Hey, my DP friends! As an actors' director, I'm often in AWE at how much one has to juggle technically in order to achieve that "cinematic" look - and I know one strong reason for the decline of that "cinematic" look is because we're not filming on film stock any longer.
But why do YOU think movies don't look like movies anymore?
Found this brief video about why, but I'd love to know your thoughts. Especially with steadily decreasing budgets and readily available technology - how can we keep films "cinematic"?
1 person likes this
Great question Karen "Kay" Ross this is something I think about a lot as well.
I don’t think it’s just about film vs digital. A big part of it feels like control shifting from set to post. Earlier, filmmakers had to get lighting, composition, and mood right in-camera. Now, a lot of decisions are pushed into post-production, which sometimes makes images feel over-processed and less “lived-in.”
Also, lighting and contrast have changed a lot older films embraced shadows, depth, and stronger color separation, while many modern projects lean toward flatter, safer lighting (especially for streaming and VFX workflows).
For me, “cinematic” comes down to intention:
– strong lighting choices
– depth in the frame
– controlled color contrast
– and letting imperfections exist
Even on smaller budgets, I feel if those fundamentals are respected, the image still feels like a movie.
Curious how others approach this especially balancing speed, budget, and visual depth.
1 person likes this
I'd say it's for the same reason Kindle self publishing and its brethren put paid to literature. Cheap tech and instant distribution opens the flood gates, lowers the bar, And makes 'quantity - not quality' the mission statement.
2 people like this
We’ve become a bit like digital makeup artists.
Shooting safe, fixing everything later, smoothing, balancing, perfecting… until the image loses its soul.
Cinema used to come from decisions on set. Now it often comes from correction in post.