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
There are a few reasons. Let’s explore just some of those :
1. Film Grain : Digital cameras provide much, much cleaner images compared to film cameras used back in time to shoot BW films. Film cameras tend to be grainy, have imperfections and have “off-white” and “off-black” colors while modern cameras pick up full spectrum of color and digitally turn it into BW by color correcting.
2. Lighting : Our methods and tech of lighting have changed drastically since the times of OG BW films. You can clearly tell that when comparing a modern and old BW film.
3. Filming methods : Again, times have changed the methods and techniques we use to shoot movies. New angles, new movements, new panning. You can subconciously tell that it is in fact a modern movie.
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
There are a few reasons. Let’s explore just some of those :
1. Film Grain : Digital cameras provide much, much cleaner images compared to film cameras used back in time to shoot BW films. Film cameras tend to be grainy, have imperfections and have “off-white” and “off-black” colors while modern cameras pick up full spectrum of color and digitally turn it into BW by color correcting.
2. Lighting : Our methods and tech of lighting have changed drastically since the times of OG BW films. You can clearly tell that when comparing a modern and old BW film.
3. Filming methods : Again, times have changed the methods and techniques we use to shoot movies. New angles, new movements, new panning. You can subconciously tell that it is in fact a modern movie.
Latest Answers