[ SECRET POST #3062 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3062 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #438.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[herpymcderp]

Film quality. The old film quality was pretty bad, so it has the added effect of making a lot of films look like they were shot through gauze or haze when close-ups were attempted.

It's a lovely, romantic look to be sure, but it also had the benefit of making it hard to see wrinkles and lines and skin blemishes so stars looked a little less human, a little more ethereal. Nowadays with film quality so high it means out action is more punchy and intense and things explode in 1080p, but you can also see every little imperfection on people's faces and bodies if it hasn't been photoshopped out.

[(Anonymous)]

What this always makes me wonder is - it has to be possible to replicate that effect, right? But you never really see anyone manage it - even in things that are shot in black and white going for a purposefully retro feel (like Good Night And Good Luck) it's a completely different feel / visual tone from actual old Hollywood films, and it's really confusing to me.

[(Anonymous)]

The movie, although released in black and white, was filmed on color film stock but on a greyscale set, and was color corrected to black and white during post-production.

That's why.

[(Anonymous)]

That's interesting, thank you for the information

but my question still stands - in fact, it's even more confusing, in that it makes me really wonder why in hell they decided to do it that way

[herpymcderp]

Well, the problem is our equipment is just too good these days. It's possible to shoot in lower quality, but you're never going to get that "stained glass" effect (I've heard some people compare it to wax paper, and I think that's also a pretty good comparison) if you're using a newer lens on a newer camera.

There are physical differences in the way things are manufactured, and the way those components of film equipment responded to light it just different from the way a piece of equipment will respond today. It's truer to life, but it loses the dreamlike quality, and it's hard to reproduce no matter how many filters you run it through in post.

[(Anonymous)]

Would it be unfeasibly expensive to recreate those instruments in the way they were made a long time ago, and use those new but old-style instruments to shoot? Seems you wouldn't have to bother so much about post-production fiddling if you shot with instruments meant to respond to light in a certain way in the first place.

[herpymcderp]

Well, yes and no.

On the one hand, there's not a lot of cause to try to manufacture photographic lenses by hand so there aren't really people doing it that way anymore. On the other hand there are still some old pieces kicking around as part of collections and whatnot, and I have heard that for certain productions directors will pay to get their hands on them.

It wouldn't be impossible, but it isn't practical. And it isn't something the majority of audiences actually want out of their movie-going experience, which is the larger issue. Times change and so do tastes and conventions.

[(Anonymous)]

NA but I guess more than anything I'm surprised that a Malick-type person or someone like that hasn't tried to do something like that.

[herpymcderp]

Well I've seen production photos of modern directors using 1930's style cameras on set, but I don't think they've been used to shoot an entire movie since...well, the 50's probably. It's more of an artistic conceit that sometimes gets employed when someone is making a movie about Hollywood.

I think it was Ed Wood that purportedly had several scenes shot with older camera equipment, but that might just be an artistic quirk.

[quantumreality]

Random aside: I heard the Deep Space 9 "Trials and Tribble-ations" was actually purposely filmed with 1960s equipment and film stock to accurately reproduce the TOS-era "feel" of the reshot scenes.

[herpymcderp]

That could also be true. I never followed DS9, but I wouldn't put it past that production team.

I think there's something to be said for it, but I don't think most people would be interested in watching an entire film shot in that manner unless it was an arthouse type of thing.

[quantumreality]

Yeah. A lot of people don't realize how labor-intensive shit could be even as late as the 1970s, simply because of the lack of desktop computers. What today can be done with a digital camera and a good proprietary animation studio software package had to be done back then with manual cutting and pasting and careful editing.

It's honestly probably easier to just use the sepia or B&W effect of a software package than to get that extra 10% or 5% realism by using period film stock and developing methods.

[intrigueing]

That is fucking awesome :D

[(Anonymous)]

For that matter, in color it's possible to make that effect happen. Look at Agent Carter. That New York of the 1940s didn't look that good IRL I bet :P (and if you look closely you'll notice how the harsher blue-white modern lights have been CGIed back to the yellow sodium-lamp color of that era)

[(Anonymous)]

Actually the film was just fine. Some close ups were shot through gauze, smoke or gel on the lens to make them softer.

It may be that people in general made more of an effort to be combed and dressed, and actresses in particular never went anywhere with a pin out of place, unlike the current generation who are much more lax about hair, makeup and occasionally, hygiene.

[herpymcderp]

The film reel itself was fine, but see above. Also there's a distinct difference in shooting on film vs. shooting digitally, which most studios do these days.

And yes, I'm aware of the old Vaseline on the lens trick, but that's not what I'm referring to exactly. Those are specific shots that were used for specific reasons (e.g. emotional scenes, love scenes). I'm talking about the look of old movies compared to the HD movie making process we have now.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I don't think you would have opened up a magazine back then and seen photos of an actress walking down the street in a tracksuit and baseball cap (or an actor, for that matter). I don't idealize that too much, though, because being glamorous all the time is exhausting and I don't expect anyone to keep it up without a day off now and then.

NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

But... that's because old Hollywood rigidly controlled its stars lives/ publicity, and wouldn't let 'normal' 'everyday' photos of its stars to be published. Whereas nowadays celebrities' lives aren't as controlled by studios AND consumers and creators of celebrity gossip have an appetite for seeing celebrities off guard - think of all the photo sets of movie stars just getting out of the gym, walking the dog, going shopping, getting a coffee etc that you will commonly see in gossip mags now. It's not because they were inherently less scruffy than people today.