Видео

People say I'm stuck in the past. Well, I can't help it. I love the way film from the 70's and 80's looked and really hate the way it looks now. My biggest pet peeve with modern photography is the insane over-use of depth-of-field. What's the point of all this crystal clear 4K imagery if 90% of it is going to be a blurry, distorted mess?

Kubrick didn't need faster film. Just spend $100k on a custom lens and shoot in candle light. lol😅

Things just look way too clean and perfect now.

This throws me back to the mid 70’s and tinkering with my Kodachrome and Ektachrome films in my Argus 736 Super 8 Movie Camera! Most cool. Thanks!

Copy and paste this on 15 other videos or you'll be visited by Negative Nicholson tonight!

I thibk movies today would do much better if they were shot on film instead of digital

In the US in the 1980's, there was a "scam" of sorts found in print adverts in magazines. People tried to save a little money on rolls of 35mm camera color film. These "oddball" discount priced rolls of 35mm film were sold in batches, but people were not actually purchasing the same commercially available camera film stocked on retail store shelves. 📷 The film was genuine Kodak* movie film (I don't remember the number) but the process used for typical camera film development could not be used. These discount film rolls had to be mailed to the seller/processor that was set up to process Kodak* movie film stock. 🎥 I used to work retail at that time, and occasionally I had to tell a customer that sending their exposed film to the processor of Kodak and Fujifilm would be a waste of their time, because the processor would simply send it back. edit: *After watching the entire vid, perhaps the discount film was more of a scam than I had thought. Eastman and Kodak seem to be two different divisions, with different focuses (no pun intended) between the film industry with Eastman, and Kodak for the retail consumer.

Im from 2003 and i love this kind of stuff way better than the digital crap!

Interesting content. I don't know if it was the film stock or just the style of a small group of cinematographers who handled these Hollywood productions. As a 100% film photographer, I do know that one could use techniques with light & wet lab chemistry to make a roll of film go outside the standard look of what that film is marketed under.

…cuz the 70’s and 80’s were better. Media from a free Republic

Digital Grading, I knew the answer right up front. Yes, it WAS possible to correct exposure and color after the fact, but also much riskier and labor intensive. Not only can grading change a shot's appearance in any way desired, the editor can just keep experimenting until you've locked in on a desired look.

Personally I prefer the more naturalistic tones of this era. I'm absolutely sick of the teal-and-orange look that's so rampant today, makes everything look washed out and fake. Real life doesn't have as much cyan as modern movies do.

I appreciated this video a bit more than I expected; I've certainly noticed a trend of color in older films that I've never been able to put my finger on. I would really appreciate a video that would examine and compare of the various film stocks available from the 70's through the turn of the century.

Amazing breakdown.

What would naturalism in cinematography mean?

I still kind of like working with less colors.

One color aesthetic that i also find fascinating is the mid 90s, especially with European films like the Pierce Brosnan 007 films and the Fifth Element, but also many Hollywood films like Mission Impossible. It was shot on film, but had these really saturated colors and a slightly different frame rate, at least in home video, probably due to the original VHS/DVD/Blu Ray being PAL. Even something like modern Doctor Who on SDR has the saturated colors. European photography also feels like this, with a lot of photos from Post Soviet Russia really showing this.

Last year, I had a mini 80's movie marathon and I noticed that while the films varied in subject and tone, they all had a very similar look to them. I guess this is what I was picking up on. Thanks for the great, informative video!

But aren't all of these distinctions rendered moot by colour grading and post-processing tools? Pretty much anything can be made to look like anything else these days. It's all become interchangeable.

It was superior

The film stock has a very illustrated look to it. The look seems to have changed after around 1986. Why Ghostbusters II doesn't have the same atmosphere as the first. Indiana Jones Last Crusade doesn't have quite the comic book vibe of Raiders Or Temple of Doom.

Films from that time look better than anything else ever shot. I love that sort of "soft/sharpness" they have.

love the look of 70s / 80s movies. even the sound of modern music can be too sharp with full digital

Correction: AMERICAN movies and more precisely HOLLYWOOD movies of the 70s and 80s look like this. They used very different film stocks, for example, in the Soviet Union or in France or in West Germany and their films all have a distinctive look and feel because of that. I know Americans don't realize there are other countries in the world (and that they make movies too) but still...

This is a fantastic video. The incredible changes in the look of 35mm between the 70's and 90's is not only fascinating, but really highly visible and it carried through even into telecine and VHS copies of films from the era as well. Is there any chance you can speak towards the film stocks of the late 80's where colors started to becoming more saturated and skin tones started getting that infamous fuscia tint (see BACK TO THE FUTURE's skin tones as a prime example, especially in Michael J Fox, Crispin Glover and Lea Thompson's closeups). And also the very very late 1980s / early 90s film stocks where color saturation suddenly went the other way and prints had a weird crushed, near black-and-white, look to them? Like in prints of KARATE KID PART III, CLIFFHANGER, BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II and more? I've heard for years that this was some kind of an error that was fixed by the early 90's, but that stock was notoriously desaturated and VHS copies of those films looked awful and so different to today.

This is great information, and given well. This explains why Spielberg's movies always had a warm color palette, like Jurassic Park.

For deserts this film's colour palette is what fits best imo, the actors look skinburnt but not have to get burns 😂

If you're an artist, you work with what you got...

