fatih yıkar

Don't worry, new halloween movie come out. All that budget,effort they can't even achieve similar lighting and also ıt's looks horribly digital

Lovely work, Tyler can we see your students music videos? Is it uploaded youtube or vimeo? i really wondered especially photochemical one.

If you have enough time please read all the things not just one part i hope people understand what i mean now :unsure:

In summary as i know every decade movies looking and cinematography changes 60s,70s,80s,90s movies looking different than each other... and all that time we got an average,specific look of movies…

In 90s movies shot on film (exr and first visions) and photochemically done as result we got average 90s film look with different styles

In 00's movies shot on film(generally vision2/3) with digital grading especially after the 2005 and first digital cameras come out as the result we got average 00s look with different styles

In 2010's movies shot digitally with digital grading or shot (vision3) with generally digital grading as the result we got average 2010's look with different styles

These are the things that i learn, i can make mistakes

Finally for me i'm thinking that the average look of 90s we got, looking much better,beautiful,filmic, cinematic than the average look of 00s and 2010s..I’m not talking about the movies quality like scprit directing acting etc…

That's why i write all the time even a independent,low budget or just regular hollywood movie from 90s look better than nowadays best looking movies for example oscar nominees like best cinematography (Arrival,Moonlight,Silence,Lion,La la land) maybe la la land can be exception or last years movies, I’m choosing movies randomly (Reservoir Dogs,Swingers,Bottle Rocket,Bad Lieutenant,Dazed and Confused,True Romance,Office Space etc.) looking more filmic, pleasant,cinematic for me and these are not a really stylized,attentive movies.

What i meant is that average look of movies quality is down.... this is i try to explain.... how can i be so brutal for example even the ‘’scary movie (2000)’’ looking more cinematic,filmic than (birdman,gone girl or the revenant) i know it’s a odd just making conclusion about the cinematography from movies look and not see the lighting or camera work but that’s i feel it….

When someone responding to me there are different lighting,different grading,different stylistic choice between 90s and nowadays movies

I thinking well movies in 90s also has different ligting styles like the big lebowski,usual suspects,fight club has

or different grading like saving private ryan,se7en,minority report,the crow,sleepy hollow has

or different stylistic choice like scream,goodfellas,matrix,jacob's Ladder,lost highway,eyes wide shut has

and none of the different grading, choices,ligting not create or destroy that movies cinematic look that people love, they still has unique filmic look…

That’s why i’m insist lighting or stylistic choice not the problem that i see, because same dps same directors movies visually changed so much after digital revolution if they got the same style they will keep maintain…

For example is anybody remember how David Cronenberg movies looking awesome in 80s and 90s like (videodrome,the fly,dead ringers,naked lunch, eXistenZ) and he generally works with same dp ‘’Peter Suschitzky’’ and his latest movies (A Dangerous Method- Cosmopolis- Maps to the Stars) looking different (for me not cinematic) nowadays.So what happend his dp or he changes his style or ’Peter Suschitzky’’ changing his lighting techniques when the age of 70, of course none of them happened…

I don’t believe tastes are change.If the tastes changed when new si-fi movies come out like (passengers, the life, Alien:Covenant,blade runner 2049) people must be saying this’’ 2001,original blade runner,alien,’’ are much better movies but cinematographically i like the new movies’’ but they never say something like that they just say cgi and special effects are better nowadays.Even the most digital lovers accept original movies looking much better. We got 5 different ‘’alien’’ movies and i never saw a alien fan saying this ‘’well fincher’s alien looking bad or cameron’s looking terrible’’ visually no discussion happen like that because all the alien movies has that filmic look even with all that different styles Ridley,Cameron,Fincher,Jeunet has.

That tastes look like changed because of big studios,companies,producers change the movies look by force(because ıt’s more cheaper and easier) and saying you’re gonna like it that digital look there is no big difference between film and digital there is no way another but i’m not a accepting this…

I know that in 90s only 3 rgb lights exists but so many movie from that area has different looking they don't looking similar each other because of texture but now every movie coming from alexa has same texture no matter what how you grade,shot or use different lighting,lenses i still see the only one alexa image/texture that doesn't change…

I don't know how to film has so much different diversity or creating different texture every time but it was happening more until the digital grading.I’m still amazed by Saving private ryan, Fifth element, American Pie shot on same stock and all of them has different look,texture but when i saw movies like Hacksaw Ridge, Arrival,Whiplash all the time i see same texture that alexa and digital gives and it’s not change by how different you grade or shot movie…

Now when the people say film and digital has no difference i can't blame them because that's kind a true but if the movies still look like 90s movies people can't say there is no difference between film and digital. I think movies start to look digital before digital cameras come out with digital grading and modern stocks help them. These things became a transition period to digital cameras and people start to get use to that digital look and for me we lost the sense of how the movies should be look like the Roger Ebert said and people like me never like it new movies cinematography beacuse they don't look like movies that we know.

