IMO the image quality of motion pictures started to go down hill in the mid to late 90’s. Now, from what I understand from other directors, the “trend in the art” changed from the high dynamic range, neutral color balance, high color saturation/soft lighting of the 80s/90s to the mute/off color, odd skin tones and the “mtv high contrast look” of today. The 80s stuff kinda reminds me of slide film the way it produces color and saturation.

So is this true, is it “trend in the art” or did they cut corners somehow in the production pipeline. How did the production/post production methods in the mid to late 80's differ from todays.

So is this true, is it a “trend in the art” or did they cut corners somehow in the production pipeline. How did the production/post production methods in the mid to late 80's differ from todays.

It's "trend in the art". Filmmakers (as in high budget feature filmmakers) today have more tools at their disposal.

Then: Chemistry manipulation (and not much, at that), and primary color printing manipulation.

Now: Digital intermediates, which then enable sophisticated electronic color correction and manipulation. Directors and directors of photography can pretty much do anything they like, and colorists lead the way with manipulating color in ways that even directors and DPs can hardly understand, much less ask for in the telecine suite.

So if you like the way thigns were done in the past, it's just that you like the way film looks with very little manipulation.

I too thought this about many of the 80's films, particularly the richness of something like "Ghostbusters" or the smoothness of fantasy films like "Krull" and, my favorite, "Big Trouble in Little China".

Television shows as well were much finer in quality, I particularly love the looks of "Murder She Wrote" and "Matlock" which, at times, were even better looking than some of the 80's movies at the time!

Now everything's all about gritty and dark "realism" which always seems to be somewhat depressing really. The only relief I find from this look is in TV shows like "Scrubs" and, surprisingly, "Heroes" which applies a healthy mix of looks verus sticking to just one. Yet if there were any recent show to absolutely nail a look I considered "rich" for today, it would have to be the, now canceled, "Carnivale" series on HBO, amazing stuff there. Movies today are simply different, none of them look like the 80's stuff and nothing looks too drastically different from the other. The stuff I like for today is the direction that fantasy films have been taking with their looks, Lord of the Rings, Spider Man, Pirates of the Carribean, Superman Returns, all of those are doing things with their images that really set the bar for me. Everything is so slick and, in a way, shiny and nothing is ever gritty realistic, which is a good thing, a wonderful thing.

I just wonder how hard or easy it would be to emulate that 80's look yet maintain the strengths of today's film. More than that, how would they emulate that with digital? From what I understand from my Cinematography class so far, it would all come down to the lab and lighting style of the DP.

I have been wondering about this issue for along time so it’s great to finally get some feed back. I agree about some new stuff looking good, but IMO it still looses something when you mess with it digitally. The software can add color saturation and brightness, but it doesn’t have that “organic” look.

Last night I came across some old optical hand prints made by Kodak in the mid 80's (still photography). The quality was unbelievable! From an artistic standpoint (color, saturation, dreamy look, perfect density) it totally blows my D2X and photoshop away. Technically speaking you can get "better" results from the D2X and a photoshop burn and dodge, but nothing I have done to date could match the Kodak hand print in overall quality.

There's no technical reason why a DP can't emulate the look of an 80's production on film, it's purely aesthetic.

Trends come and go, high-key, low-key, grainy, sharp, bright or muted pallets... it's generated by changes in techincal abilities (New filmstocks, new lenses,new formats,new computer programs) AND cultural sensibilities.(What is the current pop trend?What is important to culture NOW? What is funny NOW?)

Take a look at things like SIN CITY a definate reference to both graphic comic books, and film-noir of the forties. That SPECIFIC look would not have been technically possible without some computer manipulation... so that's a new element. But it draws on the cultural reference to noir and comics of the forties. What's the word I'm looking for here... fusion? Synergy?

In the end, everything old is new again. OR, as Marie Antoinette is alleged to have said - "There is nothing new under the sun, except what has been forgotten."

****Take a look at things like SIN CITY a definate reference to both graphic comic books, and film-noir of the forties. That SPECIFIC look would not have been technically possible without some computer manipulation****


Richard-

Correct me if I’m wrong here (I probably am wrong), but in the 1995 movie Seven with brad pitt, I heard they used a very expensive processing method called "bleach silver" that gave a similar look to Sin city but using chemicals instead of software. I agree though, you couldn’t match the look completely without software.

