Why doesn't everyone stop shooting with digital cameras and shoot movies on film instead? Even garbage like Wolverine Origins looks better than Deadpool 3's digital crap
film is better but fucking up film during the color grading will ruin any advantage you have.
>>198602008There are people whose whole jobs revolve around deciding how a movie is going to look on screen. Those people are called cinematographers.
because it's more expensive you fucktard
>>198602008They realised at some point that capeshit fans don't care about cinematography, or good VFX, or writing. So why bother putting in the effort if you can make money without it? The same cinematography worked on Spider-Man 2 and Shang-Chi but it's clear that in the latter he didn't give a shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a34Ttf_FtE8
>>198602008Wolverine Origins is a good looking movie and always has been. X Men 3 had a good Super35 contrasty high grain look to it too. The shot on film X Men movies all looked good, even the ones people don't like as much. (with the exception of First Class. I like that movie but I think it looks low rent and kind of slapdash. I always thought it was digitally shot but I recently found out it was film and was surprised, because it has that digital-y lack of atmosphere. Look at the Auschwitz scene in First Class vs the original movie. The original movie scene is much more atmospheric. But apparently the issue was just Vaughn being short on time and also going through cinematographers like tissues because they couldn't give him the "sixties" look he wanted.) Days of Future Past actually looks better than First Class even though DoFP was digital.
>>198602008His hair looks like shit on the right pictures wtf
Worshipping film is for pseuds. Nobody can tell the difference between film and digital, and the idea that anyone can even tell the difference between 9mm and 7mm or whatever is completely ridiculous.
>>198602533He's got one foot in the grave my man, do you know how much CGI, steroids, wigs, hair treatments, makeup etc it takes to make him look like he's still in the same age range he was in the FoxMen heyday?
>>198602548Its like winetasting, which has been proven as pseud fakery: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis
>>198602008>>198602468show me the scene in origins where he snikts the sink or the helicopter and tell me it still looks good>it's just the cg that is badyesalso the script but I'll concede that's not what OP's talking about
>>198602548We get it, Shlomo. You have to pretend digital is just as good because it's far cheaper to shoot on. Now tell me how "natural" lighting is actually more cinematic and doesn't look like dogshit.
>>198602008What happened to his nose? its way longer now
>>198602634He converted.
>>198602634human noses and ears actually dont stop growing, ever. Its why you see soo many crow-beaked old people with gigantic ears.
>>198602008damn his nose got bigger
>>198602008cause zoomers can't stand 24fps and film grain
>>198602548>Nobody can tell the difference between film and digital
>>198602634People's face sink/set in as they get older, the fact that people here need that explained to them scares me. Literally just compare pictures of your parents to pictures in their youth.
>>198602667You people NEED to understand how angle makes an image
>>198602657this isn't true, its just gravity doing its thingalso his nose looks fatter at the end cause he lost all the fat in his cheeks
>>198602667Different angle and focal length
>>198602634Like >>198602657 said, they never stop growing, but still. I wonder if his foreskin shrank too.
>>198602047Where'd they all go?
Laziness. Even fallout is shot on film lol.
>>198602707true you're right anon, sagging skin with old age+tiny amounts of scar tissue under the skin building up from life in general.>>198602727his face has lost flesh, thinned out, that probably makes it worse.To be honest he was right, Logan should have been his last xmen film. i dont even care if this one is good it shouldnt have happened.
>>198602727They do stop growing you autist. It's this >>198602687
>>198602008Digital is objectively better. Stop being a retard parroting "old GOOD", it's like saying monochrome photography is artsy
was joker 2019 shot digitally? because if so then it really doesn't matter
>>198602008WW84 was shot on film and looks like pissJoker was shot on digital
>>198602903Pseudcels annihilated again. Nobody can actually tell.
>>198602008Film is better, but it would also look like dogshit in the hands of these hacks
>>198602008Couldn't he at least grow up his hair a little longer? Looks like a guy in midlife crisis there on the right.
>>198602903maybe WW84 would look worse on digital and Joker would look better on film :o)
>>198603010Lmaoooo what the fuck
problem is all the people who knew how to light properly for film aren't in the industry anymorei mean the people who are there now don't know how to light for digital either, they're incompetent
>>198602051They sell it at wal-mart.
>>198602570You are a connoisseur of ass fucking and porn.
>>198603010Trannies don't look good in any light.
>>198602051movies with $200 million budgets can afford film
>>198603110she can be my tranny anytime
>>198603131ok jew lol
>>198602903Proof that both can look like shit
>>198602790>>198602782It's a mix of both. With time the head changes, some people bloat, others get thinner since the bone receeds, the fat grows/change place and ears and nose "drops" with gravity, but that does make them longer. Unfortunately the same doesn't happen to the cock or boobs since their structure is different. The nose also got a lot of shit like sebaceous glands that do get bigger with age and some diseases and conditions gets your nose bloated and it never goes back to the proper size, like cysts.So in the end yeah, your nose does get bigger with age, the sunken face just makes things worse.
For a low budget movie, shooting on film is a massive money sink. The cost of the film and developing the film and all the extra takes you have to do is not cost friendly. Remember, when you shoot on film, you won't know what it looks like until it is developed. So you have to shoot more takes. With digital, you can see what it looks like almost instantly. That is a huge advantage.I think it really doesn't matter what you shoot on. There are ways to make digital look identical to film
it's easier to composite FX into digital cause it doesn't have film grain
>>198603438>that is a huge advantageYeah, and it's clearly utilized to their advantage. You're a fucking quack. Go quote reddit to reddit, you fucking retard.