In my opinion 90s movies has some kind of cinematic look that we forgot, they really has different texture,colors like more similar to organic colors that movies has in 40s,50s,60s,70s 80s skin tones always right, movies look more deep,has more texture,look more dimensional, they has intense looking that we can't have nowadays.That look can't change unless they making to much digital grading for blu-rays. I can only describe with these words because i’m not so knowledge with technical stuffs…..

At now i’m bet when the new lotr series come out people still saying peter jackson’s are looking much better or new jumanji movie come out in 2 weeks and ıt’s looking much worse than original ‘jumanji’’ movie..

If you want to see that changes i noticing all time just start to watch harry potter movies or x-men movies. Just pick up 5 different movie from 90s and 5 different movie from 2010s watch them compare them…

 

Here's your answer. You're not trying to learn something or debate about an idea. You think you figure it out a revelation, and even when some of the greats DP with years and years the experience say is not like that, you get mad because nobody can see how a truly genius you are.

That's bad in life in general (because you can learn anything with that actitud), but is really bad in a collaborative art like cinema, when you have TONS of information to learn, and the best way is just working with people that know more than you.

 

I'm not saying you have to say "I'm wrong because he's, whom have more experience, say it", but you need to stop and say "maybe there's something I don't know or I just miss" and try it to figure it out.

 

Just a friendly advice, and a necessary one in this kind of work.

Under this topic i'm not debate an idea,i'm sharing my own thoughts...

Btw I don't think i figure out a revelation . I'm not mad i'm just sad because you can't see the things what i see i'm just sorry for you. I don't have to prove myself or i don't need that somebody to tell me ''how truly genius you're'', ı'm just regular audience...

After this before you making psychological judgments about someone else, don't do it to just about someone you know from the internet....

and how the topics come to here, i'm just saying digital grading and digital cameras making movies visually much worse and i'm giving the examples for my claim, showing the visually but you just writing stuff that about my personality and psychology. I'm just graduated and i'm bet you're much more knowledgeable and experienced than me about cinematography no doubt that.In the world tons of information needs to be learn i agree with you...

Next day i will write a long answer and i hope you're going to understand my claim...

Do you want to know where's the fallacy in your screenshots? (not saying you're doing on purpose, but maybe because ignorance). You think you are comparing two identical shots because the costumes or the location but if you are in a cinematographer forum, you need to look similar cinematography.

I mean, in the first two shots you have in the left and front, up hard light and in the right one you have a much soft 45º light.

In the bar scene you have a rembrandt light and in the right you have an edge light and a lot of soft fill light.

 

That are all estathics choices, like color grading. But when somebody tell you that (or anything you don't want to hear, to be honest) you start to complain about how misunderstood you are. Try to be humble and, if everyone are tell you something, I'm not saying that you need to change your mind. But at least, try to think about it, instead try to refute them just because.

For a god's sake i'm complain about misunderstood because so many people here don't understand what i mean even you don't understand. None of the things about lighting or grading here, i know scenes has different lighting but even if they have same lighting problem is not going to be fix. First movie look more cinematic with organic colors,more deep,has more texture,more dimensional with intense looking.

I try to put similar identical shots because maybe people can understand that way the differences i see, i can easily pick up different shots from different scenes or movies but in that case you're going to say these are different movies different lighting,lenses,grading different dp's different stylistic choices That's why i pick up sequel movies or same the dp's work for to block that kind of answers.....

''you need to look similar cinematography.'' For example how can i find similar cinematography? can you give some advise?

even that a sequel movie with same cast similar location doesn't have the similar cinematography and also before that i give other examples from scream,american pie,hostel movies and many of movies has same dp's....

I think small pictures doesn't exactly showing that's why people only focusing lighting and grading after that i'm going to put only one big picture. I know second picture has different ligthing...

My biggest problem with 16mm tends to be that I find the reduction in clarity to be a bit of a visual wall that makes the image seem flatter, less dimensional and for most movies, I want to feel like Im experiencing a location, a space. But for some projects, that flatter, softer, grainier look adds an interesting graphic quality..

Yes Yes this is the right word i been looking for ''dimensional''. When i wrote movies shot on film and photochemically done looks so ''deep'' i meant ''dimensional''.

That's why i say even the low budget, independent, not a nice looking movies from 90s,early 00s looking more cinematic,filmic than every movie come out nowadays. When the ''dimensional'' thing is lost i couldn't find images cinematic. Nowadays every movie looking flat for me even it was shot on film(a few exceptions) or digital.This thing not about the lens choice or stylistic choice....

