Modern blockbusters are often said to look worse than old movies. In a video, a YouTuber explains what might be causing this and what old films probably did better, even though the technology actually gets better.
Many modern films are often accused of not looking as good. This is actually a pretty absurd accusation when you consider that technology has improved over time. In irregular threads, such as on reddit, there are frequent discussions about it.
A YouTuber explains in a new video what causes this and why the technological advancement of digital cameras has something to do with it.
Tarantino is a director who hates shooting with digital cameras
The problem lies in too few contrasts
What is the problem with today’s films? On his YouTube channel, Patrick Tomasso regularly talks about films, particularly about cameras and the look. In a new video (via YouTube), he questions whether films today look worse than they did back then.
He explains that over time, digital cameras have achieved an increasingly greater dynamic range due to technological development. The dynamic range refers to the ability to capture tonal values in an image and represent them during recording. In other words, the higher the dynamic range, the more details can be seen in the image.
However, he sees the improved technology as a significant problem: Just because you can see everything doesn’t mean you should.
Older films have contrasts, even though they are usually shot on film (i.e., cameras that record on tapes) and thus also have a high dynamic range.
You can watch Patrick Tomasso’s video here:
Intention is lacking
Why are contrasts so important? Existing shadows and dark areas can highlight certain parts of a scene through light. He cites the comedy Superbad as an example. The film’s camera had a low dynamic range, but the film, according to him, has great contrast and wonderful production and costume design.
All these conscious choices ensure that the scenes look so good. In many modern productions, these choices are lacking because they are made in post-production. Lighting design and camera positioning don’t matter when working with countless cameras and greenscreens.
This, according to Tomasso, leads films to have a flat look. It doesn’t matter whether a scene is shot digitally or on film. Older films and classics look good because they relied on the contrasts of the bright and dark areas in scenes. Like a painting that is deliberately made.
However, Tomasso also believes that the talent and skill for this is slowly fading. He names David Fincher as an example, who made a great film with contrasting scenes with Se7en. Later films like The Killer can be criticized for their look.
Is everything bad nowadays? No. There have always been films that looked bad, just as there are many films today that look good and use contrasts according to Tomasso’s criteria. Filmmakers like Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer), Denis Villeneuve (Dune), or Matt Reeves (The Batman) have created great scenes. Cinematographers like Roger Deakins show in Blade Runner 2049 that modern films can look fantastic as well.
However, the use of CGI and greenscreens is of course cheaper and involves less effort during shooting. When everything is perfectly lit and shot from every angle, fewer mistakes can be made. You can find a truly well-shot film here: Before Parasite, the director made a masterpiece about a true crime from South Korea