Most will probably disagree, but I think it is overdone. Just as special effects are often used to hide a poor plot and acting, drastic manipulation of color, light and such is used to compensate for a bad story and poor production quality. It just makes it feel gritty and that appeals to some who ask for nothing more.

Content is still king, but effects and other manipulation is replacing it quite often. Give me content then add something to it!

Mike

P.S.: I was going out with a friend to see a movie on Friday night. After looking at what was playing in and around our area, we stayed home. It is indeed a sad state that the movie industry is in!

M

My thoughts lean towards too much CGI in modern movies. The stuff just looks hokey and is glaringy artificial in many instances. In the old days, they had to create that stuff with stunt men and real explosions, not CGI. I prefer the old methods even if they were more costly and dangerous to pull off.

-gb-

Correct me if I’m wrong here (I probably am wrong), but in the 1995 movie Seven with brad pitt, I heard they used a very expensive processing method called "bleach silver" that gave a similar look to Sin city but using chemicals instead of software. I agree though, you couldn’t match the look completely without software.

No, you are right, although it is called "Bleach Bypass" in which a percentage of the silver is retained in developing, delivering a specific look. It is been since refined and is still in use, although it remains a somewhat unpredictable process especially compared to a DI. The most radical use of this process that I can think of was in "Three Kings".

I recently worked with Roger Deakins and asked him about the look of "Jarhead", which he also shot. He told me that it involved a certain percentage of overexposure, a partial bleach bypass and a DI.

As far as 80's films looking "better"--while there is some great work there for sure, I often see the limitations of the film stocks of the day rearing their head, especially the high-speed stocks. We have to remember that nearly all the time we are watching these films on DVD or TV, where they have gone through a high-end telecine (generally to HD master) that has often been tweaked and cleaned up and grain reduced, hopefully supervised by the original DP. If you happen to see a print projected of a film from that era, chances are it will look noticeably different from the DVD, unless it is a newly struck print.

I'm not suggesting that clean always means best; certainly the grit and grain of certain movies from that era (and my favorite, the American films from the early 70's) are intrinsically linked to the content, and are in some ways tough to duplicate today. Kodak has been pushing the envelope in a last-ditch race to stay relevant in the face of digital, and some feel that their stocks are beginning to emulate a hyper-clean digital look!

As far as current TV shows--I don't know if you guys are watching them in HD, but I gotta tell ya, many of them are looking fantastic, far better than the average primetime show 20 years ago. "Carnivale" is an excellent example. I've been working a bit on "Ugly Betty" lately; the office set on that has a beautiful lighting scheme and overall I think that show just pops right off the screen. Again, watching in HD is really the key to being able to judge this--if I toggle over to the same channel in SD, it looks much flatter.

Interesting points. IMO the flaws of the older films gave them character and earthiness that is generally more appropriate for story telling. Sometimes less is more.

It’s funny because I just watched the movie “A guide to recognizing your saints”. The story and directing was fantastic, but I was absolutely convinced it was shot on HD when I was watching it, because of the poor image quality and video like look……right up until I saw the behind the scenes section and was shocked when I saw film cameras. Unbelievable, because it might as well have been shot on HD due to the look they apparently wanted.

Also, have you noticed how upbeat and positive the production music was back then? The music used now literally makes me leave the theater feeling terrible about myself. Lol. The directors and DPs are not as smart as they seem to think they are….

Also, have you noticed how upbeat the production music was back then? The music used now literally makes me leave the theater feeling terrible about myself. Lol. The directors and DPs are not as smart as they seem to think they are….

Woah, what does the DP have to do with the scoring??!!!

Music of course is a matter of taste, and when it comes to films, there's a certain pressure to use a style of music that will sell soundtrack CD's. I'm personally not a fan of the "weepy" male singer/songwriter genre, but obviously it worked out well for "Garden State" and many other films since that have emulated that type of soundtrack. Actually, I remember once on "Scrubs" when Zach told me I had to get the Coldplay disc, that it "changed his life" (this was before he had Natalie Portman use that line in the movie!) and I came back to him a week later and shrugged and said "it's OK but its not really my kind of music". He was stunned. And ultimately, his musical choices in that film sold a zillion CD's/downloads/whatever!

