We need stale cinematography...

>we need stale cinematography, boring setups but centered framing with huge contrasts so retards mistake it for good cinematography
>i got this senpai

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sIaauiVU4To
rogerdeakins.com/post-the-di/luts/
youtube.com/watch?v=Ppc43PUL1zI
youtube.com/watch?v=vEB9I4Q4dm8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

even his hairstyle is dishonest

>i need this mediocre forgettable flick to look "good" so retards can call it kino
>i know just the shot senpai

not even joking, i went on a hike today and the end of the day looked exactly like this. shame i didnt brought my phone or else people would call me Deakins

>wow, he can wait for the sun to go down.

Any of you guys that think im joking

grab skyfall and check every single dialogue scene and how its shot. Dude has no idea whatsoever how to film a scene. None. Zero.

br is the same shit. Everything is the most stale shit you can imagine. Tell me one good dynamic scene? Just fucking one? Pro tip: You can't.

The only thing this motherfcuker knows how to do is to pop up colors so people screencap centered frames and think it is good cinematography.

How autistic do i have to be to know directors just by their pictures

I don't get it, what is 4chans problem with Deakins?

His cinematography is solid, he is not trying to be pretentious or anything.

only a handful of people have a problem with him, and they're faggots

thats the joke

>His cinematography is solid, he is not trying to be pretentious or anything
yet people here claim he is the best

kek, he's good but def overrated. doesn't even use anamorphic lenses

Why is there always one of these threads every week with some faggot hatin on Roger Deakins?

Is it because Deakins get so much praise?

Why do you always need to hate everything that is considered good by many people?

Why can't you just accept that some people are simply that good that their art has mass appeal?

Deakins is kino dude.

is this the guy who fucked children

Spoken like a true redditor.

What marvel flick is this from?

OP is a faggot

>that piss and shite colour scheme
>Kubrick
get lost you idiot

Post 1 shot from a Deakins movie that looks bad and I will believe you.

this has to be a bait thread.

i dont have a problem and some of sicario actually looks really nice, but people mistake his screencaps for good cinematography. it isn't. he knows how to make a set pop-up, how to make colors fly, etc. that's it. he's one of the most boring cinematographer working.

>muh colors

...

you posted one yourself.

sophomoric at best

Why are you so entry level?
I can guarantee you that your boyfriend Deakins would slap you for making this post with that image

I would guess he's talking about the symmetrical sci fi bag things, which are VERY Kubrick. Kubrick production design 101.

literally the cinematography in this whole movie is good brainlet, if this shot was the only one that impressed you then you probably think Lubezki is good
Sicario's script was trash though, this is correct

but that's an outtake you silly billy

Fuck you all,
Roger Deakins will win the Oscar.
Pic Related is a masterpiece.

>“Inception” (2010)
Holy shit, the pasta is true:
>wraps the shot
>fistbumps Tarantino
>asks Deakins to "make it more interesting in the next one"
>consults industry statistics to see if the best shades of orange and teal haven't changed from yesterday
>schedules an AMA on reddit
>asks the PR team to wrap up photographing the props, while on the phone with the special effects studio
>has lunch and afterwards prays to an alter of Christopher Nolan
>wonders if "kino" is a compliment or a criticism
>brainstorms ways to appeal to teenagers
>allows Harrison Ford to wear an old t-shirt because he doesn't want to get in a confrontation, as his accent comes out too much when he yells and makes him insecure
>checks in with his doctor whether or not his fecal sample was brown or green
>worries in hindsight if he should have graded Sicario more aggressively orange
>has a minor breakdown thinking of what he left behind in Quebec, but wipes the tears with a check and carries on
>searches up his name + "arthouse" and is happy to see the number of hits increase from last week
>goes for dinner and humors the execs, gets anxious when they mention box office numbers
>goes to bed and dreams about having a Spielberg-assembly line on set 24/7
Truly based, an auteurs auteur, the Christopher Nolan of our generation.

Part 2:
Q: Why didn't Luv kill K when she abducted Deckard?

