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
Well you asnwered the question yourself: The audio and quality is always way too sharp!
I am a conossieur of the classics! Casablanca is one of my favorite films! And even if I watch a Blu-Ray HD version, the image will never look too clean!
Also I am not sure, but I think camera angles also have something to do with it. Vintage films usually had a very stiff camerawork, where a lot of movies the camera was more or less just set up to shoot the scene like they were shooting something from a theatre company. (there were exceptions of course)
But todays film uses different angles, they move the camera around a lot etc.
Compare this to, say, Ed Wood which is supposed to look like a vintage film. They try the hardest, but it still doesn’t look like a vintage film.
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
Well you asnwered the question yourself: The audio and quality is always way too sharp!
I am a conossieur of the classics! Casablanca is one of my favorite films! And even if I watch a Blu-Ray HD version, the image will never look too clean!
Also I am not sure, but I think camera angles also have something to do with it. Vintage films usually had a very stiff camerawork, where a lot of movies the camera was more or less just set up to shoot the scene like they were shooting something from a theatre company. (there were exceptions of course)
But todays film uses different angles, they move the camera around a lot etc.
Compare this to, say, Ed Wood which is supposed to look like a vintage film. They try the hardest, but it still doesn’t look like a vintage film.
Latest Answers