Do yall agree with this about movies then and now?

False.

The look of a film has nothing to do with digital vs film. There are over a dozen factors and only 1 has to do with the camera and that is just the straight out of cam look which no one but cheap Tubi movies use.

Has everything to do with it, indirectly.

Same way practical effects from LOTR look a thousand times better than the special effects from The Hobbit.

Shooting on film requires extra attention to lighting and its know-how which digital does not. Less special effects also require lighting to do more heavy lifting. There's so much more stuff regarding colors to get into.

Directors and cinematographers have become very lazy because everything can now easily and cheaply be fixed in camera or in post. Over time the amount of people with specialized know-how and experience in movie lighting from film era has also dwindled since there was no reason to pass on the knowledge. Extra use of special effects also needs different lighting that isn't always realistic.

There's a reason why Nolan still shoots on film.

Even the math is mathin. In 2008, 90% of the top 200 highest-grossing movies were shot on film. As of 2017, 92% of films were shot on digital. You literally see the difference in between those years.

False.

The look of a film has nothing to do with digital vs film. There are over a dozen factors and only 1 has to do with the camera and that is just the straight out of cam look which no one but cheap Tubi movies use.

Entertainment and music peaked in 1996 B.P. (before Pac)

Isht been downhill ever since

It has to do with the lenses and grain

Movies nowadays are filmed on a hq lens, then color graded in post and a film grain is applied

Old days a lot of movies were pretty much graded or achieved their look in camera with filters etc...example Matrix

Also movies from the past were not wide screen 4k, everything is stretched now

I do feel 80s and 90s movies look way more cinematic, they have that saturated look, colors always pop, but there are still movies now and again which are visually stunning

Shooting on film the grain is already added, with digital everything is done in post

Has everything to do with it, indirectly.

Same way practical effects from LOTR look a thousand times better than the special effects from The Hobbit.

Shooting on film requires extra attention to lighting and its know-how which digital does not. Less special effects also require lighting to do more heavy lifting. There's so much more stuff regarding colors to get into.

Directors and cinematographers have become very lazy because everything can now easily and cheaply be fixed in camera or in post. Over time the amount of people with specialized know-how and experience in movie lighting from film era has also dwindled since there was no reason to pass on the knowledge. Extra use of special effects also needs different lighting that isn't always realistic.

There's a reason why Nolan still shoots on film.

Even the math is mathin. In 2008, 90% of the top 200 highest-grossing movies were shot on film. As of 2017, 92% of films were shot on digital. You literally see the difference in between those years.

Movies looked better before they started butchering digital film

Has everything to do with it, indirectly.
Same way practical effects from LOTR look a thousand times better than the special effects from The Hobbit.

Shooting on film requires extra attention to lighting and its know-how which digital does not. Less special effects also require lighting to do more heavy lifting. There's so much more stuff regarding colors to get into.

Directors and cinematographers have become very lazy because everything can now easily and cheaply be fixed in camera or in post. Over time the amount of people with specialized know-how and experience in movie lighting from film era has also dwindled since there was no reason to pass on the knowledge. Extra use of special effects also needs different lighting that isn't always realistic.

It has to do with the lenses and grain

Movies nowadays are filmed on a hq lens, then color graded in post and a film grain is applied

Old days a lot of movies were pretty much graded or achieved their look in camera with filters etc...example Matrix

Also movies from the past were not wide screen 4k, everything is stretched now

I do feel 80s and 90s movies look way more cinematic, they have that saturated look, colors always pop, but there are still movies now and again which are visually stunning

Shooting on film the grain is already added, with digital everything is done in post

I approve of this message.


Agree with everything said here.




“It has to do with the lenses and grain. Movies nowadays are filmed on a hq lens, then color graded in post and a film grain is applied”

Couldn’t agree more, good examples of exceptions to the rule are Sicario (2015, ARRI Alexa XT) and Parasite (2019, ARRI Alexa 65). Both films balanced the high-res sharp aesthetic of digital, while using artificial film grain in post to set the film’s mood (like Sicario using muted desert tones). It’s very difficult to make the artificial grain used in digital films feel as organic as the natural grain of 35mm or 70mm, like The Godfather (1972, ARRIFLEX 35BL) or Lawrence of Arabia (1962, Super Panavision 70). It’s not a matter of better or worse, but preference. The sharpness provided by digital cameras kinda makes the image feel sterile to me in comparison to the soft textured look of films shot on lenses like Panavision anamorphics (Star Wars, 1977).


“Old days a lot of movies were pretty much graded or achieved their look in camera with filters etc...example Matrix”

Another great point, in-camera techniques like practical lighting, filters, and film stock choices were what made a films look, as opposed to post-production. Examples of this would be The Godfather’s use of low-key lighting, Apocalypse Now using 35mm cinematography, Goodfellas (1990, ARRIFLEX 35BL), Pulp Fiction (1994, 35mm), or as you said The Matrix (1999, ARRI Arricam, 35mm) using green-tinted filters and lighting to get the dystopian look.