>>198602756The all died on October 7th
>>198603479It didn't matter in the past because resolution was lower.
>>198603479FX is trash these days, practical effects will win the day again
>>198602727>I wonder if his foreskin shrank too.>teenage Logan >x-gene activates >foreskin grows back>rabbis shriek in horror >cast him out of society>hated and feared in AmericaIt's hard being a mutant, bub.
>>198603479Just add film grain to the FX
>>198603497
>>198602008How did Hugh Jackman get a hook nose worthy of a Jew since Origins? The fuck?
>>198602008It's not the digital cameras, it's the colour grading. VFX houses prefer a neutral grade so because it's easier to add vfx to the image.
>>198602047todd said he wanted to shoot joker on film and WB said no because it would be too expensive, and that was a 80m dollar movie
>>198603689Joker looked good. How did they do it?
>>198603636OH HO HO HO HO HO A FUCKING REACTION PIC I'M SO FUCKING GLAD I STAYED IN THE THREAD EXPECTING TO RECEIVE QUALITY REPLIES
>>198603744Well you see, when a jewish person needs to blackmail someone...
>>198602468https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cdM6UXSLwU
>>198603744Properly calibrated equipment and lighting to bring out the shot on digital and competent color grading, the same reason why Better Call Saul can look so good despite the utterly mundane setting.
>>198602008while I agree the OP example is a sham, since the garbage on the right is all FLAT LIGHTINGwe have lost the art of LIGHTING due to CGI
>>198602008those are different lighting schemes.
>>198603744>Joker looked good.If you are a blind person maybeKill yourself
>>198603911This is overt and distracting. It's not "good." There's a meme component to the shot. It's still mundane.
>>198604025>This is overt and distracting. It's not "good."Go back to /film/, retard. BCS was a well shot show. Simple as.
>>198604063Is that a real board?
>>198604228for you
>>198602548If you can't tell the difference between digital and 75mm IMAX then you are blind.
>>198602008Anon you can make digital look good. Modern capeshit filmmakers just choose not to for some reason. I guess the bland colors make it easier to stitch together footage that doesn't match? Makes sense if you look at how they make these movies these days, they start doing the special effects before they even have a script and they constantly switch things around. That must be it because there is no other excuse for the movies looking like that. And even then, once you got all the shots fixed up so the colors match, can't you just edit the full scene as a whole to make the colors pop? I'm not some expert colorist of course, but surely it must be possible to make your cutting edge blockbusters look just as good as movies from fucking 40+ years ago.
>>198603116that 200 million is for the actors and producers NOT the qualitythe ADL has been notified about your post
>>198603648
>>198603648>>198604341>haha deadpool your gf is awesome
>>198603648Looks like Trump lol
>>198602008funny how he looks way manlier with spic brown skin just like johnny depp and orlando bloom,
>>198604291>I guess the bland colors make it easier to stitch together footage that doesn't match?Easier to insert shitty CGI. Easier to patch together shit that was shot in completely different locations where actors weren't in the same location on the same day. Easier to make reshoots match. More compression friendly for digital formats. Shows up better on people's shitty home displays or even phones. It's all about having the lowest bar and common denominator for a medium that's become "content". They just don't care because it will be consumed all the same and then it's onto the next thing.
>>198604291Sometimes you have to account for your cast members phoning in a screen from their couch at home
>>198604444>4444
>>198604444His facial expressions are more convincing + manly suntanned skin + sweaty. They actually tried
>>198604490>camrip for an ancient moviewtf
>>198604511>manly suntanned skin beaners, they look like beaners. actually thought jack sparrow was a wet back
>>198604490Holy fuck I don't remember it looking this bad, this is not an edit? Jesus
>>198602008it's because if they shoot on digital they can run it through all the slop studio software and sit there doing the same bullshit they do to every other garbage digital "film"
Digital isn't just a raw cost of film thing, it's got lots of side effects. Film is more restrictive, more complicated editing process, etc. The reason why they don't do a "make digital look like film" thing is that most audiences don't have a clue and don't miss the film look. Normies didn't watch Avengers and wonder why there wasn't film grain of shit like that.
>>198604540White people can get tan skin if they are outside in the sun. Not that you would know
>>198604548civil war was dogshit because iron man does a character 180 from a private nukes lobertarian to a pissrael globalist
Which Wolverine do you think this is, the main fox wolverine, Logan wolverine or a new one?
>>198604444Check em
>>198604548Civil War's look has aged like milk because that big confrontation was all done in a green screen void and frequently only a couple of the cast actually there at any one given time
>>198604490my god I actually googled to see if this was the real scene and not a parody edit
>>198604706It's pretty incredible that such a major blockbuster has as much care and artistry put into it as Neil Breen's latest movie.
>>198604706Makes it easier to replace them with women.
>>198604835It wasn't an incorrect gamble because people loved that movie and the vast majority didn't care about that look.Problem is that became the Marvel house style and they started using it more extensively so they could hack movies together in the edit, and when your movie isn't an Avengers-class title, the results ain't pretty.
>>198604937If by people you mean niggers, I gotchew, senpai.
