fatih yıkar

Hi all, my purpose to opening this topic actually not making digital vs.film or comparison... I think film always wins.. My problem is i notice that changing look of film in mid 00s . I talk to my cinephiles friends and all of them say same thing ''yeah nowadays every movie look so digital even the shot on film''' Looking forums and internet there have been similar conversation like http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=2150&hl= http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1194137 http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/why-some-90s-movies-dont-look-dated.341838/ https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2py8z8/why_do_older_movies_look_well_old/ When i watch movies from 60s,70s,80s,90s early 00s i say yeah thats absolutely shot on film not because i know there is no digital in that time, i know because they got that look, if i watch them without knowing release date i still could decide... I think digital won the war because film doesn't look like film anymore. If the film look like digital why directors,cinematographers,producers choose to shot on film. Audience doesn't understand ıt was shot on film or digital (as a cinematographer you can say but important side is audience and i saw many times cinematographers also struggle to chooce which one film or digital)

(Really nice video also mention about nowadays film look) 35mm is quickly becoming indistinguishable from something shot digitally

Im sorry but it's doesnt look special at all, looks like shot on digital not even glorious 70mm. Saving Private Ryan, Red thin line,Enemy at the Gates way better than this maybe 70mm prints make difference in theathers. I'm not troll by the way :D just say my personel thoughts

Thanks for recommend i'm going to watch in a little while... Speaking of scream looking better, i like the trilogy looks but first scream truly looking different than scream 2 and 3 i always wonder why? Some people called 'washed out look' a little bit 'bright' and ''whitish'' which i like because its make it scream unique. Mark Irwin make it for consciously for sure but They do this through ''filter' ,'lab processing' 'color grading' or they use low contrast stock ''Vision 320T'' 2 and 3 looks more sharp higher contrast more saturated but stock and movie came out same year... I couldn't figure out in a little whi. look

I'm sorry it's not easy to find similiar environments like interior bright dark all time :) Mission impossible 1996-EXR 500T 2006-Vision2 100T,500T D.I 2000-EXR 100T - Vision 500T 2011-Vision3 200T,500T D.I 2015-Vision3 200T,500T D.I

Another example from scream all shot 35mm 1996-1997-2000 trilogy looks good but fourth(2011) looks horrible if you compare doesn't fit the movie spirit that's the reason lot of people doesn't like scream4 .It was actually a good movie... (Peter Deming amazing cinematographer, he is also cinematographer second and third)

Another example from american pie all movies shot on 35mm 1999-2001(a little more orange not big difference-2003(just after 2 years look so different so digital not the problem aspect ratio and year is only 2003 -2012 (Similar to the third) Please dont say they growing up :) Movies looking so much different

Thaks for answers David As i said before problem is not set design and costume thats why i put dazed and confused-everybody wants some comparison,both movies have same set design and costume (80s) but doesnt feel same, something doesnt right.(I got same feeling for new twin peaks and blade runner 2049 look) (Completely personal thoughts) I think i love Exr film stock but some late 90s movies shot on first vision stock and they doesnt look so different And then i think problem Telecine-D.I but lord of the rings trilogy doesnt look disturbing or numb.. Is there any comparasion video or pictures how much different film stock effects of movies look? Or how much telecine-D.I has difference ? If the problem film stock why kodak make film stocks much more look digital? Why they doesnt produce old stock like Exr? (Because vision3-vision2 look so digital,disturbing if you compare old movies..) Things changes with kill bill and then after kill bill every movie start to looking much more digital (compressed pictures doesn't shows exaclty, if you look blu-rays you will see more obvious)

No no nothing about frame light or composition, I mean its just about feeling whole image texture,emotion,natural colors, cinematic looking like when you look motion you feel you over there inside the picture, you feel close the movie, its nothing about nostalgic feeling believe me Nowadays movies look like so artificial, Unpleasant,uncomfortable problem is not just digital Another example 90s teen movies just look color,motion,relaxing,sense of reality, hard to describe with words

There's some kind of conversation (http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=45742) Movies shot on film but look bad and digital for me when i compare 80s 90s and early 00s and oscar nominees they all look same digital looking another example dazed and confused 1992 and everbody wants some 2016 (how can i like this movie when looking like that)

Hi firstly sorry my english is not my main languages. Im not expert about cinematography, but I have been searching for the last 3 years and couldn't find the satisfied answer for my question... İ watch movies from 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s especially 90s. I start to notice that films are starting to look worse every year(personal opinion)..I first started to notice it in early 2000s and then began to pay more attention in 2005 and then in 2010 I watched 70 movies from 2016 and they all look alike, even movies shot on film. Of course they are not exactly the same but only difference look color grading and correction I thought the first problem was a digital revolution, but it start 2000s and nowadays even the movies shot on film still looks digital and bad to me.. Okay Technology develops and look of movies are changing but don’t you think it goes bad? Digital is one problem but what about the film? So whats the main problem? Cant be camera, lighting, lenses because all texture so much different. Film stock, telecine i guess but What are your ideas? Maybe compressed pictures not shown exactly what i meant in 70s we got this ( i chooce movies randomly) 80s 90s My favourite 2000s here's things going bad but not too much

I'm sorry folks im not a expert but Who's voting in acedemy best cinematography? This year La la land- Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them- Nocturnal Animals- Batman v Superman- The Neon Demon- Café Society- Rogue One- American Honey- Especially The Witch got really good cinematography. I'm okey with arrival,silence but Moonlight and Lion really is this a joke or something? What kind of cinematography moonlight have? ıts so poor looking movie when i say poor im not meant budget or design you know what i mean so simple ıts just looking shot in digitally and make a little color correction,grading thats it.These movies i say up there has got much more good cinematography im absolutely sure...