Why is Cinematography so bad now?
>>203640964the lightningthe modern lightningthat and the fact everything is done in "post production"you could basically call modern post production "adding filters like on instagram"
>>203640964I like how compared to that horrifying/unsettling bottom image the mundane top image is suddenly kinography.
Bottom is better>eyes are drawn to the yellow jacket or column>if you look at the column, your mind has to decide why so you dona quick scan of the background for interesting details>otherwise you look at the character, as intended>"but she's BLACK aahhhhhh"So?
everything is centered so it can be on tiktok format.
>>203641162bottom is blurry and looks like a video game wtf are you talking about
>>203640964Digital looks cheap and greasy.Lighting fucking sucks, same with filters.Staging is atrocious, modern movies feel so lifeless and stiff even with all their shaky cam rapid cut tricks.Acting is now brutal in nature, with an emphasis on muh realism human condition method of acting over dramatic methods of acting.Basically everything is wrong with how films are shot today.
>>203641162>blur the background so the production doesn't add shit in this already tasteless movie>you're forced to witness another nigger and his mediocre 50 years old hairstyle>justifies it with an assburger take
>>203641231>with an emphasis on muh realism human condition method of acting over dramatic methods of acting.lol i wish, modern inter-personal interactions are so unrealistic i might as well watch tiktok for more realism.
>>203641445just watch the black chick from The Bear. Its like she doesnt need a script at all"so um.. yeah um.. you ok chef... or like.. are we... gonna even make? food?.. yeah sure.. ok... yeah right.
>>203640964>the higher your depth of field the better your cinematographywhat
>>203640964Did you think living in a nonwhite world would be nice?
>>203640964Digital capture and post allows prosucers to demand boring cinematography that can be more tailored to their desires in post and also do fuck around in post to get the look they want. Most famous example is World War Z.
>>203641162i don't want to watch shows with blacks in them. why is this so difficult to understand?
>>203640964digital cameras unironically
>>203641162>have to blur the background so the viewer looks at what you're trying to show them
>>203640964Why does top look so comfy?
>>203640964digital sucks, tarantino was right about that
>>203641669>>203641151Exactly the top is just a standard shot from caddyshack, but compared to everything today it looks great
>>203641162exquisite bait, take notes kids
>>203640964The bottom picture is way too dark if you catch my meaning.
>>203640964Cinematography studies became 100% about gay framing symbology and completely forgot about composition. Nobody gives a fuck about the slight green in the frame representing a presented character’s acute greed or whatever the fuck. I hated those classes, felt like they were full off joyless fucks who do not have fun just watching movies.
>>203642048>compositionWhat is that?
Many HD cameras make everything awful. The extra fidelity had taken away something we took for granted.Compare this shot of Peep Show, where it was basically filmed on a camcorder
Sorry forgot pic
>>203642275Here's season 10, the fidelity has been boosted, they're using advanced lighting instead of whatever is natural. It feels like you're watching something unnatural. It's an uncanny valley
>>203641231The "greasyness" of digital is because of denoising filters, some of which are applied by smart TVs.
>>203642297And there's always Sunny, Charlie Day understood that the 3:4 camera made the show funnier, it had soul. Mac wanted HD widescreen because he thinks "bigger is better" and it fucked everything up. It went from what felt like a very natural sitcom that felt like it was recorded on the spot, to a gag show.
>>203642305>>203642329I can believe it
>>203640964The bottom is intellectually condescending. It's like those images that have a big red circle around literally the only thing in the picture, you know, just so you don't miss it.Yeah, she's the center of attention. We get it. You don't have to blur out the rest of the room. Now let us watch the movie how we please.
>>203642329soul>>203642349souless
>>203640964>Why is Cinematography so bad now?Unironically there are a LOT of women working in tv and film now.
>>203640964Even fucking tv movies looked better
>>203640964because in modern Hollywood everything need to be clean and sterile while being devoided of colors and lights, also digital garbage
>>203642899the ones on the right are all the same movie idiot
I fucking love black pussy
>>203643192YWNBAW
>>203642698whys kevin mccarthy droppin his balls on that desk
>>203641083>lightninggood morning saar!
>>203643220He had a vision of the future: Warner Bros is gonna ritualistically fuck Joe Dante while making Looney Tunes Back in Action.
>>203643350bollywood has better cinematography than most hollywood filmsthat's a fact btw.
>>203642899films on the left?
the availability of cheap computer editing makes for a lot of bad decisions, when letting nature run its course visually is just the logical choice. it looks fake. i used to regard filmcrews like a set of magicians at one point
>>203640964Digital. Literally that simple.
>>203640964back in the day you had to properly light sets, select film stock with certain ISOs, etc. Today everything is "fix it in post." Things are purposefully shot underexposed so they can just crush the blacks in DaVinci Resolve later.