“Also movies from the past were not wide screen 4k, everything is stretched now”

Again we agree, movies like Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me (1977, Panavision Panaflex) used anamorphic lenses for widescreen which gives those films a cinematic-epic look and feel. The 4k high-res in digital with wider aspect ratios a lot of times makes the image feel distorted and flat. The organic depth from 35mm or 70mm due to large-format negatives gives movies like Lawrence of Arabia (70MM) a larger-than-life quality. Jaws (1975, Panavision Panaflex) and Spartacus (1960, Super Technirama 70) are also good examples.


“I do feel 80s and 90s movies look way more cinematic, they have that saturated look, colors always pop”

While I agree about the 80s/90s more cinematic look in comparison to today, I would go further back to 60s/70s films like Lawrence of Arabia, on her majesty's secret service, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Bullitt, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, Chinatown, Enter the Dragon, Manhattan, The Long Goodbye, The French Connection, and The Godfather for peak cinematic quality. 80s/90s films I would give the edge in vivid colors due to improved film stocks with higher-saturation emulsions (Blade Runner, Do the Right Thing, Back to the Future, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Casino).


“But there are still movies now and again which are visually stunning”

This is the key point, there are some great cinematographers working today and there will always be exceptions to the rule. Films like Dunkirk (2017, IMAX 65mm + ARRI Alexa 65), Mad Max: Fury Road (2015, ARRI Alexa), Oppenheimer (2023, IMAX 65mm), Blade Runner 2049 (2017, ARRI Alexa XT), and Sinners (2024, likely ARRI Alexa), in recent years achieved this quality using practical effects or filming in large-format.


Due to factors such as the cost digital eliminates such as film stock and processing, budgets can be more focused on practical locations. Another factor is storage, with the ease of hard drives for digital footage being easier to store and edit than 35/70mm reels. Digital is also more convenient with instant playback as opposed to analog. Which also ties into the point made about digital’s compatibility with VFX/CGI which has seen a significant increase in application, as opposed to practical stunts and effects. There cinematographers today that do the craft justice with amazing looking films such as the great Roger Deakins, Claudio Miranda, Hoyte van Hoytema, Greig Fraser, Emmanuel Lubezki, and Rodrigo Prieto.

Digital film discussion, loves film but answers with chatgpt...

Don’t stereotype Tubi. Tubi is a streaming platform that has a lot of classics in addition to big budget films. They just also add lower budget films to help out up coming studios unlike woke Netflix

Has everything to do with it, indirectly.

And can be manipulated to match film, especially an ARRI Camera with the ALEVIII sensor which was designed based on film, which nullifies that point.

Same way practical effects from LOTR look a thousand times better than the special effects from The Hobbit.

Apples and Oranges. You're arguing real vs fake as opposed to matching two different mediums. VFX is VFX and has next to nothing to do with a camera, film is softer which hides the details of the practical affects, where as digital isnt. But way more can go wrong with a film practical than a digital practical. Grain is ALWAYS different, theres dust, scratches on the film, gate weaving etc... You can create great vfx or great practicals in film as well as digital, just like you can have bad vfx/practicals in film and digital. That's way more of a Post House, and/or SFX Coordinator discussion not a camera discussion.

Shooting on film requires extra attention to lighting and its know-how which digital does not. Less special effects also require lighting to do more heavy lifting. There's so much more stuff regarding colors to get into.

That's a generic argument to a very nuanced discussion. It's like comparing modern athletes to those of the past, there's more to the discussion. They’re equally as difficult with both being harder/easier in different applications. Unless you’ve worked with both mediums, you won’t understand.

The only reason why it needs extra attention is you don't have real time monitoring and/or playback to make adjustments on the fly. There's a reason why film cameras are being modified with hdmi and sdi ports for real time monitoring. Yes, coverage lighting for VFX is a downside of digital because they’re happy with an overall flat look to create a world, that’s more on the type of movies being made and producer/studio interference than anything else.

One with experience in both, could argue that digital requires more technical know how. Digital less forgiving on skin, there’s more detail which means more things can go wrong, the amount of different lighting tools are endless today as compared to back in the day, sh1t, there’s at least 12 types of diffusion that a DP/Gaffer needs to know how/when/what it does and why to use it. They never had to adjust for LED walls, never had to use DMX, never had to worry about saturation %’s etc. Back in the day, you had daylight, arc, tungsten, sodium vapor, incandescent and later on fresnels went from stage to film which made lighting a whole lot easier, which can now all be mimicked with LED lighting + or - diffusion.

Directors and cinematographers have become very lazy because everything can now easily and cheaply be fixed in camera or in post.

This is 100% opinion + its a professional vs amatuer filmmaker scenario, and 95% of the time involves producers or studios getting involved, which anyone outside the industry doesn’t realy grasp how much they demand and change, forcing things like coverage lighting, handheld shooting etc etc etc... Legit, professional filmmakers are not “fixing it in post” they plan for post, HUGE difference. No one is leaving it up to post to fix and potentially have to reshoot. It’s definitely NOT cheap and can’t always be fixed.

