Why do the black and white sequences in modern films never actually *look* like vintage film?

469 views

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

18 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

Did you watch Mank (came out in 2020)? I think it would be the exception to this rule. There’s some good behind-the-scenes explainers on how much effort went in to making it look AND sound like a movie from the 30s/40s.

Trailer:

You are viewing 1 out of 18 answers, click here to view all answers.
0 views

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

18 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

Did you watch Mank (came out in 2020)? I think it would be the exception to this rule. There’s some good behind-the-scenes explainers on how much effort went in to making it look AND sound like a movie from the 30s/40s.

Trailer:

You are viewing 1 out of 18 answers, click here to view all answers.