[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
▼ Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film
Return Catalog Bottom Refresh
Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.
[Advertise on 4chan]
[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]
Anonymous Archived
 No.223461755
File: file.png (1.93 MB, 1894x1080)
1.93 MB PNG
 No.223461755 Archived
Kubrick literally solved movie lighting by proving that using natural lighting will always improve your scenes, Barry Lyndon is probably the most beautiful movie because of it with every scene looking like it can be a painting.

So why don't directors continue using this method, is natural lighting a lost art?
>>
Anonymous
 No.223461853
 No.223461853
you have no idea what you’re talking about
>>
Anonymous
 No.223461973
 No.223461973
>>223461755
There's maybe hundreds of thousands of watts of artificial light pouring through that window.
>>
Anonymous
 No.223461991
 No.223461991
>>223461755
Because no one is as talented as Kubrick and his crew, and modern cinema audiences are now much greatly proportioned with plebs.
[Return] [Catalog] [Top]
Post a Reply
Return Catalog Top Refresh
[Advertise on 4chan]
Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.