>>203641174this is so stupid but it's true gen z has no attention span so the way they view movies is by seeing short clips of them uploaded on tiktok and it's always badly cropped because you can't expect them to be able to rotate their phones by 90°
>>203640964The two big issues here that I see is the shitty color grading and the out of focus background. The only time the background should be out of focus is in close ups that are outside with a bunch of trees or bushes or whatever. Otherwise an infinite depth of field should be used. The background tells a lot about what’s happening in the shot.
>>203641083This. 100% of every frame now has cgi effects glossed over and every faggot kid who watched Alien3 or The Matrix who are now directors gets all OCD and autismo over any bit of over-saturation of colors. They seem to think that muting colors, putting 3M car window tint over each frame makes their films look more immersive and life-like when, in fact, it makes them appear more pretentious and unnatural
>>203640964white balance is raycist
>>203642329truethis makes it some more 'real' or down to earth or something. making it the same as other series just makes it seem faker and more like a paid product
>>203644339the duellists
>>203642698yeah
bottom looks better. Top looks like a normal life. Bottom looks like a movie
>>203646847
>>203646847>Bottom looks like a movieThat's the problem
>>203646560>>203646518>>203640964You need to watch better movies
>>203641162everything now has a green or yellow tint like the matrix
>>203641508i dont like woke liberals, 90% of blacks are liberal. give me a city full of black religious conservatives
>>203642329charlie and retarded mac had a joking fight about that on their podcast
>>203647094Cope, david
>>203647094Post some
>>203640964Netflix lighting
Well there is the factor of directors deciding to use color filters to tint everything a shade of piss or corpse blue or Fanta Orange Soda. Then there's Zack Snyder type directors that decide "desaturate everything" and "serious cinema equals badly lit cinema" and "where we're going, we need more film grain than a Kansas wheat field!".I would say AI FILTERS should make cinema more interesting, but there's so many hack directors pretending to be famous that they're gonna abuse these options the worst ways possible. Imagine a movie where some hack decides "Dalle Cubism Filter" is the way to go. Or the first movie to be shot in "Tilt Shift Filter" to make everything look like a Matchbox Playset.
>>203647153go to africa, there are whole countries of conservative religious blacks. you can even pick muslim, christian or some fucked animism.Or maybe haiti is more your style? Country of religious libertarian conservatives.
>>203643220feels good man
>>203640964i dont know what bottom is from but i would assume that it is drab because it is a shot of a stale depressing office. the intense focus on the black woman could be portraying the dissonance between yourself and the outside world people feel when working in offices for long periods of time. it's robotic nature is the main appeal as opposed to the top's humanity
>>203647440i know you're joking but many african cities are legitimately better than black democrat cities nowadays
>>203647819can you name 3?
>>203647855yeah
>>203641215>>203642475>>203641757Shallow depth of field is for tryhards and 16 year old girls with their first SLR camera.Anything other than a close up shot, which the negress shot is not, calls for deep focus, particularly for a setting like.I mean, it is clear that they're not using a long lens here, but they have still opted for a shallow depth of field, it's fucking stupid choice that an amateur photographer would make.
>>203647094even the le artsy films from europe look the same now
>>203640964you notice this most with cheap movier from then and now,watched rats 2 days ago. and because they used analog camera it fooled me to thinking i was watching a nice expensive production until the midpoint, if it was digital it would be apparent that the movie is a cheap piece of shit from the start.
>>203641231>Staging is atrocious, modern movies feel so lifeless and stiff even with all their shaky cam rapid cut tricks.It’s called blocking, or how the director positions the actors in the shot. Watch old shows and movies, and you see actors are blocked as if they’re still on a stage. And as many ITT have pointed out, most directors now block actors as if the audience is watching them through a phone screen.
>>203641162bottom has depth of field but is otherwise dull looking unless they wanted that intended effect on an office space
As a 20 year old in film school who has been posting here for close to a decade, what advice could you give me to avoid making slop like they pretty much instruct you to do nowadays?
>>203649580Its too late. you will be doing everything on a video camera now.It won't be possible for you to make kino unless you have wicked powerful networking or are jewish.
Digital can look good
>>203649771should be noted that this show used old camera lenses from the 70smaybe that's the big problem, aside from color grading that modern made-for-digital camera lenses are just bad looking. They overdo the depth of field, foreground is too sharp, background is too soft so it looks like a photo rather than cinematic.
>>203641162>So?so i don't like niggers and i especially don't like looking at them. duh
>>203640964Top is a specific film they don't make anymore, which gave 80s films their warm look. I forget the name.
designed for phones, like everything dogshit
we need more movies that looks like this
Bokeh is for Stacies who just picked up a camera
film > digitalits as simple as that, but some retards cant accept it
>>203649919Kodak 100T 5247
>>203640964Partly because of bad casting. Compare Brian Murray there with whatever the fuck that is on the bottom. No one wants to look at that shit.
