Why is modern cinematography so awful?
women were allowed outside the home and now we have everything wrong and bad in the world
>>221283896I feel like there has to be a reaction to this modern style. We have to return to natural lighting and deep perspective.
Top is film, bottom is digital. Film just looks better. Digital can look good too, but 99% of the time they shoot it a certain way, say "we'll tweak it post", then do nothing.
>>221283896Streaming services have bery specific guidelines that directors must follow. Netflix tells cinematographers what cameras they are allowed to use, what color pallette is allowed, what lights can be used, and what lenses are allowed. These guidelines based on audience clicks and views. Apparently audiences slightly watch more movies with a specific color pallette or camera. So Netflix decided all their movies must have it.Similar to how YouTube used to push videos that have the thumbnail where everyone puts their face on it with a wide open mouth or a big giant arrow pointing to something. It's all algorithm based.
Lost art, piece of shit boomers refused to teach the next generation
>>221284139this
>>221283896Digital cameras is the answer you're looking for. Watch Farscape, the first four seasons were shot on film and it's kino the whole way. The miniseries was shot on digital and it feels like a completely different and much crappier show.
>>221284139>Digital can look good too, but 99% of the time they shoot it a certain way, say "we'll tweak it post", then do nothing.I actually think the problem really comes from the Tarantino-fanboy filmschool culture where they're all trying to replicate styles they've seen on film using digital cameras even tho film was a necessary component to the style. Michael Bay shot 6 Underground on digital where before he'd always used film. It wasn't a great movie or anything but he was able to get a Michael Bay movie out of a digital camera. Where Bad Boys 3 was attempting to replicate a Michael Bay film on digital by someone who didn't understand how Michael Bay was specifically using film to achieve the desired visuals and so it comes out looking flat and uninteresting which translates to a flat and uninteresting movie.
>>221284139You'll be surprised to know that film gets color graded too and the majority of film post-1990 was digitized, run through a machine for editing/grading and then put back onto film again (pre-1990 it was graded when being developed).The reason for the teal or orange for everything is because that became the "cinematic" standard and now everything does the same thing, for the simple reason that natural colors doesn't look like a movie.
>>221283896Everything has to be shot center-frame so that people can watch it on their phones, or else it looks like pic related. Anything outside that ratio is just background noise and probably just added in post since it's all filmed on greenscreen these days.Lighting is a dead art because everything's filmed in a warehouse under stark, sterile lighting so that shadows can be added by the indian CGI farm they hand it off to once they're done.Don't get me started on fight choreography.
>>221286924>Lighting is a dead art because everything's filmed in a warehouse under stark, sterile lighting so that shadows can be added by the indian CGI farm they hand it off to once they're done.Too true. I think The Marvels or some other movie around that time got a lot of shit for it, and it was revealed the people actually filming the movie on set had no idea how the final scene would actually look, as it was just a greenscreen and the location in the movie was undecided.
>>221284092real
>>221286924lamo i was just thinking about how new films look like they're made for tik toks and youtube shorts
>>221286924> fight coreographyplease continue
>>221283896I can’t put my finger on it and am not familiar with cinematography or filmmaking terms but at first glance the lighting seems to be fucked, the bottom is cold and very shitty. There is also somehow less detail on that retards face and the background is far too out of focus, like it’s more distracting than anything than what they would be drawing focus away from.
>>221283896The problem isn't necessarily film vs digital, it's HDR. They don't bother lighting movies anymore because the cameras capture so much more data now that they just 'light' scenes in post production with a LUT. It's given untalented, lazy people jobs because it's a cheaper way to make a movie which is all the studios care about.
About modern cinematography: I genuinely don't get what people see in Christopher Nolan's stuff in particular. Shallow focus so the backgrounds aren't used (and purposely muddy audio mix so the lines don't matter either), 2-3 second shots so often... What's his deal and why do most people like it?
>>221283896Are there any modern films that don't blur the background like a Jap's penis? Maybe that's part of the problem.
>>221287148Abusing depth of field (the background blur you see) has been a growing problem for along time, mostly because of normies. The issue has become that phones have everything in focus and don't have DOF, so background blur in their minds means something is more professional. This has carried over into the photography world (which I work in) where every normie buys a f1.4 or f1.8 lens and uses it wide open to get a super blurry background because they think it looks professional.Depth of field can obviously be good and well used, but a lot of the time it isn't anymore and everything just goes as wide open as possible.
its gotta be the soft focus and the blurred backgound thats throwing me off
>>221287094I mean you just have to look at any "action" scene in modern movies or TV these days to understand that it's just as dead as lighting.It's either constant jump-cuts so you can't see the stunt actors' faces or more commonly, just a bunch of people awkwardly rolling around and swinging swords like pool noodles.Streaming shows can spend hundreds of millions of dollars per episode and fights will look like a couple of grade school kids pretending to be Power Rangers at recess.
>>221287004Disney's got to be the worst for it. I don't know which movie or show it was but I remember seeing the shot of Samuel L. Jackson sitting there with a piece of wood in his hand covered in motion capture dots because they couldn't even bother to use a prop gun.That one shot of Ian Mckellen in the greenscreen hobbit hole with all the printouts of dwarf heads on sticks is just how every movie is made nowadays.
>>221283896>No crushed blacks/hard lighting>Destaurated colors>Mix of boring eye level stationary or stupid "crazy" floaty gimble oner shots and nothing in between>General lack of intentionality in blocking, composition and lighting >Digital cameras allow unlimited takes and low light levels so each shot has much less thought put into itThe whole shallow depth of field is inherently le bad thing is stupid, go back and watch literally any classic flim and you'll see that it's a valuable part of the cinematic language. It's like any other tool, it can be used skillfully or poorly. The problem is that it's used A. In inappropriate situations (like medium close ups and even wides) (OP bottom image)B. Uncreatively, even thing that are in the bokeh should still be visually interesting like in webm related. You can use movement or contrasting shapes and colors to make the composition dynamic even when they're out of focus. It should be like an Impressionist painting: the rules of composition still apply.
>>221287716she cute
