I’ve seen so many movies that try to replicate an old film aesthetic, or have a sequence with a fictional vintage film, that sort of thing. The audio and video quality is always way too sharp and modern and never actually convinces the audience that it’s a legitimate piece of vintage camera work. Is it that hard to replicate the effect? Would you need an actual 80-100 year old camera to achieve that quality?
EDIT: Thank you literally everyone for your responses. Seems like the general consensus is a mix between technnology and artistry…both the way film handles light/shadow/colour/speed, and the advancements we’ve made in artistic direction. I can’t wait to watch Mank (as recommended) because just the trailer is fascinating. I can definitely tell how much of the difference is amplified by the cinematography itself–quick changes into closeups, lingering shots of objects as opposed to faces, just general directorial taste. Older films utilize fewer angles, quick shots, and camera tricks for longer, more sterile sequences and that a really matters so much. I loved learning all of this, seeing it firsthand with a different psychological lens, and I appreciate the time you took to help me along!
In: 35
Check ‘the lighthouse’, is an actual 35mm production filmed in b&w. They used a filter to recreate the tones of old time b&w movies. You need to understand that different film stocks reacts different to the colours, and to my knowledge the only current production professional b&w film available to film makers is Kodak double-x.
This film is panchromatic, it can see all visible light, but older film was orthochromatic, the red part is the visible light doesn’t register, thus rendering reds as blacks and affecting the overall tone. You can fix this to some degree in post, but what makes film different is that this response is not linear. Also the grain is also a big part of that old b&w film aesthetic, and even if you can add grain in post is not convincing.
I’ve seen so many movies that try to replicate an old film aesthetic, or have a sequence with a fictional vintage film, that sort of thing. The audio and video quality is always way too sharp and modern and never actually convinces the audience that it’s a legitimate piece of vintage camera work. Is it that hard to replicate the effect? Would you need an actual 80-100 year old camera to achieve that quality?
EDIT: Thank you literally everyone for your responses. Seems like the general consensus is a mix between technnology and artistry…both the way film handles light/shadow/colour/speed, and the advancements we’ve made in artistic direction. I can’t wait to watch Mank (as recommended) because just the trailer is fascinating. I can definitely tell how much of the difference is amplified by the cinematography itself–quick changes into closeups, lingering shots of objects as opposed to faces, just general directorial taste. Older films utilize fewer angles, quick shots, and camera tricks for longer, more sterile sequences and that a really matters so much. I loved learning all of this, seeing it firsthand with a different psychological lens, and I appreciate the time you took to help me along!
In: 35
Check ‘the lighthouse’, is an actual 35mm production filmed in b&w. They used a filter to recreate the tones of old time b&w movies. You need to understand that different film stocks reacts different to the colours, and to my knowledge the only current production professional b&w film available to film makers is Kodak double-x.
This film is panchromatic, it can see all visible light, but older film was orthochromatic, the red part is the visible light doesn’t register, thus rendering reds as blacks and affecting the overall tone. You can fix this to some degree in post, but what makes film different is that this response is not linear. Also the grain is also a big part of that old b&w film aesthetic, and even if you can add grain in post is not convincing.
Latest Answers