Actually, there are a lot of great films from the 80's that are only dated by the music--can't think of any good examples at the moment, but when those synth drums start up, it can pull you right out of the movie. But again--it's all a matter of taste.

[QUOTE=Charles Papert;635841]Woah, what does the DP have to do with the scoring??!!!


Lol, no offence intended I was generalizing. A lot of newer films can pull the trendy “looks” off and some just can’t (the majority cant). I agree it is a matter of taste for the most part.

Maybe I’m being to critical because I worked in a photo lab for many years color correcting, processing, ect film and digital. I’m sure a lot of people don’t even notice it (as in the general public).

but when those synth drums start up, it can pull you right out of the movie. But again--it's all a matter of taste.

Easy there, Chas. My vintage Alesis HR-16 drum machine is nearby. You don't want to hurt its feelings, do you? (grin)

-gb-

I can't share the feeling. I like films as much now as I did back in the 80's. One thing that has definitely improved is timing, particularly for action and adventure films. When I watch older films that I remember as being very exciting and fast paced, I can't believe how slow and boring they feel compared to most recent offerings in this genre. I'm also not bothered by sophisticated color correction and post processing technique including CGI at all. Except for some very poor attempts at it ("Ultraviolet" comes to mind), CGI and color correction can add an extra dimension to make a good story really shine. Who wasn't amazed when they saw the Normandy landing in Saving private Ryan for the first time? Or how about the amazing fights in the matrix films? Or the abstract sense of surrealism in Stay? I could just go on and on. But then again I'm one of those people who like going out to the movies. I do so at least 3 times a week, even if I'm not particularly excited about anything playing. The best thing that can happen to me is going into a movie with low expectations and walk out pleasantly surprised. But the only way for that to happen is to be willing to give any movie the benefit of the doubt.

I can agree with the original poster. I hate the fact that every film released these days must have high contrast and be tinted either green, blue or orange. Whatever happened to beautiful rich colours?

I recently watched The Omega Man on DVD which was made in 1971. The opening scene in empty LA looks beautiful. You feel like you are driving around with Chuck. The sky is blue and shadows are long. Great stuff. I hear that the film is being remade (or rather the book), I can just guess what its going to look like, BLEACH BYPASS! (Rolls eyes)

IMO the image quality of motion pictures started to go down hill in the mid to late 90’s.
I agree. In the 1890's they really new what they were doing. It all went pear-shaped when they moved from single perf 29mm, then talkies and colour. These guys today, with there high dynamic range, extreme low contrast, super fast grainless stocks and their 4k telecine, they just don't know they're born.

IMO.

Liam.

What about safety film, could the rise of that have affected looks in the 1980s?

heath

What about safety film, could the rise of that have affected looks in the 1980s?

heath

Both acetate film from the 20's then polyester in the 40's was used to replace nitrate film stocks, so I don't think that would account for the differences in the 80s.

I think it is just shooting style and trying to be different. Like it or not!

Mike

Good point.

h

IMO I have seen a lot of newer productions and even tv commercials going for that soft lighting/high color of the mid to late 80's. While they technically do look rich and colorful, there is an earthiness and smoothness missing that the true 80's films have. To me it’s like comparing a Photoshop enhanced D2X file printed with a digital printer vs. an optically printed color slide. The look is completely different.

It makes you wonder- If it was really that easy to match, why haven’t I seen anything that looks completely like it.....I think there's some kind of conspiracy going on here :-)

IMO I have seen a lot of newer productions and even tv commercials going for that soft lighting/high color of the mid to late 80's. While they technically do look rich and colorful, there is an earthiness and smoothness missing that the true 80's films have. To me it’s like comparing a Photoshop enhanced D2X file printed with a digital printer vs. an optically printed color slide. The look is completely different.

It makes you wonder- If it was really that easy to match, why haven’t I seen anything that looks completely like it.....I think there's some kind of conspiracy going on here :-)
John, I know what you're getting at. But you can't really compare a D2X digital print with an old cyberchrome print - they're two different things. One is chicken and the other is beef.

I recently shot a portrait, of a leading politician here in the UK, on a Hasselblad medium format camera with a 33MP digital back. I had just over an inch depth-of-field, yet his eyes are so sharp you can almost see his soul. Too sharp!

