this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
62 points (94.3% liked)

movies

2478 readers
140 users here now

Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Remember when movies used to look good?

Rich shadows, bold colors, and depth. But now? A lot of films and shows look flat, dull, and lifeless. In this video, I break down why modern cinematography feels so uninspired, and it’s NOT digital’s fault. Let’s talk about dynamic range, lighting, and why intentional choices matter more than ever.

What you’ll learn: • Why older movies look better than modern ones • How dynamic range & contrast affect the cinematic look • The role of VFX, lighting, and production design in the decline of movie aesthetics

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I have a completely different view on this.

I HATE when we take a "camera perspective" instead of an "eye perspective". I don't like exaggerated contrast, because that's what cameras do, not what eyes do. The world doesn't look like that, unless you view it through a camera. For the same reason, I can't stand lens-flares and I'm really not a fan of focus-shifts unless they're natural. I don't like abberation, because my eyes don't do that. Motion blur is even worse, and having it absolutely minimized is preferable. It's especially bad when first-person videogames do it, and then add film-grain on top. I don't understand why films are still mostly shot at 24fps, I love the rare few films that are shown at 60fps. It's basically the only redeeming feature of the new Avatar movie.

I don't want to see someone work a camera, I want to see the scene. That doesn't mean I like grey, because the world has a TON of colour, but it also doesn't mean I like the unrealistically high contrasts.

[–] kandykarter@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

See, while I think this a valid perspective, I am baffled by the need people have to see movies look realistic. You live in realism every day. I want to movies to look interesting, otherworldly, and beautiful. I want every frame to look like a painting. Realism's fucking boring. Like, it's a visual medium, why accept anything short of visually stunning?

Every time I watch In The Mood For Love, I'm bummed that all movies don't look like that, you know?

[–] MacAnus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

Interesting! To each their own I guess, I enjoy most of these things when used in intelligently. Kind of like what an artist's style in a painting adds to the scene.

I had a different experience with avatar 2, saw it in 3d and apparently variable framerate and my eyes were getting lost everytime the framerate changed by a noticeable amount.