>>198604835>It's pretty incredible that such a major blockbuster has as much care and artistry put into it as Neil Breen's latest movie.There's a lot of effort, it's just shifted away from the final visual image since they don't care. The film is now treated like a product, and they want to ship it out as quickly and efficiently as possible. So instead of the screenwriter, cinematographer, director, being the ones in charge, it's the producers and executives, with everyone else just a cog in the machine. The result is visually bland films since it makes the entire process faster. They don't care that these films won't be remembered in 25 years since they're the film equivalent of McDonalds. >>198603648I call it the Gray Haze Disease.
>>198602008film is more expensive and with digital you can quite literally "do it in post" with absolutely anything and as a result we get tons of cheap garbage
>>198604960I didn't say anything about you.
I don't like two trends in modern filmmaking when it comes to the "look" of the footage:- Subtle fisheye which seems to be LITERALLY FUCKING EVERYWHERE now. It's not extremely pronounced, like when the camera is showing the view through the peephole in the door, but it's still there, bending the edges and corners of the frame and making straight lines curved. What the fuck is this for?!- A certain specific way that the out-of-focus background is blurred, especially in the movies of the last 2 or 3 years. It's like there's a certain radial blur being applied to it, in addition to the more classic out of focus look. I don't know what's up with that. It's not simply the anamorphic lens look, it's something else on top of that.
>>198604341>>198603648this nigga is oompa loompa orange
>>198604937This is a myth. Captain Marvel began a spinoff highjacking the franchise. The villain in it was an idea. That idea was "Toxic masculinity." Her character was even undermined by the addition of a black female pilot which didn't need to exist. If it was hard for Captain Marvel to attain such heights as a woman, imagine the darky. They cut the legs out from her character and put her up against a feminism entity instead of a marvel one. It was complete and total shit, and they began lying to us in the media. They gave us a send-off with Endgame, but it was incredibly soured by the female heroes. Everything after Endgame has been supreme trash where the main character of the movie is sidelined by extremely gay, often literally, characters. The whole fucking point of main characters overcoming adversity is completely left out of the plot now.
>>198604990Like someone mentioned it's not actually cheap garbage. It's very expensive and very high effort, it's why FX houses have been ground into dust the decade. It just looks bad because it's often rushed due to lack of manpower, and the target is "good enough" not "looks beautiful"Like think about the Avengers Endgame suit situation. Basically obscene that they did that.
>>198604706
>>198605038Take your meds for fucks sake.
>>198604548> horizontally squished, wrong aspect ratio> extremely low quality encode to squish a minute of footage into 3 megabytes> some things about gradients make me think that the source of this webm was a TS, not an actual webdl or bluray> anons why does this look bad
>>198605023I think I know what you're talking about with the blur, and it's probably something subliminal. JJ Abrams used to say lens flare was to compensate for a shot lacking foreground, but the flare is completely deliberate. If your shot lacks foreground, you are a shit filmmaker. >>198605125Kill yourself legally if you're Canadian.
>>198602626The entire film industry is Jewish and has been from the start, dude. You're a century too late for that bus
>>198605161>there's no lens flare in that oneI know.2/2
>>198605124lmao at Black Panther's awkward Naruto run
>>198605161>>198605181Notice how the pussy is obscured multiple times, but in the shot with a fully exposed cock, there are two male gazes directing the viewer in that general direction, and there are console penises pointing directly at it to get you to look at cock.If you enjoy Star Trek, you're gay.
>>198605129okay, go to youtube. Look it up and compare, the "real" scene still looks terrible even with the right aspect ratio
>>198605038>>198605161>>198605218pills posthastemedication momentarilyAtavan ASAPtablets timedrugs, do them
>>198605218>>198605161>Le cock now.
>>198605218well yeah the pussy is obscured by clothing
>>198604490>More compression friendly for digital formats. Shows up better on people's shitty home displays or even phones. It's all about having the lowest bar and common denominator for a mediumBut then for the sound mix you need those snake big ass cable to hear what the character said
>>198605262SWALLOW THE ON SCREEN COCKDRINK A COCKROUNDHOUSE A COCK INTO YOUR MOUTH
>>198605218>meanwhile in the same movie
>>198605103>it's why FX houses have been ground into dust the decade. It just looks bad because it's often rushed due to lack of manpowerSomething I don't get is why do the deadlines for post production have to be so unreasonably short?Why must only a certain amount of months pass between the filming of the movie and the release? Sure, you need to time the promo campaign and all that. But why not shift both the release and the promo campaign to a later date? Or, the other way around, if you know that you need this movie released in May 2025 or whatever, why not shoot it earlier?What exact part of the industry breaks if movies, on average, have a longer gap between filming and release?
>>198605275There is a literal lens flare covering the pussy, dweeb.
>>198605161OK I get your lens flare example and the pussy block, but what would be achieved by the specific modern radial blurring of out-of-focus areas?
>>198605296She's a villain, and the shot is for you to focus on her breasts. her pussy is semi-obscured in darkness.Sex is le bad.
>>198605357where are the goalposts my manwhat game are we even playing
>>198605355Well I'd have to find some examples, but like I said, it is likely to guide the eyes to something. Who knows. Post some examples and maybe I can deduce something.
>>198605161Star Trek midriff > Star Trek pussy.
>>198605384Why are you comparing a black woman and a white woman like they are equal?The whole opening scene is about pairing people up. That's why Scotty looks at the fish and is scared by it when it comes across the screen. You guys are fucking noobs.
