we have lost the technology to light night scenes like this
>>219895572Lost technology like they don't have the specs on the prisms needed to shoot through and all the physical prisms have been crushed to powder, or lost technology like it's harder than using the "auto-lighting" tool?
ai can do it
>>219895611lost technology like the way kids these days save everything to the cloud and ask Gemini to organize it when there's literally nothing stopping them from using their own C drive. they just dont know how
Hollywood used to light night scenes by sticking blue color filters in front of tungsten lights, but nowadays they just use dim white LED lights and maybe add some blue color grading in post-production.
>>219895634>ai can do it"blue nighttime tinting in the style of spielberg" works pretty well.
it's wild watching old mid movies and realizing they have much nicer photography than the stuff being passed as masterpieces today
>>219895572what we’ve learned is that they never wanted their films and shows to look like that, but they had to have some light for the film to capture any image at all.as soon as digital cameras they could film in very low light came out, they stopped using so much light.
the art of the forgotten 90's 6/10
>>219896832>>2198968587 looks so much better but can someone with knowledgte explain?
>>219896771Yea, cinematography fell off a cliff around 2014. It never recovered. The only director I've seen recently with good cinematography has been Robert Eggers.
It's not about having or not having the technology, it's about what the director wants. In the new Frankenstein Del Toro kept making the night have a sickly green tint to it.
>>219896771this
>>219896899One of the great fun things you can do to check is photography is kino or not, and you don't have the "eye" for it yet, is to B&W it. You'll realize it's a test of purpose and elegance. Look at this dogshit in B&W and every shot looks blurry, out of focus, low contrast. Was this done by a master of his craft? Was this done to convey specific themes and moods or just done by a lazy hack? Will this stand the test of time, timelessness? Would you hang any of these frames as a still photograph?
>>219895572Lighting in general. Movies just look flat and washed out
See how it feels like it could be a native B&W film? Contrasts are crisp. The blacks are deep. Everything is in focus, framing is so tasteful and impeccable, the only blurriness is purposeful, etc.
>>219896832fuck it's so beautiful
Here's another majestic example of applying the B&W test of a modern movie that succeeds, is sumptuously shot by people who actually gave a shit about their craft. Could actually be an actual 30's B&W classic shot by old masters.
>>219897080>>219897140swapped pics/comments
>>219895572movies?>>219896771>>219896886movie?
>>219896969Have never seen this, but my gut instantly said "Argento". Looked it up and was right. Sad his films started looking worse with each passing decade.
>>219897324The Star Chamber (1983)One False Move (1991)Repo Man (1984)
The Keep. Terrible, but looks fantastic.
One of the reasons why the lighting was done much more carefully and calculated is the relative low dynamic range of film (around 10 stops for film stocks of late 70s), which was also the reason for deep blacks and high contrast.Modern digital cameras have absolutely insane dynamic range that makes DPs lazy, as you can fix many things later in post.
>>219895572Such a fucking annoying trend. I'd rather have the yellow piss filter then these fucking desaturated dark slop movies.
>>219895572>>219897324Rosemary's Baby / The Lair of the White Worm / Mr. VampireTerminator 2 / The Fellowship of the Ring / The Passion of the ChristPan's Labyrinth / Gladiator / The Shawshank Redemption
Come again?
>>219897895So they're just lazy.
>>219897955The key here is they are both lazy and indecisive.It's what many cgi artists complained about and part of why a lot of modern cg looks bad. Producers/directors don't have a vision and keep wanting to change things around all the time instead of allowing the work to be polished.
>>219897855something feels off
>>219898012Try removing nostalgia goggles.
>>219896832Darius Khondji just did Marty Supreme
>>219896771I was surprised to find out the next Dune movie is mostly being shot on 65mm film when the last two were shot entirely digtally.
>>219895611Like it's a chud buzzword.
>we have lost the technology to light night scenes like thisNo, they all got fired and unceremoniously let go out of the industry for the crime of having white skin and they didn't pass on what they had learnt because not only did the tech change, the attitude was is that we'll just fix it in post and there's not hing worth learning from them.
>>219900186>No, they all got fired and unceremoniously let go out of the industry for the crime of having white skinLike who? Who got fired? Post names.
>>219900052Yeah but they deliberately used old/vintage lenses in conjunction with shooting on film for that movie, so it is more dark and murky looking by design.
A basic slopfest slasher like Jason Lives is a literal clinic in lighting night shots compared to modern film making.
>millennial buzzword spam nostalgia threadPurge.
>>219895572Not the technology. Just the knowledge, it seems. Or rather, people who have the knowledge don't get hired anymore.
>>219896858Was JJ Abrams involved in that one?Anyway, those comments reminds me of how utterly bland and ugly trash like DUNC gets similarly praised for being "beautiful".
Guess this is a cinegrid thread now?Okay, have some then. I'll start with some older stuff.
Getting to some newer things now, relatively speaking.It's astonishing how before Y2K, even some random stuff with barely a budget managed to simply look good, considering what kind of trash we get nowadays even from AAA productions.
>>219895572what makes you think this is a night? night looks nothing like this irl
This one reminds me that I stille need to make grids for its sequels someday.
And another old one for the finish.
that's because blue used to mean night but now everything is always fucking blue all the time
I'm thinking these threads are just a poor excuse for the autist to dump his autistic collages on us
>>219901799I like it when anons post collages like that though.....
>>219901869I wonder who's behind this post
>>219901558In particular, blue (or more generally, "cool") lighting was chosen for night shots without extra light sources because any warm coloured light (red-orange--yellow spectrum) evoked a sense of actual sunlight, and therefore made things look more like a day shot. Even a composite white light would do that. And you had to use some kind of light, otherwise you'd not see anything.Of course, the other technique used in night shots was to use as little light as possible to basically just paint the shapes of everything you needed to be able to make out. "Chiaroscuro" at its peak. Before the invention of colour film, this was the only way to go about it, really, unless you wanted to tint your whole scene in one colour like some films from the silent era used to do. Either way, to get a good contrast in an overall still very dark picture, you'd use strong hard directional lights rather than soft ambient light sources, and shine them very deliberately, often only illuminating actors and objects from one particular angle. Quite often, backlighting was used to get just silhouettes. All of that not only conveyed the intended time of day (or rather of night), but also made for a very striking aesthetic.
kino thread OP
Are we forgetting something?
>>219901345Zefferelli wasn't a great director but damn if that is not one good looking well shot film. Hussey's tits on perpetual display was a great choice. Btw she said in an interview at a Q&A screening I saw that Z referred to her onset as Princess Boobies or something like that. LOL
>>219895697Wrong. Most night scenes are just white balance off.
>>219896771Its wild watching midass or even bad movies from the 90s and having better cinematography than good movies these days.
>>219906540We're at a point where soap operas from the 90s have better cinematography than contemporary big-screen Hollywood productions.
>>219906719Cant believe how good some of the early X files episodes looked. Mog most movies these days. 24 episodes a year. Not 8 ep seasons once 3 years
>>219900221>Who are these countless private people who lost their jobs in movie set lighting?? WHO ARE THEY??Do you realize you are retarded
>>219895611rightoids use it to describe things that used to exist before their deregulation and corruption caused inflation to skyrocket, and deflect blame onto some invisible "woke" boogieman
