't look nearly that dark when watching on actual film in a theater.
lol retard
Who even gives you those insane delusions?
35mm is several dollars a foot which is just a couple of seconds of SHOOTING. That adds up.
TV shows look better too. 90's sci-fi like X-Files and Star Trek TNG/DS9 look so much better than anything made for streaming.
retard
digitalization kills craftsmanship
They have to desaturate movies to hide their shitty CGI.
This is a screenshot from a movie shot in 1994.
You're complaining about jews jewing you with cheap streaming compression and not what is actually shown in movie theaters or on physical media.
Old cameras had more soul
crushed blacks
most disappointing double take
That's only because back in those days cameras used to steal people's souls.
based and amishpilled
Still terrifies me every time I see it.
muh film
film is expensive as fuck
Compared to digital it is, but the cost of film shooting and processing is still peanuts compared to the costs for actors, crew, sets, costumes and lighting. That's why directors were able to shoot endless takes and miles of footage they'd never need, the cost of film was a fraction of the budget of a typical movie.
I miss this lil nigga like you wouldn't believe. There's like half a dozen Hollywood directors tops that know how to properly use digital. And probably less than that.
Gareth Edwards
Ridley Scott
David Fincher
That's really all the names I can think of off the top of my head. The rest are just memed as being good with digital.
you're a moron
Maybe, but I still know more about film production than you
This. 1000x this.
b..but it's cheaper and easier!
Like I give a fuck about any of that. Your movie looks like shit.
on location
This really makes such a massive difference. I was watching The Fugitive recently and was like "wow, they actually shot this on location, in Chicago where it takes place, outside in the daylight, you never see that anymore." Using green screen for literally everything like most modern films just looks completely lifeless and drab.
zoomer reads wikipedia pages about filmmaking
doesn't understand them
thinks he's an expert
grim
modern film tries to achieve synthetic beauty, while older film captures an organic beauty. its a little cringe but i think the look of Rogue One or Andor encapsulate this "synthetic beauty" that some of these directors try to perfect. The Dunc films do it too. It is very high fidelity, but lacks imperfections and therefore cannot obtain the perfectly imperfect look of real life, not through camera sensors but through human eyes.
Contrast.
Noticed how shadows are shadows in the old movies?
Blacks were blacks, not just gray.
Rouge One is one of the few exceptions. It's one of the best looking movies ever shot on digital. Probably only behind Prometheus and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo remake.
One of the biggest offenders of badly used digital is a lack of natural motion blur. A soap opera like lack of motion blur should only be used for watching live sports. It's the biggest pleb identifier you can find when you go to somebody's house and they have the digital processing turned all the way up until all traces of motion blur are removed and everything looks like a soap opera.
I remember before the Tenet home release Nolan put out a public service announcement and begged people to turn that shit off before watching Tenet on their digital televisions at home.
Why cant we make digital look like it was shot film with bunch of filters?
With all the cgi advancement we still cant do it
Analog literally means infinite variations. No matter how much processing you put into digital there is always a mathmatical limit.
competency crisis
/thread
one huge problem is that filmmakers are just not using enough light
My favourite modern film on digital is Macbeth