#1
|
||||
|
||||
Why today's films (photographic and cinematographic) don't have...
Why today's films (photographic and cinematographic) don't have the vivid coulorus of the old films? I'm talking about the image suport.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I know most don't have decent storylines...
__________________
Let me live in the house beside the road and be a friend to man. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Higher than realistic contrast is needed in any case for projection in a dark theater, or the pictures will look like they have not enough contrast, and seem washed out. Presenting the same film on an electronic display in a dimly lit (but not completely dark) room requires somewhat less contrast, which also affects the appearance. Finally, with all films going through electronic post-production these days, the "look" is adjusted to whatever the director wants, not necessarily matching the old Technicolor look at all. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Well Technicolor actually had a lot of limitations, especially in its early days. So they did have to do a lot of things weird ways to make it look right on the screen.
Plus I imagine back in the day they really wanted to flaunt their colors over B/W, and that look probably became the norm that audiences simply expected, and likely that waned very slowly until we got what we got now: Fairly accurate color reproduction. It's realistic as hell, but therein lies the problem. The silver screen should be an escape from reality. Reality sucks. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
There really is one and only one answer today: artistic desire, and fashion.
|
Audiokarma |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Never sat through it but saw battle scenes in 300 , colorless , might as well be monochrome and the slow motion sword until it hits and back to regular motion does very little for me
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|