'iconic' alert

Hmmm. Most of those examples are using old magenta-tinged transfers that don't look much like modern transfers of the same material.

they weren't using too much blue color, so movies have been really friendly to the eyes, and it's easier to follow up the story. Nowadays movies don't have stories, all they do is brainwashing audience with vivid colors, short frames and loud noise.

A lot of today movies would look much better if they used Kodak 5247 more often. Imagine a Marvel or any superhero film.

Great. So why does Raiders, for instance, look better than 99.9% of all movies today, be they digital or modern film stock? Just sayin'.

That was an absolute joy to watch. I always wondered why movies looked so good back then and now I know. Liked and subbed. I think this smile on my face might just last all day :)

I am never going to be able to unsee the red colors in those movies

everything was better before!

New films look terrible in comparison

Why do you do that inflection with your voice? It's rather obnoxious

In music production mixing I often think in the rule of thirds as the listener is only taking in three pieces of information at one time this might explain why I prefer the look and feel of these old films as they have a limiting colour palette fantastic video!

Is EI the same as ASA?

Way too advanced for me. DPs hit me up!

I like the Technicolor process of the 50's and 60's much better than the single multi-color stock of today. Is there a way to reproduce those vibrant colors today using a single film stock?

I seriously thought the pale blue skies were due to smog. As the decades moved forward, the skies darkened as a result of emissions regulations.

Curiously with all these "granular corrections" or "advancing in grading software" and so on, modern movies look bad compared to the limited film stock on the Kodak. You see this as a positive, I see a film industry that's dead. Because "films" look bad, look cheap and look lazy. Maybe it wasn't the film as such that made the difference, but that when using expensive film, movie producers and filmmakers had to *think* before shooting instead of "fixing it in post". Either way, the decline is real and movies are dead.

What an unbelievable video! Now that you pointed it out, I can't unsee it and that makes perfect sense. You have a new subscriber!

Apparently you were exhaustive but you weren't at all. There is no point in going "much" into the specifics if the crucial question - in fact - is not explained, except with formulas that have only an imaginative but not demonstrative value. The truth is that these videos, like the other hundreds of videos I searched for, cannot really explain (evidently engineers in the sector are needed) how nowadays digital cameras implement the issue of "shutter speed" in video shooting in relation to the FPS set on the camera. It is therefore useless to give the example of film cameras (which, moreover, is something that no one owns anymore, except for high-level film studios, so no one is interested in them anymore, except as historical, but not practical, research), talking about the transition from film to digital and - in fact - you do not explain how this process is implemented. I'll repeat it better: it's useless to "explain" (because in fact you don't explain it) that today's digital cameras no longer use a mechanical shutter (of the series: thank fuck, since even a child and even my grandmother with the halzhaimer), if you don't then explain HOW a digital sensor (which is not actually a scrolling film) and which has its FPS set, how it can, at the same time (since the sensor is an immobile mechanism), in addition to receiving the light - let's take an example - for 24 FPS, at the same time be divided by a further shutter speed, by... what "mechanism"? … How is it possible? Let me explain even better, with a practical example: there is no mechanical shutter on my mirrorless camera, are we there? ... well, and the moment I decide to use 24 FPS, the sensor is already working to acquire the light to this extent, and since the sensor is a single element and there is nothing else between the sensor and the lens (if not the diaphragm set to a certain value), how can the light be further fractionated?? ... from what??? ... when the sensor, in fact, is already engaged in a recording operation and, again precisely, there is no film flowing. Here we are? You see, the problem is not not knowing things, since you can't know everything in life, but when you make videos that claim to be demonstrative and then you don't know shit about the most crucial mechanism of the whole issue, then it means being a braggart. Even someone who only has the most basic rudiments of video shooting knows very well that - as film no longer exists - somehow the mechanical shutter is replaced by a digital process, think of you! ... of the series, while we're at it, it would be like saying that you wanted to specifically explain how the power steering of a car works to steer the wheels and you say to the students: "When you turn the steering wheel anti-clockwise, the car will go left; when you turn it clockwise, the car will turn right." Come on! Truly??? Damn, you're good at explaining things!

I just started my 2nd AC journey and i must say of all the videos have watched on youtube, this is the most calmly done and well comprehensively explanatory. Thanks. Ive I've subscribed

I found it amusing when you showed clips of the Star Wars Blu-Ray when talking about color balance. The Blu-Ray has been heavily color corrected and changed from how it originally appeared in theatres (the big sign is how blue R2D2 now is in the Blu-Ray -- he was never that blue before).

Thanks for this! I'd love to know what happened in 90s, when I swear a lot of movies just look worse, and I think it's the lighting, or the blacks, or *something*. Also, it sounds like having to work around blacks getting "crushed" in that old film is what makes them easier to watch at home than modern movies, where even minor glare/background light can make some dark scenes hard to view.

0:57 "and why modern movies have a more diverse range of looks.." ... and most of them are ugly. I watched Napoleon yesterday. It just looked like they were replacing yellow color filter with blue one for the whole movie (yellow for indoor and outdoor scenes, blue/grey for "gritty/winter war scenes". I'm sick to death of those cheap tricks, and honestly think 90% of these modern pictures look like shite. This period (late 70s -80 - early 90s) had the best looking movies, in my opinion.