Not entirely related, but Wolverine Origins was a damn good movie
>>198602548It's a subconscious preference for nostaligia that gets rationalised through film quality. In 30 years people will call you retarded for thinking digital is a valid medium vs whatever bullshit zoomers have dreamed up by then.
>>198605439Nobody touch this bait, it's actually tied to a nuke.
>>198605401Star Trek race mixing > Star Trek heterosexuality
>>198605161>>198605421I had a feeling since this is a JJ movie that the camera was moving in that shot and you just pulled a pathetic in motion cherrypicked frame. And you did. GG, better luck next time schizo.
>>198605124tfw you're 8 years old in the playground at first break
>>198605236No, I agree, but this webm makes it look extra bad due to all of those reasons I listed.Also,> go to youtube> ~1.5-2 Mbps for 1080p in AVCYoutube is literally YIFY quality and actually even worse, because youtube's encoding settings are awful for the bitrate. It's absolute trash tier when it comes to footage of le cinematic content (even if we're talking about capeshit).
>>198605479kek
>>198605394I don't have the screenshots at hand, but Poor Things had it in like every single shot. Maybe not super literally "every single" one but also maybe literally.I turned this movie off very early into it because the constant artsy fucking with the camera was hurting my eyes.
>>198605524Yes, and the lens flare is just a flash. You're a fucking RETARDLET ME FUCKING CAPS IT WITH SPACESR E T A R D If there are obstacles in the line of site, your eyes will redirect. That's how guiding the viewer works.YOU'RE A STUPID FUCKING GOD DAMN NIGGER
>>198605479No, I mean I actually like it because it was my first X-Men movie and I watched it when I was 7 or 8. The female lead was super hot too and I got a boner that night
>>198605598>mad because world view crumblingmany such casesSAD!
>>198605613EVACUATE THE THREAD THE BOMB IS EXPLODING
>>198605622WELCOME TO REDDIT WHERE I HAVE CANNED RESPONSES BY THE LITERAL DOZENS#TRANSRIGHTS #BLM #ANTI-ISRAELISN'TANTI-SEMITIC
>>198605625It was also Deadpool's debut movie...
>>198602008He’s not even gonna wear the mask ONCE in this movie is he?
>Hmm, the lens flare shined in my fucking eyeballs while I was trying to check this vajayjay.>I think I'll keep trying to look at it instead of being a lazy viewer. I mean good for you, bro. You escaped the matrix.
>>198603994The braille was tastefully well-arranged you piece of fuck
>>198605592Ok yeah this is definitely a newer trend. I haven't seen it. Might have to get back to you somehow someway in another thread another day.
>>198603648You just made him red lmao
Oh, another thing I remembered: Late Night With The Devil. Most of the runtime is a supposed recovered lost master tape of a 70s live TV broadcast. To make it look old and analog, the authors covered the footage with a... very unmistakably modern, very characteristic "AI enhancement" modern glam Instagram-like filter. The kind that makes textures smooth and blurry, makes everything slightly bloomy, but at the same time "repaints" the finer details on top of the smooth textures, often accentuating eyes and mouth (prettifying the face) but also very liberally selecting random individual strands of hair within the blurry mess of the head hair or beard etc. This shit can often be seen in social media filters, as well as "intellectual upscaling" bullshit algs, but a slight version of it (mathematically somewhat related) is also produced by modern compression like hevc or webp.I couldn't believe how bad this looks. Not only this does NOT look like 70s analog tape, but also it very explicitly looks like a 2020s "AI enhancement" filter.I'll post a couple examples here and in the immediate replies to this post. They are all taken from HQ web-dl streams, not from some 1 GB trashy rip. Only the scenes that are supposed to represent this "old tape" look like this - other scenes look fine, so it's not an issue with the movie's stream itself. Also, you'll notice that there is also an additional horizontal "silhouette ghosting" being applied; that is a separate filter and my issue is not with this ghosting, but with what I described above.
>>198605826Another example for the linked post above.
>>198605023The Batman has the blurry thing
>>198605023I'm convinced they added blur in post in Shogun. I hate it.
>>198605848One more example.
>>198605826PTA Does it the best. He actually goes and uses Bolex 16mm Or a DVCAM Camcoder to film the funny retro bits. It's better than putting a VFX filter which sometimes looks way too clean for old footage.
>>198603994no u
>>198602422Tarantino's being a fucking hipster and he should really know better.
>>198605734>meanwhile in the same movie>Kirk bent down with bulge out of focus>white table thing pointing at Uhura's pussy
>>198605023>Subtle fisheyeIt's called barrel distortion.>What the fuck is this for?!It's just what some lenses do, particularly vintage anamorphics. It's by no means just a modern phenomenon. Modern cinema lenses tend to completely free of barrel distortion. You see it nowadays when a cinematographer deliberarely goes for older gear.>It's like there's a certain radial blur being applied to itSwirly bokeh. It's another characteristic of certain vintage lenses at wide open apertures.
>>198605880I haven't seen Shogun, not interested. But it's quite possible. Basic consumer tech, like smartphones, has been doing fake bokeh / background blurring for quite a while now, and it always looks so awful. I imagine that it's probably not super hard to achieve better and/or more stable results in a controlled environment, when you can manipulate the image manually and "not in real time", unlike what the phone tech needs to do.There's nothing wrong with out of focus blurring as such, "as a concept", of course. It has existed since lenses have existed. But there's a very specific and very modern way to do it which, I imagine, is a conscious choice, one that I can't understand.