>>203649952nice film, and hot lead too
>>203649973this, kino should have depth
>>203649892he's 100% right
>>203649792>muh lensesNOit's the lighting
shooting on digital and using modern super sharp lenses allows them to not use much light at all to get an "okay" image, which is an image without any depth or contrast and most times it's so dark you can't even see anything at all
>>203650431My girlfriend refused to finish Arrival because it was too dark. In hindsight, she made the correct decision.
>>203649688My dad has a few film cameras, I'm sure I could use those.
i cant believe im saying this but they should bring back studio lighting
The switch to digital. Something about digital has made people forget how to film.
>>203641162She's ugly black, they refuse to cast hot black women
>>203650664
>>203650709
>>203650679Low stakes low risk. If you make mistakes when shooting film, it's a very very expensive mistake.Digital you can just shoot and shoot for cheap. In theory this can give you more options to work with in editing but in reality it fosters a lazy and undisciplined approach.No magic is happening in digital shoots.
>>203650724
>>203650679>Something about digital has made people forget how to filmwhen you lower the bar of entry, more mediocre people enter
The ravages that the digital era have had on set design are not talked about enough.
Old sets were great. Outfit choices too, everything felt lived-in. not like they went to JCPenny's that morning and bought their whole wardrobe for the first time
I've been watching some less talked about movies from the 90/00s and what amazes me is how every movie had competent lighting that made it a joy to watch compared to even big budget movies today. Even made for TV movies have this certain cozy nostalgic look that I love even if there are no epic memorable shots.
>>203643076And the left ones are all from the same movie as well, The Duellists.Even more, it's a comparision between Ridley Scott's first and latest movies, showing how much he fell.
>>203650679>Something about digital has made people forget how to film.There's a fun movie about this, the switch to digital changes a lot of the process where you can instantly see the result meanwhile with film you had to trust the cinematographer, the lighting technicians. Actors had deliver their best and trust that the director got it right and gave proper directions. With digital, actors get to see right away and want to change this or that in their delivery or in the scene. Essentially too many cooks in the kitchen.
>>203640964It's mainly the lighting and colour grading.The green/yellow tint that EVERY FUCKING MOVIE uses lately is fucking eye vomit to me. The teal/orange days at least worked in the sense that blue was a natural contrast to skin tones, where this shit that's tinted green with every white/highlight being yellow is just fucking disgusting to look at.Excessive use of depth of field, like already mentioned, doesn't need to be used all the time.
>>203651048I forgot to mention, the way they overly use a deep depth of field while at the same time grading the image so fucking flat gives it a very unnatural and incredibly unappealing look.Have colour graders forgotten there's something called "contrast"?? Why are images always so fucking flat looking.
>>203642329like everything, charlie was right about this and how going high fidelity turned them into the type of show they were meant to be parodying>>203650834the 4k resto of this movie looks absolutely incredible.
could something that looks like this be produced with digital?
>>203650431>hire amy adams>forget to turn the lights on
>>203649771looks gray
>>203650431Dogshit movie
>>203641162Imagine being so inept that you make the eyes of the viewer go to a random column in the background, instead of the character that's 1/3 of the frame
>>203649580If you don't use digital cameras (that woll force you not to cheese things) and actually hire someone competent with lighting, you are automatically half the road opposite to making slopThe script literally doesn't matter and never ever read one and think "woo this is great it's going to be the next big thing!" It's notAll the magic is in the actors making it feel real
>>203640964No fixing mistakes. There's zero chance modern movies do dailies or look at anything until it's completely finished.
>Incompetent jews like Spielberg and Snyder can make 4k and 8k cameras perform worse than a schlock movie director from the 80s.
>>203651864>The script literally doesn't matterNot going to watch your slop
we will never go back to movies looking like this
>>203640964Way too zoom, everything if filmed too damn close. Like, take a step back and stop shaking that fucking camera, i want to see the fucking film.
>>203650431The (black) cinematographer who shot that piece of shit stopped shooting movies and nowadays directs commercials. Good riddance.
>>203641757Modern shit usually lacks subtletly, everything is brutish and in your face.
>>203647855Arusha, Mombasa, and Abdijan
the first shot in rebel ridge looked so bad that I thought it was an HDR rip at first.Everything is so muted that the bright sunlight hitting the trees almost look like a day-for-night situation. Baffling that this is how you want to start off your film, with this shot. Legitimately looks broken
Even low budget horror from the 80s looked better than modern digital slophttps://youtu.be/aFaNbnLGRoM?si=Ig5xRH76O1-tfo1K
>>203651471With great difficulty, and not EXACTLY like that, but yes if people really worked for it.
>>203640964Competency crisis. The new cinematographers and directors are often mediocre
>>203652245It doesn't look like day for night but it looks like the monitor is in low power mode.
