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
It has to do with the film stock used then and the lenses. On top of that it most likely looks bad now because it was not preserved well before being scanned into digital. Theres nothing inherently bad about older lenses or film. If you had a good lens from the 20s and perfectly preserved film stock you could make something that looks very good. We also have much better equipment now to make glass lens that have stricter tolerances so they can let more light in etc… the answer is that its really a combination of many different things. Audio was much worse back in the way because it couldnt be recorded digitally and had a high noise floor. Microphones didnt have much dynamic range to pick up the softest or loudest sounds.
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
It has to do with the film stock used then and the lenses. On top of that it most likely looks bad now because it was not preserved well before being scanned into digital. Theres nothing inherently bad about older lenses or film. If you had a good lens from the 20s and perfectly preserved film stock you could make something that looks very good. We also have much better equipment now to make glass lens that have stricter tolerances so they can let more light in etc… the answer is that its really a combination of many different things. Audio was much worse back in the way because it couldnt be recorded digitally and had a high noise floor. Microphones didnt have much dynamic range to pick up the softest or loudest sounds.
Latest Answers