>>198605952I'm not saying it's invisible. I'm saying it's obscured often. Meanwhile you get blasted with full frontal cock and gaze assist to ensure you see it.
>>198605944The funny thing about Tarantino being a film guy is that his movies don't even look particularly great.
>>198605826>>198605848>>198605881To sum up, it looks like THIS kind of shit. It's "a little" more subtle in the movie than this example here, but it's the same thing in principle. Just awful.
>>198605952The fact of the matter is all these movies have two male characters that love each other, and there is a female between them to make you think they're not gay. She is paralyzed and not doing anything to save him. Kirk is losing his fucking mind and contemplating breaking his only fucking directive as a Captain. He then orders Spock's motionless girlfriend to do something.
>>198605880>I'm convinced they added blur in post in Shogun.No. It was shot with Hawk class-X anamorphics. That's literally what those lenses look like at a wide open aperture.
>>198605982>you get blastedHe's not even in underwear, as opposed to this scene>>198605296You have absolutely no point. To the extent that JJ is being sexual, he's using a hot blonde girl. He even got mild shit for the stripping scene for being too fanservice-y iirc.
>>198606047You are thinking too literally instead of what all this does to your subconscious.
>>198605965>Modern cinema lenses tend to completely free of barrel distortion. You see it nowadays when a cinematographer deliberarely goes for older gear.Quite the opposite in my experience. I see it soooooo much in so many modern movies, of the last decade or so. Including random-ass cheap B movies. If anything, I'm inclined to believe that it's a popular preset that people slap onto everything because they themselves are accustomed to this look already.
>>198603522
>>198602468>low rent and kind of slapdashzoom zoom!
>>198606047>He even got mild shit for the stripping scene for being too fanservice-y iirc.I remember it well. It wasn't "mild" shit. By 2013 standards it was a decently sized drama. In that year the woke culture and related stuff wasn't in full swing yet, but if this movie and this scene came out in say 2018, someone would get cancelled and lose a career over it.
>>198606071you're genuinely just mentally unwell
>>198606074>I see it soooooo much in so many modern movies, of the last decade or so.Because they use vintage lenses. It's a trend now.>Including random-ass cheap B movies.Because vintage lenses are a lot cheaper.>presetPreset? You really don't understand much about cinematography.
>>198605864Batman looks good though.
>>198606125Enjoy your goyslop.
>>198605023Swirly bokeh from vintage lenses with wide open aperture for shallow depth of field. Filmmakers use them to liven up the sterile look of modern ultra high resolution digital sensors.
>>198606120neither of those are new terms/sayings
>>198605023>>198605965This, except there are also filters on after effects/davinci which mimic the effect but with results that are homogenous enough to tweak autists. Shogun is a prime example and basically looks like early photoshop emo myspace Rawr filters to anyone that is capable of paying attention.
>>198606126>Preset?As in, a specific setting for a filter / processing unit that is applied to captured footage in post production.
>>198602008its not the fault of digital camera for this.
>>198606000Maybe not "great", but they all look good at least IMO. He's like a 10 percent less visually pleasing PTA.
>>198605864>>198605023I'm going to theorize that the blurring is just to control the gaze. That was my original assumption.When you record a shot, and you compile it through editing with other shots, unintended meanings can crop up, so I assume the gaze control antics of blur and lens flare help them control exactly what thoughts and perspectives you can generally arrive at while viewing the sequences of events.
>>198604291>choose not to for some reason.its becuase its all green screen in super bright light. matching light to spx is the hardest part.
They just need to add film texture and grain in post, fucking amateurs leave digital footage as is because of zoomers. The tech for post grain is perfected already.Best of both, cheap to shoot digital, while having identical 35mm texture.>Oh no, we need max sharpness and detail in 8K
>>198606176They're called LUTs.>filterIn cinematography, filters are something you put in front of the actual physical lens. For example a promist filter or an ND filter. No one who works in post talks about "filters".
>>198605124Spider mong looked like CGI in the end product lmao
>>198602008You are now aware that as you grow older, your ears and nose keep growing too.Also you will get hair on the nose, in the nose, on ears and in ears and you will be happy. Life is a tragedy.
>>198606126Using a vintage lens with a digital sensor is more jarring, you get anamorphics with no halation, and the grain added in post is uniform unless they really try to match the iso across light conditions. It's an uphill battle.
>>198606315>They're called LUTs.They're called DEEZ NUTZ
>>198606282They don't even achieve all of that max sharpness and detail with modern dogshit bitrates on most streaming services.
>>198606315Fair enough. I come from the world of audio so I used the language familiar to me. Hopefully you got my point though.
>>198606341That's why after 10 years of being digital, I returned to physical.
>>198606000His entire strength is in his screenwriting, and even that is fading. That's let him get big stars and little passion projects, which in turn get eyes from a public so worn out by Hollywood's factory system of by the numbers garbage.To his credit though, nobody can really make his work shine as well as he can.
>>198606282It's possible, but no big studio will sign off on a budget to give a truly authentic feel. Maybe in a couple of years with AI.
>>198606000That's because he's a sick fuck of a pedophile.
>>198606121There you go. I knew there was some kind of stink about it but I had forgotten the details. That shot was front and center in the trailers too I think lmao.
>>198606047>>198606121>Protects the virtue of a black woman>exposes a white woman and makes her a villainWhat did JJ mean by this?>I don't care. I cummed.Oh I forgot that that's...>And that's a good thing.