>>203640964cause there's an ugly poof headed nigger in front of the camera
>>203650689>implying
>>203652533How do I become a competent cinematographer in 2024?
>>203652565no it doesn't look like day for night but it has that same effect, where you see sharp, black shadows in a "night shot" Clearly seeing the bright sunlight hit the trees but completely muted in a way that looks jarring and unnatural.
Deep focus, static camera, longer takes, and realistic colors and lighting are objectively superior. However, it takes vision and skill and planning. With digital, you can record as much as you want and edit it later. If it's all shallow DOF close ups you don't have to worry about continuity and blocking. Just slap everything together later. They don't even bother with over-the-shoulder to pretend like the actors are interacting anymore. The number and frequency of cuts in modern movies is dizzying but I guess Tiktok viewers are used to it. They unironically love those videos where one "comedian" talks to himself by facing left and right to portray different characters with a cut after every 3 words. Sometimes they cut in the middle of their own sentence because they got the line wrong but are too lazy to get it clean.
>>203652882Only someone with a total lack of vision would even try to argue for any of that being "objectively" superior. You'd fit right in in modern Hollywood.
>>203652924t. tiktok addict
>>203650689Show just one
I can't even tell what you people are complaining about now.
>>203652924Go make sure all the lighting in Suspiria is "realistic" you braindead Villeneuve fanboy.
>>203653086>Villeneuve fanboylmao what
>>203640964The new movies look like ads now. At least back then they tried to make their propaganda look like art.https://youtu.be/YpUTBBdb4UM
>>203649580Watch Every Frame a Painting on youtube.
>>203651471the Versailles arc gate is exactly how it looks in real life, yup, realism is the way to go with film
>>203640964The top image isn’t forcing your eyes anywhere. It’s something anyone would film. The bottom image is forcing you to focus only on the girl. You can almost tell that it’s a conversation where the girl has a witty comeback to something someone else tells her.
>>203653086Practically no lighting in Suspiria is realistic, but it is beautiful and filled with rich colors which highlights the decorAbsolute opposite of the desaturated blue, cyan, orange full frame tinting that plagues everything aiming for a 'modern' lookWhy the fuck would you bring up Villeneuve, his cinematography is just as bad as any other 'modern' movie
>>203640964Because film school now focuses far more on the content of films rather than how to actually make films
Whoever invented that sickly bluish-green filter needs to be put before a tribunal for their crime against cinema.
>>203652533I wish they would hire me, I'm white and just autistic enough to make sure shit looks good
>>203640964Back in the day, cinematographers went to art school first and then learned their trade as apprentices, nowadays they start off making TicToc videos and tv commercials before moving on to movies and it clearly shows.
>>203647819I'm not joking, you're retarded and I'd prefer to have you in Africa where you belong
>>203640964>>203641231>Modern shit usually lacks subtletly, >everything is brutish and in your faceIf that's the way you want to put it. (Daily reminder that the movie came out in 2017!)
I recently rewatched Mean Girls and I loved how warm that movie looked. Just made me happy.
>>203656181Forget to include >>203652118.
>>203650320>it's the lightingEven when it's shot outdoors in the daytime?
>>203656305yeah. they do use lighting outside too
>>203641162>if you look at the column, your mind has to decide why so you dona quick scan of the background for interesting detailsThe background is out of focus specifically so that you don't do that. Haven't seen whatever it is from, but it seems intentionally uninteresting.
Why are movies so blurry nowIt's like no one gives a fuck and I'm the crazy one but how can people look at those movies with blurry screens and say "yeah this is fine"
>>203656453>Why are movies so blurry nowBecause it's a lazy way to do less work
>>203647605well, black women are depressing and they do make me feel isolated and dehumanized ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>203640964I've noticed that movies in the 80's and 90's looked far warmer than more modern movies.
>>203646560
>>203656181its like these fuckers dont even know what blocking is
>>203650938I appreciate this one. Spanking new clothes drive me crazy. The small details add up for sure, I might be an autistic retard for noticing but it hits the viewer's brain either way.Sets for sure. A bar that looks like some tree fort with LED lights. Can't do it. The worst is when they are handed a bottle that's clearly empty and not cold. Here's one, stylish, well made, good camera work.
>>203656868jen tilley is hot
>>203650938>Outfit choices too, everything felt lived-inBecause a lot more costume and set designers would either go to thrift stores or get brand sponsorships to get stuff for their movies, which is the way to go if you want characters that look like they actually wear the clothes they wear. It's also a lot cheaper.It keeps the movie and the characters from looking too sanitary or artificial, like you said.
>>203649771>urine soaked clouds>good
>>203650026Hit the nail on the head.
>>203640964Directors are lazy and studios are concerned with finding names that do what they're told, not film school graduates.Staging is virtually unknown in modern Hollywood.