In terms of 80s film and TV being visually superior to modern movies, I simply can't agree. Not every DOP in the 80s measured up to Vittorio Storaro or Chris Menges. Sure, many DOPs and directors today have too many toys to play with, but the technology and training is far superior than it was 25 years ago.

I truly believe there is some seriously good work going on out there. Indeed, I think American TV in particular is going through a purple patch, the like of which there has never been in terms of consistent quality programming: Sopranos, Lost, 24, Prison Break, Grey's Anatomy, House...

Just my 10p worth.

Liam.

****In terms of 80s film and TV being visually superior to modern movies, I simply can't agree****

IMO "superior" from an artistic standpoint. It’s probably less superior in terms of "numbers". The 80's stuff has "soul power". I actually just ordered the Silicon Imaging mini, and if you can indeed get the 80's look from digital then I am absolutely determined to get it. The lack of grain is obviously the biggest draw back, but I would be happy with 85-90%.

"superior" from an artistic standpoint
Today the DOP has far, far, far more artistic controls than 25 years ago. Today, a DOP can previsualize the look of every scene and lock that look from the set to the screen. If they choose the wrong route, well that's down to their lack of artistry.

Without getting in to a vinyl versus CD type of debate I am curious to know what these great 80's films and TV shows were that you talk of; with a few exceptions I just remember big hair, ludicrous make-up, nihilism, selfishness, the rise of the blockbuster (and thus the end of great cinema) and bad, bad music. Magnum PI was good though...

Liam.

Yeah I gotta disagree with the original poster as well.


There are definitely some over-the-top visuals on some movies/shows, all the new horror flicks, the CSIs, all that stuff, but you have stuff these days that is just gorgeous to look at without all the crazy/gritty/gloomy stuff mentioned --- Nip/Tuck is particularly well done, a lot of the law dramas/cop shows have a very naturalistic yet appealing feel, many commercials, etc.

Compare this to the lower contrast/flat light, "hard light right on the face" stuff going on in a lot of 80s movies/shows.

Without getting in to a vinyl versus CD type of debate I am curious to know what these great 80's films and TV shows were that you talk of

Liam.


To name a few- "Legend" 1985, "Big" 1989, "Ghostbusters" 1984, "Beverly Hills Cop" 1984, "Starwars Return of the Jedi" 1983, "Weekend at Bernies" 1989, "Lucas" 1986.

To name a few- "Legend" 1985, "Big" 1989, "Ghostbusters" 1984, "Beverly Hills Cop" 1984, "Starwars Return of the Jedi" 1983, "Weekend at Bernies" 1989, "Lucas" 1986.
Interesting choices. I'd have gone for; "The Last Emporer", "Chariots Of Fire", "Local Hero", On Golden Pond, "Ran", "Ragtime", "A Passage To India", "Gandhi", "ET", "Excalibur". But the winner surely has to be "Heaven's Gate".

Just a stab in the dark, but are you about 37 years-old?

Liam.

***Just a stab in the dark, but are you about 37 years-old?***

LOL! No I am 25. I think growing up around the films may have influenced my taste to a point, but as someone said- The newer stocks and lenses are starting to look like super clean digital.

Also, Quantum Leap is a great example for the TV catagory.

LOL! No I am 25.
And there was me thinking I was Sherlock Holmes.

Quantum Leap was a good show, but didn't offer much in terms of photography; lots of big hair though.

You can add "The Killing Fields, "The Mission", Angel Heart and "Raging Bull" to my list. None of them contemporary 80's films, but all with stunning photography. Can't think of any decent telly, I must have been out.

Liam.

Nate Weaver- Quote*****Then: Chemistry manipulation (and not much, at that), and primary color printing manipulation.****

Charles Papert- Quote****I'm not suggesting that clean always means best; certainly the grit and grain of certain movies from that era (and my favorite, the American films from the early 70's) are intrinsically linked to the content, and are in some ways tough to duplicate today. Kodak has been pushing the envelope in a last-ditch race to stay relevant in the face of digital, and some feel that their stocks are beginning to emulate a hyper-clean digital look!****

I appreciate the feedback from you guys, this definitely makes sense in regards to my original question.


Liam Hall- Quote****And there was me thinking I was Sherlock Holmes.