>>198606529Abrams and Lindelof issued public apologies about this in the late 2010s when this scene was "remembered" by online warriors and the shitstorm was almost reignited again.... meanwhile Alice Eve stated that it's bullshit and that she sees nothing wrong with it and she's proud of her body, kek. "I don't understand how anyone can see this as exploitation of me and why I'm supposed to regret it" etc.
>>198606587>>Protects the virtue of a black womanalready debunked this Also Carol wasn't even a villain you dumbo. She was horrified at what her dad did.
>>198606339Agreed. I dislike the vintage lens trend, but half the camera guys I know are all over it.>>198606370I did, but trust me, this shit is almost all caused by vintage lenses. Not all vintage lenses are like that of course, but fans of vintage lenses tend to prefer the ones that distort the image the most. It's their entire appeal to them.Modern cinema lenses by the major manufacturers are close to perfect optically. Super sharp, no distortion. They're used on a shitload of productions as well.
>>198606641She flip flopped. >DebunkedNo, you offered a weak retort, and I corrected you. You then said some retarded shit about meds because your attention span depleted.
>>198606718>and I corrected youI debunked you with irrefutable screenshots my man. It's a stone cold fact. You cherry picked, and I proved it by offering proof of the cherry picking as well as counterexamples. >You then said some retarded shit about meds because your attention span depleted.You have the order of events wrong. More evidence that pills need to be popped. >she flip floppedShe wasn't a villain, simple as. Good night, retard.
>>198606824If you think I cherrypicked, you don't understand how gaze works. If I obscure your vision with something that disrupts your ability to look at it, you will look away at something else.You will look in the direction of camera movement.You will look in the direction of eyes, and you will follow what they look at. There is a whole science behind assembling windows for displays and art because of how shapes guide people's gaze. There's the rule of 3rds in film and many others. You are a fucking god damn moron.
>>198606824>I'm leaving because I won.ENJOY BEING A NIGGER
>>198602008Can't fix the terrible lighting but they could at least add some fucking contrast.
>>198602008John Carpenter should be the emperor of cinema and force all directors to make their movies look exactly like the start of They Live or The Thing.
>>198602903It at least looked better than anything Snyder has shit out, it had some actual color to it.
>>198606824I'm watching you walk away and it looks like you have a corn cob stuck up your ass.
>>198605848WTF
>>198602008His nose has doubled in size goddamn
>>198605218>>198606024
>>198602533He's half bald
>>198607147Just looks like a difference in focal length for the most part. Wolverine Origins used slightly longer lenses and the new flick is using shorter lenses.
>>198604492A few times I heard they did this because some countries won't allow certain gun sizes.Not sure if true,but there are some odd rules out there
>>198602008>we really are at the point we are praising X-Men Origins: Wolverine for its camera work
>>198604395>>198603648>>198604341lmao
>>198607252The biggest problem with Origins was the script.
>>198607292The terrible specific effects don't help
>>198602657>>198602634It's HGH and steroids you retards
>>198607292I remember they said Deadpool would be in it but it would be a different version. Got my guard up immediately. What a joke. thats why I never liked the movie
>>198607360I think literally everyone was let down by Origins's Deadpool. Everyone.
>>198607243Why do photographers and filmmakers measure this in focal length, not in degrees of FOV? The latter seems like a much much more direct characteristic of what the picture looks like.
>>198602008whats with the low effort hair?Origins hair looks good but it was perfected in Days of Future Past.
>>198607399Because the same lens will have a different FOV on different sized sensors. You can't just write "60 degrees" on the side of a lens and expect it to be just that on every camera.
>>198607471It literally varies movie to movie. I don't think he had stylized hair at all in Logan.
fixd it
>>198607590nah
>>198607540looks shit and distracting this time
>>198603609Logan is so old that he predates circumcision being standard in the medical industry. He's not Jewish either, so he was likely always intact. I looked this up for my mutant OC.
>>198604969>I call it the Gray Haze Disease.>>198603648Look at the bottom right's background and how it swirlsIt's washed out because they're using old Soviet Helios lenses
>>198602008Why does Wolverine always need some kind of fucking gimmick. What the fuckUh he's old as fuckUh he's got death juice in himUh he's got tons of guilt and shit
>>198607399Based retard
>>198602707this, your balls will drop to hell and bach so dont wear boxers often
>>198606680>It's their entire appeal to them.This makes so much sense, and is also why things become dated (again) so quickly, or move in cycles.
>>198603911fakin hell this looks good
>>198602008Yoo hugh Ackman balding too?
>>198607471>tfw didn't know Wolverine had bone claws and thought the metal claws were just a neat thing the military installed in him
>>198602008why didn't they de-age him slightly
>>198607849parody movie so Deadpool can crack old guy jokes
>>198603642Nose grows throughout your dumb lifetime.
>>198607993Especially if you have skin cancer
>>198605598>If there are obstacles in the line of site, your eyes will redirect. That's how guiding the viewer works.Fuck this happened with me that is how i ended up seeing his bulge. Real shit.
>>198602634I noticed that Tom Hardy's nose too looks way bigger the last few years, looks like a different guy almost. I wonder if he broke it doing boxing/juijitsu or whatever, it seems too drastic to be just aging
>>198607993>nose keeps growing>but not my cock
>>198606983>>198602008this is a trailer footage for fucking youtube what did you expect?actual movie will look different
>>198604490this is exactly what happens when you simulate shitty animeeven the Marvel vs Capcom series had this looking better
>>198608855no it won't
>>198608635>>198602634>HURR WHAT IS AGE ?>AH WHY PEOPLE LOOK DIFFERENT WHEN THEY AGE?how old are you dumb fuckers, seriously?