>>203642899
>>203658168Unironically the 35mm scans of SOVs Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith look way better than the 4k digital versions lol
>>203658356
>>203652924hi retard, keep watching streamer slop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vET6sHCq87o>we'll fix it in post: the short
>>203659283>le painted statuesLiteral propaganda. Same with the exposed genitalia on statues.
Digital is kino just watch Mann's Collateral and Miami Vice
>>20364096450% of movies are either overly blue or overly orange nowadays
>>203641162Certified retard. The woke shit isn't the issue.
>>203640964Not bad just bland. We've finally reached the fully clean and perfect look celluloid boomers were always looking for. It's natural most movies look the same, specially period dramas and the like, but good cinematography is a combination of set design, lightning, composition and a bunch of other shit, in a fully digital world, with endless chances for post clean up and endless amounts of data, people (not just the camera dep, but also set design guys and directors) tend to get lazy.
>>203660108>Miami Vice (2006)>kinoThe original series is the actual kino; the cinematography, art direction, and composition in that series outright humiliates most movies at the time, let alone TV series (apart from maybe Magnum P.I, China Beach, and some certain miniseries).
>>203656565I would show her some love. Al least she can read.
>>203659947How much time and money did Vlado waste on this shit
>>203656664What are you trying to say here?
>>203658356They always get the actors to rub dirt on their faces for some reason. Apparently this makes it more realistic.?
>>203652180I think he meant safe cities
>>203659283Painted nude statues. Proof globohomo is not some modern development.
>>203660689>in a fully digital worldThis is the problem. In a fully digital world it shouldn't be hard in theory to stylize movies and imprint a strong direction given it's much easier to edit now than before. You can change colors, add filters, and even add lighting if you want to; and yet instead you end up with slop like Napoleon or Inception with the grayscale sludge look instead.It's really remarkable going back to big movies early on that either shot on digital or were shot on film and used lots of CG like Sin City or Fight Club that received strong praise for their direction and their effects by the industry at the time; it seemed to be a given, and yet instead the grayscale look has prevailed since the late 00s onward.
>>203640964that smug african american face she makes is really aggrevating. at the same time that archetype feels entitlement and superiority while those two feelings are only there as her coping mechanism for being, on an objective level, inferior to all teh white people
>>203641757It kin of hurts my eyes to look at the bottom one
>>203643350>>203644218He knows because he's worked on a few Disney films and shows in the FX department.Seriously, look at the credits for these movies.
>>203660812come on, it was fun
>>203660912K, sub it with Bata or Libreville
>>203641757>>203640964It's not that I don't generally agree but the cherry picking here is kind of retarded
>>203661567>random shots from a pair of insignificant mediocre films from different times meant to demonstrate general trends in filmmaking>cherrypicking
>>203641162It's not even in the correct aspect ratio, retard.>>203641083This>>203640964The first one has a sense of depthThe truth is, they just had better cameras.These days it's just "muh pixels" and "muh colors" shit, we moved a multi-dimensional discipline to a 2d grid and it all went to shit in barely four (fünf) years. Compare slop from 1999 to slop in 2003}
>>203662448Doesn't help that film schools moving away from teaching the technical aspects of filmmaking less has made everything worse too.And yes, that shift really is remarkable. I mean, fuck; me just watching movies like Fight Club or Shallow Hal that were produced in the 90s or VERY early 00s and comparing it to stuff after 2004, everything is completely different.
>>203652626Study the old films and understand how they made them. Just choose something from the 90s and only think about two things>where is the camera located>where are the light sources locatedfrom there you will learn how camera position/light source position creates an effect. Essentially reverse engineer a scene and you will notice pattern which will give you principles. Then see if you can use those principles to create a shot with the same effect.
>>203652626Also, try and find some old books about film making. Things from the 70s to 90s. I would really treat the process as if I was a medieval italian searching for and studying the works of the ancients, and from that creating the renaissance.
always study lighting
>>203641162Top>full of color> full of lifeBottom>greyed out >african in the center
>>203664256dumb question but back then could you still photograph a scene (using the same film as the shooting stock) before shooting to get an approximation of how it would look when shooting? or was it unecessary?
>>203664486I do not know. Sorry.
>Make everything muted>Make the colors more uniform across the frame>dark but low contrastThis seems to be the philosophy of color grading these days.
even this looks better than most stuff today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFGx9Xt0EEk&ab_channel=CinemaStix
>>203664587ok
>>203664651What you do is look through the lens before you film
>>2036646182nd half of 2000s everything was too saturated and too contrasty.
>>203664702This, the Nazi scene looks like it's from Breaking Bad
>>203642899>these are the same director
>>203664486look through your hands like this
>>203640964black people are aesthetically unpleasing
even night scenes used to be lit
>>203640964My favorite is when directors ruin their own fucking movies because I guess the way to make a good movie in the 21st century is to intentionally make it look bad.