Quantum Leap was a good show, but didn't offer much in terms of photography; lots of big hair though.****


Not sure how to take this…. Content aside, IMO the final result of the 80’s film “look” was dramatic. It is my personal opinion as an artist.

Not sure how to take this….
With a smile. I mean no offense.

Content aside, IMO the final result of the 80’s film “look” was dramatic. It is my personal opinion as an artist.

John, I've given you a list of fifteen films from the 80's all with superb photography. All with different looks. Each achieved in different ways with the technology of the day. I don't think there was a definitive 80's look. For every over-saturated, soft-focus film you could name, I could give you one with a contrary look.

I agree with you that many directors and DP's rush into their 2k telecine and overdo the color correction, but that will calm down: and to be fair it's just like zoom lenses in the 60's.

I think your argument is slightly flawed because the movies you mention are much more contrasty than many films today. Since Kodak brought out Vision2 with its wider dynamic range, lower grain structure and more natural colors etc, etc, it should make it easier to produce the kind of look you're after - just bung on a promist.

Cheers,

Liam.

Highlander and Blade Runner were good :)

My issues with modern cinema is that there seems to be a general lack of in understanding the langauge; Mis-en-scene mainly

I believe there are still plenty of artists working that get it; Tarantino, Gondry, Mangold, Paul Thomas Anderson and Wes Anderson (No relation), and undeniably the masters that continue to do it; Scorses, Spielberg, De Palma ...

I think film is in good shape, but there is too many working filmmakers that just doesn't have a grasp on the visual langauge; everything is staccato rapid fire cut and shaky cam

As much as I love the work of Alejandro Inarritu (his stories mainly), his style is nothing more than hand held, shaky, stlylized color correction madness.

-

I think the jist for me is that there are more directors in the mainstream making films that have become acceptable modern day movies when they'd best be served staying in the Music Video world.

Evolution of cinema ? Hopefully it will take a step back and calm down.

I noticed the change with the Matrix, where one tone is used inside the virtual world, and another outside, really set the mood, but since then there seems to be an trend for this sort of thing.

to be fair it's just like zoom lenses in the 60's.

for me the 70's were more of the decade of the zoom...?

My brother-in-law got me to watch the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) the other day, and I noticed the look was very strange. Lots of neon blues, greens and reds, plus the way the film stock looked was very late 80s/early 90s.

heath

Highlander is a great example. Especially the part when he stabs the giant sword in the ground. IMO that shot was very dramatic and earthy.

It’s strange because alot of newer movies look odd like the curves are messed with and tones are missing or something. Alot of the older films that have trendy "look values" like the 1997 movie Alien Resurrection, look gorgeous.

I first noticed the modern color correction technique in Payback, with Mel Gibson. Not saying that's the first movie that did it, just that's when I first remember seeing it. . .I wasn't involved with filmmaking/video in any way back then, so I didn't look for those kinds of things.

Not talking about color correction here, but I was going to mention how they played with primary lighting back in the 90's, eventually moving to complementary lighting by the time they got to The Bourne Identity (near the end of the movie in the darkened CIA control sub-base).

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by those terms. . .the big most people comment on, to me,the look of the Matrix is how it's more or less neutral/normal-colored when he's in real world, and how the Matrix scenes have a slightly greenish cast.

Film has a much higher resolution today than it had 20 or 30 years ago. You can go from super fine grain to 50 or less speed film. It really depends on the look you are looking for. We shot some stuff on film that resembles the look of Hollywood in the golden (color) area where skin textures looked so smooth and colorfull and then on the other hand we shot stuff that looks really rought.

Todays S8mm Film outperforms 20 year old 16mm film. We shot stuff on S8mm and were amaze by the quality. Also S16 looks better than 32mm just 10 years ago.

What really matters is where do you see it. Picture quality on Broadcast Television looks like cr@p sometimes since we went digital. So do you compare a Fred Astare movie in the theater, projected, or on TV which is broadcasted, or from a DVD? I think the answer is more in this realm rather than the Film realm itself.

If you ever have a chance go and attend a seminar or workshop with Kodak, you'll be amazed where films was and where it's going in the future. Even with the development and introduction of 2k and 4k digital cameras, film will be around for a while. I compare Film to a Picasso and Digital to a still photo from a Digital Camera. Which one is better? It's 2 different mediums and its up to you how you want to tell your story.