>>198602008When are they gonna stop milking this dead cow already?
>>198608635He looks like he can play Harvey Weinstein in a biopic.
>>198608937Yes it is you stupid fuck
>>198609001When Huge Jackman is dead?
>>198604244It's just been revoked.
>>198608968Are you serious? Putin got more plastic surgery than Cher, of course it's going to look different. Tom Hardy nose doubled in size seemingly overnight, it might be just aging but still seems pretty drastic change in a relatively short period of time
>>198609035>same color gradethanks for proving me right
>>198607729KekI'm only 31, but lived a semi-nudist life (bachelor for many years in a hot climate, so walking around naked at my apartment after work most days), and women always laugh at how long my balls are.
>>198602008Origins is top kino and the best Wolverine movie >but muh DeadpoolNo one gave af about that lame ass character in 2008
>>198607729Sorry, I'm not into classical music.
>>198602008>Why doesn't everyone stop shooting with digital cameras and shoot movies on film instead?Because it costs a shit ton and if you make mistakes you've just wasted money
>>198609612>Movies then>profitableMovies nowBarely breaking even Yeah seems like digital has made them a lot of money
The best way to use film in modern productions is to transfer the completed digital cut to film and then scan that print. This gives you several benefits of film, most importantly it blends the CGI with live action footage.
>>198609850
>>198609873Both parts of Dune were done that way. Looks fine.
>>198609873Why else would there exist color films with a rated ISO of 6?
>>198609850True. But one disadvantage is that you lose the flexibility of having a clean / "no text" version to provide to distributors in countries with other languages, who might need to replace your on-screen text or graphics.I haven't watched Villeneuve's Dunes, but I imagine they don't have a lot of that content in frames, apart from the title card I guess. But other movies often do.
>>198603648I LOVE GRAIN!
>>198602569>>198607193>He's half bald thats why we have invented this thing called ... makeupyou can thicken the hair or use special short hair clips and blend them in to make the hair look more stylizedalso bigger problem is that his hair is too short, there is nothing to lift on the side where in original his hair and beard is around twice longer
>>198607837>thought the metal claws were just a neat thing the military installed in himThat's how it originally was.
>>198602008Jackman's nose keeps on growing, its so full of cancer.
>>198610477I dunno about that, Dune has hardcoded subs for all the fremen parts and its localized the way normal subtitles are while keeping the same fonts. Unless you're talking about a country like China where they're going to alter an entire object in the scene it shouldn't matter too much and even if it is important you're not really looking at some extreme extra expense since each film print only costs like 50K to make. Trivial in the scheme of making a movie.
>>198602533iTs qUite ComMOn in VvolWEriNeS oVEr 4o
>>198607590That looks good!
>>198603010I don't get it I haven't seen this film what is this webm trying to convey?
>>198607837retcon made in the early 2000's
>>198602008Fuck aging bros. Seeing even chads age is so depressing
>>198611100I meant stuff like picrel. Localized movies in the digital era often have on-screen graphics "dubbed" into the target language. This is the opening of Fast & Furious 8, in which they were adding the location names "into" the shots. This says "Havana, Cuba" but in Russian, where the English language release obviously has it in English. The complicated / motion tracked stuff like this one is usually done by the original studio - they just ask for the text, or localized logo or whatever else is needed, and insert it into the shot themselves and re-render it. But the simpler stuff can be added by the local distributor and there are special "clear" versions of movies and trailers for this purpose. All the trailers have renders where the on-screen hype text is removed.
>>198611164-ugly gray color grading-her exit plan doesn't make sense because she is intending to walk away via a balcony
>>198611229... although, I guess, it's not terribly important in the context that we're talking about. The fact that the on-screen text/graphics will be missing the grain from the conversion probably won't be very noticeable.
>>198607250If true they should just tell those countries to fuck off and keep the integrity of the film. I know it's marvelslop but holy shit the neverending quest for every shekel is tiresome
>>198611246oh okay, but couldn't she just fly or something?
>>198611466Most definitely not in the full view of all those people and while being a supposedly normie human woman Diana Prince, not the enigmatic superhero.
>>198611582Who's gonna believe all those (I'm assuming they're stoners) stoners?
>>198611246Is it really a balcony though, or an outdoors corridor / hallway / veranda(???) / whatever you call it in English? (ESL here) Like the one on the second floor in stereotypical motels.
>>198602468do you really not have any idea what lighting is? People on here really just think it's good shot= shooting on film, bad looking shot = digital? Even while listing off examples of how that's not the case?
>>198611975(oh never mind - yes, people are retarded and saying in this thread that his nose 'got huge' because the left pics in op are shot with a closer camera)
>>198612015>>198611975>>198611942Stop sir
>>198605559>~1.5-2 Mbps for 1080p in AVCYoutube often uses AV1 now, depends on the video and when it was uploaded.