>>203641669The top, which I think is a scene from Caddyshack, is a lived-in set with regular people in front of it, with realistic lighting and no filters.Because of that it looks natural, and comfy
>>203640964>>203664902
>>203664902That's why directors shouldn't be involved in the process of remastering. They have a completely different relationship to their movies than what fans of it do, so they change with time and think that change should be reflected in their older movies.
>>203651471>satuation>contrastwtf is this shit
>>203640964they couple anamorphic lenses with poor lighting which results to the picture being ugly
>>203664855I heard a story once about an actor or somebody getting a stick up his butt about a night shoot, and demanded to know where the light was coming from. The DP said the same place the music's coming from. I always thought that was clever.
>>203664689>>203664784No im not talking about framing im talking about exposure and lighting. Our eyes can adjust for lighting better than film aperature/shutter. so im wondering how they made sure a scene was properly lit before shooting
>>203640964CGI and digital killed cinema and don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise
>>203665091>made sure a scene was properly lit before shootingwith a light meter
>>203650431this
>>203665155hey i made that image. thanks for using it anon :)
>>203640964and guess what, the only time cinematography is still today is when directors decide to shoot on film! imagine that
>>203665113both can be done well. people just arent familiar enough with the tech they are using
>>203665177from a cool car to a generic Honda than everybody own
>>203665266They've had 25 years to familiarize themselves with digital cameras but ultimately decided the best way to create movies nowadays is to have your credits be filled with computer artists named Rajeet Minaj and put a shitty teal and orange filter on every frame
>>203664934Fallen Angels Minus Color
>>203664902Disgusting.
>>203644339The DuellistThe DuellistsThe Duellist 3Duellist: Origins The D4ellists
>>203640964Top has humanity, bottom lacks humanity, and no this isn't a racist joke. Top frame isn't meant to look stylish, it's part of a larger narrative. The people in it look real and you can tell what their dynamic is through framing and body language.Bottom frame looks like an ad. Lighting and colour grading is meant to be stylish but just looks artificial. The image is screaming at you to consider the woman to be important but her acting is unconvincing - we can see her awareness of the camera. The shallow depth of field distances her from the office environment when we should be associating her with it instead. The extras in the background are faceless blurs and so may as well not exist. It's asking to be considered a certain way instead of simply being so.
>>203665177Look at that lovely teal and orange filter... the tasteful thickness of it... oh my God, they're even using a green screen on a set for the car
>>203642899>>203664774 Ridley Scott clearly still fucks a ton of chicks despite being a limpdicked old man who should have given it up years ago. Everyone else is afraid to tell him his vision is off. Same with all the other big directors that have gone blue in old age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanopsia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6le-ginceM
>>203664618That's because Mr. Bean is a master of the visual. The sound-mixing might be shit, though.
Remember when the GoT episode aired and they had the audacity to tell everyone that it wasn't their fault, everyone just had to buy a new tv and calibrate it properly to see what the fuck was going on? I had a highly rated new OLED with a great calibration and I still couldn't see shit. All because dumb and dumber wanted the visuals of fire going out in that retarded scene where they send the famed horse archers to cavalry charge the undead enemy that won't break formation with some burning swords. They didn't even have the burning swords before the red witch teleported in from nowhere to light them on fire.
"we'll fix it in post" became a mantra and no one ever has the energy to actually do the things in post that they planned when they skipped all the hard work while shooting. Like every procrastinator who keeps saying he'll study for the test tomorrow, until there isn't enough time to study at all or he gets bored and decides it's better to get a good night's sleep the night before the test than to study. It used to be that you couldn't fix it in post and so the procrastinators had no way of getting away with it.
>>203650971>Ridley Scott's first and latest movies, showing how much he fell.not his fault, he can't change how things work nowadaysit's progressif you woke up tarkovsky, kubrick, or kurosawa from death even their movies would be shit
>>203652074every interior shot in that movie made it look like an electrical system brownout was in progress.
>>203640964I hate color grading, just film reality.We don’t need low iq colors to tell us how to feel in real life, ban it.
>>203667446Sad but true. Miyazaki was really the last pioneering 20th century oldfag director whose career went out with a bang recently given Coppola was off on Megalopolis, Eastwood went out with a wet fart in Cry Macho, and Scorsese hasn't made anything great since Hugo. Everyone else has either retired, died, or gone the Ridley Scott route of diminishing returns.>KurosawaHis movies were already shit by the time he retired, Dreams was a meme movie.
>>203646518This movie look cool. Title plus QRD?
Everything is too sterile now, nothing looks like a real location. Backgrounds are pristine even when presented as filthy. Nothing is out of place or draws your attention, it may as well be filmed in a concrete room with nothing in it. Low lighting, digital, and CG killed good cinematography and camera work in general
>>203640964Bottom is better, top is too realistic.