DV: The thing is, for her, he isn't "left" there - she thinks he will die. The truth is, there was a scene that was cut out of the movie where it was obvious that she was killing him. She was doing something, but it was so violent that I said "alright, alright, I have to kill some darlings, I have to remove that, it was way too violent." But K's left for dead there. She could have finished him but that would have created problems for the rest of the story [laughs].
>[laughs]

Is this the thread where we post Kino cinematography shots by Master Deakins?

just start at 59 secs

youtube.com/watch?v=sIaauiVU4To

this goes from boring to awful very quickly. notice how he has no idea how to reposition the actors, to set the space, to convey anything in this conversation.

with the lamp off he pops the contrast and then goes absolutely fucking nowhere. dude is an hack.

any examples of good cinematography for a curious user?

a shit load.

long goodbye from altman is great example of a dynamic style
something more rigid, last emperor.
more natural, anything tarkovski directed.
the original br is a great example too. just compare how this films present the dialogue scenes and the nuance Cronenweth films in anything vs the whatever the hell it is those luv vs robin wright shit

there's too many to post though.

It's the same 5 posters who think they're defending the board from and I quote "anti-tv terrorists"

Lubezki. anthony dod mantle. Charles Lawton Jr.. whoever did powell & pressburger's films.

Deakins is good the first time you see his stuff. but it's the opposite of dynamic, interesting, dangerous, or provocative. it's just neatly arranged and color drained. yawn.

>nominated 14 times
>snubbed every time
At least he has the BAFTAs

is this post a joke? that's the least beautiful frame I've ever seen. what are you even praising here?

what ps4 game is this

Why are there so many new users on Sup Forums?

you know how I know you're an underage normie with no experience in cinema?

contrarianism

>Lubezki

Been shooting the same movie since The New World

JIM'LL FIXT FOR YOU TO BE RAPPPPED

he's been repetitive but he's a good cinematographer. that's the thing.

you want great Lubezki? y tu mama tambien. not revenant

That shot isn't even from the film.

Have you seen Shawshank Redemption? Fargo? True Grit? Literally none of what you said there is in those films, almost like you've seen just his films with Villeneuve

We all watch renegade cut dude

also if you fuckers want centered framing, perfect shots, yada yada

Mark Lee Ping-bing

deakins is an apprentice next to him. fucker filmed the assassin with nothing but low natural light.

op here.

i agree with you. deakins changed a lot since post-grading. he was indeed a good cinematographer who liked to push the scene. but you certainly agree with me that today people associate him with that bullshit very colored screencaps.

And the Assassin looked like ass

>y tu mama
>not the Lubezki kino The Cat in the Hat

You are aware that Deakins still largely doesn't rely on grading at all and works exactly the same as before?
The visuals of every film he makes are made entirely in camera

Besides the CGI, ofcourse

Why? Not enough screencaps you can use for your facebook page?

>post-grading
what does this even mean. everything in the digital era is graded in post. you don't apply a LUT in camera and export it from there.

His last good film was The Assassination of Jesse James.

Deakins doesn't use LUTs

not true at all. he changes every single fucking thing in a pc asking the assistants in the color grad studio he works.

just check the difference to the one posted back.

>denying the poolside jizzkino

why are you lying on the internet?
rogerdeakins.com/post-the-di/luts/

wow, he shot the sky blue, the sunset red and the horizon black, how dare he

digital grading, heavily used in the industry post brother where are thou by....roger deakins.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ppc43PUL1zI

just look at those fuckinb before and after...

yes i know most people do it (outside of the nolans, ptas, etc) but he reshapes his movies there for those shitty contrasts

A Serious Man is a bad film? True Grit is a bad film?

A Serious Man is a major pleb filter.

...

>Been shooting the same movie since The New World
>Birdman
>Gravity
>Children of Men
>The Tree of Life
>all the same movie
this board stinks

This shot at dusk fits the narrative of trying to insert an agent in the cover of darkness with the most time available under darkness for him to complete his mission. Dusk is also naturally beautiful. So what?

lmfao. go back to your high school english class

No, because it did. It felt like some scenes were shot on videotape, while the black and white shots were clearly just regular shots but with the color digitally removed (evident in how poorly lit they were in monochrome). Meanwhile Lubezki gets far superior pictures using natural light as well.
But feel free to think yourself superior just for reading subtitles.

not gonna lie, this is kino as fuck

He achieves it all largely in camera, even color heavy scenes like the Vegas scene in BR2049 are all made on set and in camera
That user is stupid but Deakins uses basically the same LUT in every single film, it's a basic LUT that normalizes the RAW file, besides that he shoots everything just the same like he shot in film
youtube.com/watch?v=vEB9I4Q4dm8 LUT video

videotape?lmao

film was shot at 1/24 or 1/36, so it could capture more light you dimwit. films looks gorgeous as fuck. its as natural as film gets.