One of the best christmas movie ''bad santa 2003'' and digitally shot sequel movie ''Bad santa 2 2016''

I'm not saying second movie is good actually is bad but visually far behind the first one like the other sequels shot digitally nowadays and problem not just colors..

Like the Charles said there, going a movie theater is an Experience. In old times many people just go to theater for that experience, not for one particularly chosen movie, they go,select randomly a movie and watch it.

Inflation is main reason but why the ticket prices not drop after digital revolution? Dcp files more cheaper than $1500 film prints

Even though digital projection is better than film projection, in my opinion theater should run film prints. You have to give me something that i can't get at home. Now 60 inches tv's are really cheaper and home theater projectors gives really beautiful images at 130 inches and prices getting drop every year.

While the ticket prices are rising in theaters and now movie theaters has 10 or 15 small screen instead of one giant, big screen.

Btw i always wonder how it looks MaxiVision 24 or 48 system, so many time Roger Ebert praise that. There are good articles about this subject...

https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/thats-not-the-imax-i-grew-up-with

https://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/digital-dilemmas-you-want-pixels-with-that

I remember watching Peter Jackson's The Hobbit movies at the cinema a few years ago. I was bored beyond belief sitting there watching. I detested the very look of what I was sitting through.

Yeah this is another example, when i blame technology so many people here dont't agree with me but if digital technology not shows up hobbit movies would be look like the lord of the rings trilogy, such a good opportunity missed....

New big budget films shot on film I think need a limited release as film-projected prints, at a higher ticket price if need be. Then a general digital release for a longer run at the cinema (to get around the problem of the print quickly wearing out).

I been thinking is movies shot on film could be release on film-projected theaters before dcp release ... like the Tarantino make the roadshow for hateful eight only one day but if the movie only released film print and one or two month later release digitally in theaters, ıt will be prize for the theaters still run film projection...

Also many people here complain about film prints damages,dust,scratches things like that but as i remember i saw many movies from prints when i was teenager and never saw a big problem like that, i asked couple of old projectionist about problems of prints, they told me we know all that risk about prints because of that we are so careful all the time and they said they run some film prints over than 300-500 times and ıt still has no scratches,dust or damages still looks brilliant, so how accurate things are about cons of film prints?

Well ıt's look like they change the color for blu-ray, trailer looks different i don't watch the movie from theater so which one is the real color of movie trailer or blu-ray? anyway new movie not even close the first movie cinematography

trailer -blu-ray

Your screenshots seem to come from a camcorder pointed at the screen.

 

Here's the trailer in HD:

 

 

Not as bad as the screenshots, but definitely a very different look from the classic original.

My screenshots looks bad because of high compression, rules of 300 kb picture only be added. I think trailer looks more different, has different colors.

And also everybody can look the movie from http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/T2-Trainspotting-Blu-ray/176402/#Screenshots here

I'm not changing the color but programme i use for maybe has a little different settings...

Here is the thing: Digital and film can look pretty much identical. A lot of these issues above are more about grading choices than they are film vs digital. The shots on the right are very color saturated, almost to the point of absurdity. Those 'right' shots also make horrible use of highlights and look as if some kind of really bad post sharping was done to them. It was very much a stylistic choice on these, not a film vs digital issue.

Colors looks different but problem is not just the color issue there are more things than that.....

And i can't accept this answer all time the written '' stylistic choice''....

If everything is stylistic choice how the people make decisions about this movie look good,cinematography is amazing, lighting so perfect

I mean if say something or criticize a movie, everybody can say this '' this is a stylistic choice'' ''that's why my movie look so digital, that's why color looks dissatisfied, that's why movie is too grainy because this is my ''stylistic choice''...

Again, these screen shots have very different lighting and grading that are totally independent of it being film or digital. The difference in look is intentional, its an artistic choice not the result of one bing film and another being digital. You are comparing apples to oranges again.

If they intentionally doing this they must be blind, this is what i'm try to tell, ıt's like we're living in the era of stupidity..

They use some scenes from previous movie for flashback scene and they change the color ıt's look terrible for me and btw compression adds grain in high resolution new movie look more digital.

I don't want to open this topic because of so many film vs digital discussions but i don't want to ruin other topics with my screenshots. Occasionally i will share some screenshots from movies under this topic.

I love these Roger Ebert words

Do you remember what a movie should look like? Do you notice when one doesn't look right? Do you feel the vague sense that something is missing? I do. I know in my bones how a movie should look

He said these things for digital projectors but every time when i watch a new movie, these words comes to my mind.

https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/the-dying-of-the-light

İ watched the trainspotting 2, aka T2, i think movie is good (directing,script,acting etc.) except for one thing movie's look. I'm not going to write a lot of stuff that i wrote before about color,texture,depness. I'm just sharing screenshots from previous movie and new one.