>>198612071>uses AV1 nowIf your browser and hardware supports it, to start with.But that's still irrelevant. Their bitrates for VP9 are lower than the ones for AVC/H264, and the bitrates for AV1 are even lower than that. While perfectly understandable, this means that they are aiming at the same perceptible quality. I mean, look at this picrel shit. Ignore the "approximate" m3u8 lines (270, 614), those are incorrect estimations, the actual downloaded result is the exact same as the one in the https versions. Some 1.5 Mbps for AVC (or 1 Mbps for VP9, or 0.7 for AV1) is absolutely laughable. And then on top of that, youtube doesn't even do a good job encoding these streams. I can encode a video to the same target bitrate on my own PC using x264 (sam with vp9) and get results that are so much better than youtube, which runs videos through some very fast and shitty preset. Hell, you can grab a 1080p stream of some youtube video, downscale it to 720p manually and encode it into a 720p stream at youtube's own 720p bitrate, and the result will still be much much better than what youtube generated for 720p. Their quality is absolutely pathetic and inexcusable, but we now have an entire generation of people for whom modern youtube has existed for their whole online life as the sole source of online video content, and they don't even know how ultra trashy it looks because they haven't seen good bitrates and good encodes.
>>198603116>digital footage = free besides hard drives >film footage = every single second costs money
>>198612231> they don't even know how ultra trashy it looks because they haven't seen good bitrates and good encodes.So they're happy, while you're suffering but you're 'smarter'. Maybe you keep solving the wrong problem?
>>198612231MOst of what's on youtube don't benefit from a high bitrate and even the stuff that do is often professional content that the copyright holder doesn't want on youtube in anything other than 480p or lower. Like there's tons of star trek TNG clips on the site but try and upload one using footage from the remasters and it'll get blocked.
>>198612356Dude if I knew how to become a blissfully ignorant and happy normie I'd choose to do it in a heartbeat. Provided that the "continuity" with my previous life will somehow be compatible (as in, if this doesn't immediately cause a ton of problems with my current life situation, work etc)
>>198606323Because he was. The suit is entirely different in the final version. But the animation looks good in the scenes where he does the acrobatics himself.
>>198603689>WB said no because it would be too expensive,Digital is obviously more productive to work with, though arguably inferior. It makes sense that projects shot on film take longer, and time is money.>>198603911This is the only post on the topic that matters. I've yet to hear anyone criticise Blade Runner's score because it's played on synths instead of a real orchestra.
>>198602008WahhhhYou all jump on this and hate Scorsese who still makes kino and makes it on beautiful 35mmFucking dipshits never happy
>>198611198*mid 90s
>>198602044>but fucking up film during the color grading will ruinand there's the answercurrentday (((wokeistas))) cannot film, they make propaganda slop
>>198602044That’s why you don’t fuck up
>>198602756Underrated
>>198602008>It takes longer to master shots.>Less room for error, mistakes more costly and time-consuming to reshoot.>It's more expensive and volatile as a storage medium.>Less freedom to play around with colors or with compositing.Just a few things that come to mind.
>>198604490I don't understand, did they not shoot this on location? It looks like the entire scene (including the CGI elements) are massively over lit like they're trying to counter green or blue spill or something. I don't think the weather alone explains the washed out lighting.
>>198613570Of course they didn't.
>>198613570Half the characters there are completely CGI
>>198602756Out back.
>>198613570It was not shot on location.
>>198614552
>>198602008It takes me out of the trailer and will the flick with how short his hair and mutton chops are. Like they're even weirdly fucking shaved in the right shots. What's that all about?
>>198603590>practical effects will win the day againAs they always do.
>>198614598
>>198606983Vibrant colors? In MY goyslop?!!
>>198609904>DUNC>looks finelollmao
>>198605023>It's not simply the anamorphic lens look, it's something else on top of that.Certain anamorphic lenses behave that way when shot wide open, for example the Hawks which Shogun was shot on. Historically speaking almost all anamorphic lenses have tended to struggle when shot wide open and most DP's opted not to shoot wide open with them for a better optical performance. For example shooting at T4 or T5.6 instead of T2.8 Modern movies and shows are also shooting up close with wide anamorphics more than movies of the old, back then it wasn't so common. The barrel distortion of wide lenses is more pronounced when you shoot with wide lenses really close to your subject. There are also bunch of spherical lenses that have a off kilter/wild out of focus area. Lots of soviet era lenses, for example the Helios series has also a really swirly bokeh.
>>198605124actual cosplayers at conventions are less embarrassing than this
>>198605302>But why not shift both the release and the promo campaign to a later date? Or, the other way around, if you know that you need this movie released in May 2025 or whatever, why not shoot it earlier?Movie studios are capitalistic organizations that have a fiscal responsibility to their shareholders, not to making good movies. They market test "optimal" opening weekends for their movies and don't want to shift release dates unless they absolutely have to. It costs lots of money for them to have a marketing campaign and if they shift the date, they have to spend more money on marketing again. >Or, the other way around, if you know that you need this movie released in May 2025 or whatever, why not shoot it earlier?Scheduling is hard with all the actors, director, crew etc. Studios probably would like to shoot earlier but very often they just can't make the schedules work. Your problem is that you kind of naively assume that the studios are striving for making a great movie, but they really are not striving for that, they are just trying to make as much as money as possible.
>>198603010she's Wonder Woman, if she jumped off that balcony she'd be just fine.
>>198611975>do you really not have any idea what lighting is?What gave you that impression in my post? I literally brought up the issue of cinematographers.
>>198614598now that's just beautiful
>>198614598>>198614619
>>198615758Man, the risks they took to shoot this.
>>198614598>>198614619>>198615758
>>198614598I think this looks better when its a screenshot. If CGI could emulate that look and refine the movement to not look like reversed puppet footage, then it would be better.