This year is his year.

they are not far superior at all. they are the typical film shot you are used with an 180º shutter.

Amerimutts getting mad as usual at the superior British.

>one point perspective
OH MY GOD HOW DOES HE DO IT???

He's popular. That's it.
And the sad thing is most Sup Forums posters can't name 3 other working DPs, while hating on Deakins just because he's popular.

He made Skyfall at least watchable.

>implying a frame needs to be highly complex to be good

Was 20 years ago and I'd surely love to, but I'd also appreciate you pointing out the flaws in my reasoning. I know they're back in Arizona at this point in the film, but sunsets here in Texas look exactly like this as well. They're beautiful.

another shitty ass colored contrast scene where the camera does fuck all but some bizarre push in moving then horizontally lol.

the movement of the camera is ridiculous, the scene is basically imperceivable, doesnt create any sort of tension or rhythm. this is a perfect fake shot you can plaster in your facebook as good cinematography while being trash.

>so it could capture more light you dimwit
Looks like it captured too much light, most of the scenes are terribly overlit

t. loves jump cuts out the ass

>he uses the same LUT for everything but just fiddles the saturation a bit
jesus christ what a hack. no wonder everything he does looks so stale.

Cinematography is 99% lighting you uneducated dumbass.
The blocking, choreography, framing and composition is largely the job of the director.

What do you mean by stale?

depends of the directors. deakins does much more than that.

fuck no. but that idiotic movement. first horizontal, a push in and the final vertical is literally nothing but a awful show off.

>dishonest post by someone who couldn't even tell you what focal length means

flat. same-y. boring. predictable. dull.

color-wise and somewhat compositionally, BR2049 is completely lifeless compared to the original, or even one of its knock offs like that Total Recall remake which was mostly cgi, but still had more geographic nooks and crannies that provide true visual interest.

>depends of the directors
Any director who has the slightest bit of artistic integrity does that. Only whatever CMarvel directors don't bother with visuals, which is evident in their work. Sam Mendes is not a whatever director
>deakins does much more than that
He certainly doesn't tell the director how should the actors move, he certainly doesn't tell the director if he wants a scene to be one take or not etc. More than likely he get's into production after storyboarding is over (which means all framing and composition is done) and then he executes and lights those set shots.

cinematographers are the cuckolds of the filmmaking, they're nothing but glorified cameramen shilled by their shitty union.

SAY WHAT YOU WILL ABNOUT JIMMY SAVILLE BUT HE KNEW HOW TO CINEMATOGRAPH

>BR2049 is completely lifeless compared to the original
It's just a different aesthetic. The original is lit and composed in a completely different manner, with its own comparative strengths and weaknesses. People are just mad that Villeneuve made a contemporary scandi noir film rather than the classic Hollywood noir that the original tried to mimic.

The monochromatic "sterile" visuals are the entire point of BR2049, to show the bleak empty future after the blackout where nature is practically non existent that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day.
It would make no sense for this film to look extremely colorful and dense, it would make no sense to fill the streets with thousands of extras, it would make no sense to shoot it on grainy film, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" and developed when everything in it is basically dead.

It's sad that you think that every film should be as vibrant and "pretty" as possible no matter what the narrative is about. Also that picture looks like absolute ass, Marvel tier visuals.

Too much contrast, surely a shitty camera without range, crushes the whites and the blacks

Do you even know what "flat" visuals even means?

of course cinematography that purposefully emphasizes emptiness and voids is inherently going to be less interesting visually.

the problem is Deakins can only seem to lens things with a single focus minimalism and muted palette that removes life from the frame, no matter the project. that in turn causes different films to look the same, removing a sense of identity.

he can only see in teal and tan. at a certain point that becomes boring. the minimal angle can also too often be confused with a lack of effort. It's not that hard to shoot wides like Deakins.

yeah. that image. it's near monochrome sepia and the contrast is muted given that the center highlight level is so low.

>overlit

I wish I could strangle people over the internet.

I think a flat image has to do more with light creating a sense of 3d space. Nothing to do with color.