Film used to cost a lot of money to make. So every shot was meticulously lit and planned before it was shot. This created care and thought put into any scene. Now they just film whatever slop they want thinking it can be fixed in post production.
>>203660973I think that since so much less effort is needed to shoot and edit in digital, it kinda breeds more laziness.
>>203657169industryfag here, i've done low budget shit. costume designers STILL go to thrift stores and salvation army all the time for wardrobethe problem is as other anons said, are the cameras. it's still too sterile/clean and makes the clothes look that way too
>>203665061it's that same feel as light bulb vs led
>>203641162It looks like a commercial. kys
The Cell has such awesome shots.Also, The Fall.
>>203669403Dang, had no idea cameras that powerful did that even to shit clothes.>>203669297For sure, it's just interesting given if you asked somebody what the effects of digitization in the film industry would be 20 years ago you would've gotten a completely different answer.
>>203669669This is true of all movies now. They are hugely overdesigned. The telecine is often nuts. Nothing looks normal. This is fine for some kino. But often it's better for a film to just look real (even if it is styilized). A lot of 80's stuff simply didn't go beyond the fundamentals and ends up looking better than something that is filmed entirely on expensive sets and color graded to hell and back. Alot of these techniques were done in the 90s and 2000s to make music videos and commercials stand out on low budgets. If you're making O'Brother Where Art Thou, fair enough. It suits the material and tone. But imagine if the Coens digitally rainbowed color graded and wes andersoned the production design on Fargo or No Country
>>203665418Pathetic, truly
>>203650834the original SW movie always reminds me of WofO in the way it looks
>>203649881Based. Fuck orcs and fuck orc worshipers
>>203669714The Cell is several levels of kino>comfy FBI cat and mouse shit>dream sequences are full Japan style psych horror by that chick who did the Dracula costumes>prime Jlo ass shotsIt's fantastic.
>>203669804>Alot of these techniques were done in the 90s and 2000s to make music videos and commercials stand out on low budgets. If you're making O'Brother Where Art Thou, fair enough. It suits the material and tone. But imagine if the Coens digitally rainbowed color graded and wes andersoned the production design on Fargo or No CountryThere are still choices for "Auteurs" (or autism type directors) beyond AI tweaking of Style Transfers... OPTICAL ILLUSION TECHNIQUES.COLOR ASSIMILATION GRID ILLUSION https://www.sciencealert.com/crazy-optical-illusion-makes-your-brain-see-colour-in-a-black-and-white-photoCreated by digital media artist and software developer Øyvind Kolås as a visual experiment, the technique, which Kolås calls the 'colour assimilation grid illusion', achieves its effect by simply laying a grid of selectively coloured lines over an original black-and-white image."An over-saturated coloured grid overlaid on a grayscale image causes the grayscale cells to be perceived as having colour," Kolås explains on his Patreon page.=== When I thought this was interesting when I ran across it, I figured I could replicate it easily too. Using XARA PHOTO & GRAPHIC DESIGNER as a baseline tool, what I did was take a colorful photo, reduce it to grayscale. I overlaid both images on top of each other with color on top. Then using the TRANSPARENCY LAYER I created a basic cross pattern which XARA treated as a bitmap.By doing this I could now freely rescale, rotate, shift the transparency layer to subtract color from the color image showing the B&W image below. This meant I could change up patterns, distance, and any other factor at will to my preferences. To tweak SATURATION, I used XARA's color editing tool to easily alter saturation to be about 25% more saturated, the more color you let through by pattern width, the less saturation boosts required.It might be novel to alter pattern characteristics in a movie or to save ink costs on billboards.
>>203642899God, Ridley Scott has become such a fucking hack.
>>203652245I don't remember one good thing from that movie and I just watched it afew days ago
>>203659975what about the painted frescoes showing the statues were painted and nude?
Ruby Sparks was shot digitally and it looks like 35mm.I don't think they even added a 35mm film emulation effect or made a filmout for the Blu-ray.>>203664902The remaster for As Tears Go By and Days of Being Wild in the box set was not supervised by WKW, and they look much better and less revisionist.In fact, they're closer to the original releases, while earlier Blu-rays had alterations.
And here's another version using a different color transparency pattern. COLOR ASSIMILATION GRID ILLUSIONhttps://www.sciencealert.com/crazy-optical-illusion-makes-your-brain-see-colour-in-a-black-and-white-photoAs you can see, it creates the illusion of color on a budget. BUT WAIT ... Who says you only have to have ONE LAYER of color? You can have an entirely different color scheme and pattern overlaying that pattern. On the grid line pattern you can insert dots or squares with and entirely different color scheme, which creates a new illusion of color shifts and you could toggle gradient boxes of colorIn my XARA replication of this trick, I used a generated basic bitmap pattern on the transparency, but I could also use gradient squares (shifting from 100% transparent to 0% transparent). Meaning the pseudo-color illusion can be tweaked even further.For video the process is similar with a masking overlay, but you'd have to probably generate your transparency masks outside your video editing program, but the process literally shouldn't be much harder than my experiment in XARA duplicating the concept.Note that this trick genuinely could reduce Billboard Costs by using literally spot colors on a greyscale big image. So it's most interesting for print processes, but since TV resolution has gone way up, videos could easily explore these types of illusions.
