What is the actual non-cope reason movies look like this now? None of the reasons I've read make sense>It's because color graders use HDR monitors and it looks good to themThen how come it still looks bad on HDR monitors when I look at it? And wouldn't they know that their automatic color grading in their monitor is fucking up the way the frame looks?>It's because it reduces streaming bandwidth because narrower depth of field can be compressed easierSo it's to save 10% in bandwidth? Even though data streaming is 10x faster and cheaper now than it was 10 years ago, but things looked better then? >Washed out tones work better when watching on your phone because it is more visible despite glareCan't they just adjust the tones depending on where it is streamed? I assume it's gonna look just as bad in the theaters
>>223051797I don't see anything wrong with this
>>223051797its an attempt to mask the shitty CGI, if everything looks like shit the CGI doesn't stand out as much.
MCU movies are typically hack jobs where nobody is really interested in the movie being or looking good. They usually don't even have a script done by the time they're doing starting to work on the big spectacle sequences and even then they'll just decide to scrap it and replace it with something else last minute. its not even an assembly line process, there's just zero vision and people making changes to stuff all over the place and everyone just gives up on trying to stand their ground on anything.
>>223051797I read somewhere the Russos prefer using CG for everything because it’s less of a pain in the ass to exit and swap things out,
>>223051797Subliminal demoralization
>>223051797This board has already jumped on the bandwagon so everyone will tell you there is nothing wrong and they look amazing
>>223051797It literally is the bandwidth thing. You make everything washed out and bland looking and it saves you money. You have to remember nobody in the company cares what your data rates and bandwidth is, they care about their costs instead. If everything is going to end up on streaming anyway they're going to do whatever maximizes their profit. If they have to drain the color away to spend 10% less money they'll do it
The actual answer, OP: digital cameras capture much MORE hues and details than analog, but analog captures them BETTER,sharperHere's a representation of what I'm sayingIn your OP pic, the details of the centinel are as present, even if not in focus, as the details of the cloth in the frontIt looks "washed out" because there's a lot of details and it's all in the screen, and your eyes get tired of all the details at the same time and becomes a smear on your mindThere's no focal point, there is no frame construction: All the scene is there and all the detail is there at all times.Meanwhile check my retard paint edit: There's clear directions for your eyes to look and there's focal points of interest
>>223051797It's because there's zero natural lighting, everything is shot on flat sound/screen stages, and they level it out and fuck with it more in post.
>>223051797>Then how come it still looks bad on HDR monitors when I look at it?Because if you're a tor-baby watching on your PC there's a million different things that could the problem and there's absolutely no point in trying to help someone who is too stupid to do their own research. It'd be like trying to teach basic arithmetic to some Somali that doesn't know what a pencil is.
>>223051797>What is the actual non-cope reason movies look like this now?