Btw i also like the ''hateful eight'' but problem is when i watching in movie theather from digital projection colors looks so faded and all image was dark so i can't make healty evaluation after i watched from blu-ray again ıt's looks much different than i saw in theather.

A couple months ago i talked the guy who works in movie theater he told to me '' so many movie theather have to change their projector lambs using 2000-3000 hours later or they have to make repair but they don't do this things because of cost so they using until a big problem shows up, that's why some movies looking bad at screen depending on projection''

I don't know what's the situation is in United States but i suppose movie theaters isn't inspected every year as a image quality in many country.

So digital photography is no good... and film transferred to digital is no good, not even 65mm film... and Fatih Yikar doesn't even like film finished to film if it's done using modern film stocks!

 

Is there a point where one's standards can be so impossibly high that it becomes an impediment to enjoying something?

I laughed so much while I was reading :lol: but I want to add, i really like the ''love witch'' and ''inherent vice'' recently, i still haven't watched dunkirk or Murder on the Orient Express...

I think the solution is simple, kodak must produce again old stock exactly the same way (exrs, first visions etc), and if a movies shot on this stock with 90s shooting style and photochemically done it would be great for me :)

 

meme.jpg

:rolleyes: Still waiting blu-ray this (Cecil B. DeMented) really beautiful looking movie as far as i remember from dvd but probably it won't come out soon

When we talking about film stock of original evil dead ( Top 10 Films to Watch for Cinematographers) topic, I always wanted to ask this

Is that correct original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was shot on Ektachrome 25T 7252?

I mean how can they achieve the lighting with 16mm 25 ASA, grain level of the movie doesn't high that much for a 16mm especially for 25T speed stock maybe night scenes look a bit dark and grainy but totally movie look great. Also photos from the set seems they don't use big lights,carbon arc or hmi because of the low budget...

It was probably shot on 7247 100T color negative then. Or 7240 125T VNF Ektachrome reversal. See:

https://www.kodak.com/US/es/motion/About/Chronology_Of_Film/1960-1979/default.htm

I am mistaken about 7249, though- it's not a VNF designation. Probably confusing it with '39. '49 was a colour reversal intermediate stock used to save a generation for visual effects, with its own process, CRI-1. It faded very rapidly, which is why Star Wars and many other pictures were effectively unprintable after a few years, but that's another story.

It would be very unusual to shoot a feature on reversal- it's far more problematic to print.

İ asked again Mr.Tim Philo he replied ''7247. Sorry. It’s been awhile'' so evil dead was not shot on Ektachrome, in some ways movie kinda look like Ektachrome to me but so many scenes not..

By the way, Mark and fatih, this Youtube video is what gave me second thoughts about using 35mm in my project.

It's a long video so I'll just point out the specific few seconds.

Hi Samuel thank you for answer above and as i know we got same taste and opinion about digital-film argue. It's really great video but i know if i write this so many people on this forum making laugh of me but after all i will say i'm also not finding nowadays movies shot on 16mm look filmic so much :D . I mean grain level looking good but color and texture still that not pleasant for me, yes they looking more vintage than 35mm nowadays but when i watch older movies shot on 16mm they look much better for me (texas chainsaw-evil dead-maniac-lock stock and two smoking barrels-leaving las vegas-clerks-slacker and many others....)

As i know directors use 16mm for more vintage look but color still looking digital i can only blame again digital grading or film stocks :D..

Ektachrome isn't negative, it's reversal. The clue is the "chrome" part of the name which has always denoted reversal. The negative equivalent is "color", as in Eastmancolor 7247, which is obviously what he meant- his memory has let him down. '47 was the only Kodak MP neg stock available in 1981.

Mark, i don't understand what you mean EKTACHROME isn't negative, yes i know it's a reversal film but if a movie shot on Ektachrome film isn't that called film negative is Ektachrome film?

For example movies like (TexasChainSaw Massacre) is written negative is Ektachrome 25T 7252 - (Buffalo 66) negative is Ektachrome 160T 5239 -(Three Kings) negative is Ektachrome stock or (Domino) one of the negative is Ektachrome 100D 5285 etc...

A couple months ago from facebook i asked Tim Philo 'the dp of the evil dead' what stock did you use for evil dead? he replied '' It was the first generation of Ektachrome negative, 7249 I believe. ASA100 in tungsten.''

After that i look Ektachrome film stocks and couldn't find it 7249 listed but i still put this information on imdb Technical Specs page..

By the way new blu-ray version of evil dead release with 1.37 original aspect ratio but one of the new release is ''Remastered'' and it look horrible because they clean-up all the grain, the image look plastic-like when you compare other 1.37 release..