>>203671754Ruby Sparks, btw.Shot digitally and it looks more filmic than Dune, which was printed out to 35mm.
>>203671754>>203671830
>>203671754>>203671830>>203671857
>>203671498>>203671769so a retarded software dev discovered dot matrix printing? irrelevant, kys
>>203665649I pirated DUNC and managed to fuck up the codecs installation in such a way that the movie very slowly got progressively darker scene after scene. I actually noticed that something was off only all the way at final duel
>>203671901>>203671857looks nice im sick of two decades of 2k 4k digital flat boring looking crap
>>203641162shes cute and im racist but it looks like SHIT
>>203642899Good lord.I didn't see Napoleon, but methinks The Duelists is one of the prettiest pictures ever. It looks like a landscape painting from the era it takes place in.This comparison makes me sad.>>203641083This, unfortunately, makes way too much sense...
>>203665649LOL i had a pretty bright LCD and when i rewatched it (never reviewing got again) still couldnt see SHIT
>>203671901classic
>>203672044Again. This was shot digitally, and it was back in 2012, when digital cameras generally looked worse than they do now.And yet it looks better than most films nowadays. It looks more filmic than DUNC or that new Ghostbusters which also had an analog intermediate process like DUNC.
>>203641162Top has way more depth, not just cos of focus, but also because of the framing and set design. There's actually stuff for the camera to capture above and to the side of the actor in the center that adds to the scene.
>>203640964There's nothing wrong with the "cinematography" in the second shot, if you can discern such things from a single shot anyway. You probably meant mise en scene, but you're very likely just fuming and headpunching about black people again.
>>203671955>so a retarded software dev discovered dot matrix printing? irrelevant, kysNot exactly, look at the images, they are greyscale with oversaturated spot color patterns.Color Assimilation Grid Illusion (video)https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7jJ10OZH2SUBiggest defects are when the video pans in the direction of the grid axis, there's a stuttering issue.ILLUSIVE COLOR MIXINGhttps://www.giannisarcone.com/wp/blog/tag/color-assimilation/Now you're saying, what value aside from saving color ink costs? Well there is the "artistic" factor, and Music Video factor (which is considerably less important these days), but the elusive factor is one director confusing other directors by saying "I can do this, are you smart enough to rip me off?" But you can use this to introduce other factors of interest.Note this more complex pattern. You could overlay the slightly more saturated version on top of a slightly desaturated movie, then you could fuck around with it. Shifting it, warping it, zooming it. To normal human eyes at a distance the viewers might not notice anything, but to the people sitting closer, it'll be a trippy light show.It's an artform where the folks in the front row seats get a rollercoaster experience and the ones in the back rows only see a normal movie. You don't even have to use this trick on the whole movie. Imagine a woman walking in with a dress color pattern that uses this trick, as it shifts and rotates, but the rest of the movie scene is normal. Classic HE-MAN cartoons from the 1980s used this trick with magic energy colors, a shifting alternating color pattern with every other frame. In Terry Pratchett's books he calls it Octarine.https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/OctarineIt is described in The Colour of Magic as the colour of imagination and is a fluorescent greenish yellow-purple (using all the primary colours). The only time non-wizards can see it is when they close their eyes; the bursts of color are octarine.
>>203640964>>203641083This pretty much nails it but there are also subtle details like the costuming and the fact that people were sweaty in older films. There was also a sort of revolution of a "milky" look in the 2010s to now. Watch Blue Ruin, good movie but the blacks look almost gray.
>>203641669Organic. It's natural and not clinical. Far comfier.
>>203672151because all the good DP's died off and retired new ones make even worse slop than music video directors (which ironically used to make kino in the 90-00s)
One last bit that might be obvious if you can think deeper on the value of this "Color Assimilation Grid Illusion". And this bit everyone can use cheaply.Let's say you've got a Moire Color Issue in a video or image.Moire Shirt Videohttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jXEgnRWRJfgOkay, you've got distracting Moire.Using the inverse of the Color Assimilation Grid Illusion, you create a desaturated pattern like Floyd–Steinberg dithering. Then overlay a clipmask on top of your problematic Moire Zon.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd%E2%80%93Steinberg_ditheringYou can now slightly irregularly easily desaturate a Moire away from the troublesome object without losing much of the color spectral range.
>>203656181Such ugly orcs
>>203660771Your a cuck. You don't get sex... Ever
>>203640964
