Modern blockbusters are often said to look worse than old films. In a video, a YouTuber explains what that could be and what old films have probably done better, even though the technology is actually better.
Many modern films like to be accused of not looking so good. This is actually a rather absurd allegation when you consider that the technology got better over time. In irregular threads, such as Reddit, are often discussed.
In a new video, a Youtuber explains why and why the technical development of digital cameras has to do with it.
Tarantino is a director who hates turning with digital cameras
Trailer for the epic “Once Upon A Time in Hollywood”
More videos
Autoplay
The problem is too few contrasts
Where is the problem because of today’s films? On his YouTube channel, Patrick Tomasso regularly talks about films, especially about cameras and the look. In a new video (via YouTube) he asked himself whether films look worse today than then.
He explains that over time digital cameras have achieved an increasing dynamic range through technical development. The dynamic scope denotes the ability to capture the tonal values of an image and to be able to represent them when recording. In other words, the higher the dynamic range, the more detail can be seen in the picture.
Here he sees the improved technology as a big problem: just because you can see everything does not mean that you should. Older films have contrasts, although they mostly have filmed on film (i.e. cameras that are picking up on ribbons) and therefore also have a high dynamic range.
You can see the video by Patrick Tomasso here:
The intention is missing
Why are contrasts so important? Certain areas of a scene can be emphasized by light by light by light. He mentions the comedy Superbad as an example. The film’s camera had a low dynamic range, but according to him, the film has a great contrast and a great production and costume design.
All of these conscious decisions ensure that the scenes look so good. These decisions are missing in many more modern productions because they are made in post-production. Lighting and the position of the camera does not matter if you work with countless cameras and greens screens.
According to Tomasso, this ensures that films get a thread look. It doesn’t matter whether a scene is shot digitally or on film. Older films and classics look good because you have just staged the contrasts of the light and dark areas. Like a picture that is consciously painted.
Tomasso is also of the opinion that the talent and can slowly be lost. He names David Fincher as an example, who filmed a great film with a digital camera with seven. Later films like The Killer could be criticized because of the look.
Is everything bad these days? No. In the past, there were also films that looked bad, as there are many films today that also look good with Tomassos criteria and use contrasts. Filmmakers like Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer), Denis Villeneuve (Dune) or Matt Reeves (The Batman) have created great scenes. Cameramen like Roger Deakins show in Blade Runner 2049 that modern films can also look fantastic.
But the use of CGI and Greenscreens is of course cheaper and connected with less effort when shooting. If you illuminate everything perfectly and turn out of every corner, you can make fewer mistakes. You can find a really great film here: Before Parasite, the director made a masterpiece about a true crime from South Korea