An example to my point - - - last summer I was the DP on a hallmark Xmas movie, shot in Atlanta. Basic xmas love story, nothing to it, director allowed the camera team to get more artistic with some setups because after the first 4 days we were 1.5 days ahead of schedule. The head of production for the streamer funding it came down at the end of week 2, and switched the entire film up. We now had to move to coverage lighting setups, because they didn't like the interior of the house, these motherfu#kers VFX kitchen cabinets, bedroom furniture etc etc etc. Then they decided Atlanta was too doom and gloom for this story, STAYING in Atlanta, we now had to move to LED walls to change the location to L.A. The weeks of pre-production, previs, location scouting, light planning, shot listed etc was garbage and had no choice but to shoot flat.

Over time the amount of people with specialized know-how and experience in movie lighting from film era has also dwindled since there was no reason to pass on the knowledge.

Again, that’s all opinion based. You’re talking about an era 20+ years removed, where a lot of older guys are out of the business, moved on to directing, cinematography, went to stage or now teach classes on masterclass on youtube. There is nothing but knowledge being passed down. There’s a sh1t ton of masterclasses, ASC mentorships & iatse workshops for FREE available to union and non-union members alike, etc. I teach the technical aspects of screenwriting and filmmaking at an NYC film school, there is no lack of knowledge being passed down anywhere. Reality is that times have changed, the business has changed, the type of movies now possible changed, the expectations from movie goers changed, The trends of cinematography changed, and film is too limiting a format to make sense business wise..

Extra use of special effects also needs different lighting that isn't always realistic.

The only realistic lighting is motivated lighting, everything else is tricking the brain, if I tell you that a baby blue hued blue is moonlight in a film, and use it throughout, your brain will equate that with moonlight, even though you know that real moonlight is more of a silver, with just a touch of blue. Just an FYI, the film lighting you love isn’t realistic either, shadows are too heavy and highlight roll off is too soft, but we’re trained and marketed to feel that it is.

There's a reason why Nolan still shoots on film.

Because he chooses to. There’s nothing more to it than that. The greatest living cinematographer chooses digital, although his best looking film was on film IMO. There’s cases for both as one is NOT better than the other. It’s project dependent.

Even the math is mathin. In 2008, 90% of the top 200 highest-grossing movies were shot on film. As of 2017, 92% of films were shot on digital. You literally see the difference in between those years.

Digital wasn't a real thing until 08 and didn't really become a majority until 2012/13, that's like saying 75% of the top grossing films since digital became the majority were shot on digital. We're using sales as a benchmark? That's not a benchmark that should be used for cinematography, especially since film was the only option until 2008.

You can use your benchmarks, I’ll add these benchmarks for you. Look at the awards for cinematography. Let's go back to when RED DIGITAL CINEMA came into the picture in 07/08. OSCARS = 4/17 years full film, 2 hybrid, the rest digital. ASC Awards = 7/17 full film w/2 Hybrid. the rest digital - - - the complaints are more lack of letting filmmakers work than aimed where they should be, producers/studios

It has to do with the lenses and grain.

That’s partially correct.

Movies nowadays are filmed on a hq lens, then color graded in post and a film grain is applied.

Old days a lot of movies were pretty much graded or achieved their look in camera with filters etc...example Matrix

Most modern, widely used lenses are either vintage rehoused lenses, or modern glass with vintage, or softer coatings. Graded in post has always been a thing, as it was done chemically to achieve certain coloring with film.

Also movies from the past were not wide screen 4k, everything is stretched now.

That had to do with the receiving technology and format, not the film. It just wasn’t available until the 50’s and once it was, Cinemascope became a thing for bigger scoped projects, just like IMAX is currently. Film was limited to technology, you shoot something on film nowadays, you unlock all the limitations of the previous generations, but it’s just too expensive to make sense business wise. 4perf film can be scanned in 6k for full 4k resolution, so film can be seen in 4k.

I do feel 80s and 90s movies look way more cinematic, they have that saturated look, colors always pop, but there are still movies now and again which are visually stunning.

What you’re describing is contrast, colors can be way more saturated today, the problem is the lack of contrast to make them pop.

Shooting on film the grain is already added, with digital everything is done in post

Digital isnt film, so obviously you’d have to add grain to something smooth if you want to emulate film.

Don’t stereotype Tubi. Tubi is a streaming platform that has a lot of classics in addition to big budget films. They just also add lower budget films to help out up coming studios unlike woke Netflix

Entertainment and music peaked in 1996 B.P. (before Pac)

Isht been downhill ever since

Tubi stereotypes themselves by licensing exactly what the OP is about films that are butchering digital film... not the argument that it veered off into in typical bx fashion...

Again Tubi is a platform that buy movie licenses for example all of the final destination movies are there. Tubi is not all low budget movies, you have movies like non stop Jurassic world man on fire Independence Day….a lot of big name Hollywood movies