Thief 1981

Why does this movie look so good? How would you explain to someone in technical terms what is it that makes it this way?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xOgO7_eT8
youtube.com/watch?v=ryvHj2z-0BM
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/87647971/#87647971
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

can anyone on /tv even articulate a response to this or is it too reddit in here?

i guess i expect too much of this place having just seen the catalog. embarrassing

calm down. the simple answer is good shot choices+good blocking. none of the shots are unnecessarily flashy and they all work perfectly. the key is simplicity

>cinegrid
>muh thief
is there a more reddit thread on the board right now?

that's a good start. surely there's someone on here that can contribute more to this topic. i guess they're too busy with spamming tears in rain shitposts and memeing about kevin spacey.

shot on Film

not digital

thats why

Because Michael Mann has a good eye for visuals. He understands colours and framing. I mean, we could technically spend hours talking about why exactly something looks pleasing to the eyes.

>muh thief

that's a thing?

It would look better on digital though.

>the level of film discussion on this website

I don't see anything special that wasn't already done in The French Connection

Any pro 2049 thread

Plenty of movies are shot in film and look bad. Mann especially knows how to use digital and would probably make it look good in digital too, just with different aesthetic.

You know what's another good movie? This one.

>Shot on film
>Not digitally processed/post-processed
>High-quality filmstock
>Excellent shot blocking and composition
>Even better use of lighting
>Set dressers and wardrobe departments more capable than those of today

FIlm stock, developing, transfer, color correction, lighting
Film smooths everything out in a way that video can't.
Too bad its rarely ever used anymore.

That movie is mediocre though. It has great elements (Tooth Fairy, Lecter, shot compositions), but aside from those it feels like a generic 80's TV thriller.

>ummm what makes pictures pretty
Kill self, OP.

very smart color coding and influence from cinema du look
this board knows nothing about visuals. the fact they adore the new bladerunner is telling

Unless you're an artist, you don't know anything about visuals, I don't care how many books about composition and color relationships you've read, doesn't mean shit in real world. Non-artists should not have opinions on visual art, all of your opinions are wrong.

It's the lens

>Mann especially knows how to use digital
>I've never seen Public Enemy - the post

you think the new blade runner looks good?

>Because Michael Mann
/thread

but why do the colours look so good in it? why is everything so shiny and nice to look at?

>same cinematographer as Ace Ventura 2

>newfag thinks cinegrids are reddit
Time for you to stop talking

Criterion did a really good restoration?

Probably the lighting more than anything. It's hard to shoot night scenes that actually look how are eyes see at night. Very few movies pull it off. Repo Man is another one.

Michael Mann's aesthetic is cool that's why
Too bad for all the style of his movies he has a lot of fucking consistent issues.

It's really not that great all in all but the opening scene is an absolute masterpiece.

The music is really good

Just tells you how important a collaboration with a director with a vision for the visuals is. Then again, nothing wrong with When Nature Calls cinematography.

Kino

>1981
How can an old movie like that even loook that good? Did they use CG for the HD home video release?

Natural lighting and blocking shot on film. You seem pretty young so yeah, it might look foreign to you.

>Unless you're an artist, you don't know anything about visuals
I am an artist, I fap amazingly.

Colors, lights and framing

Here, have a shot from an even older film.

one of the first movies Janusz Kamiński did as a cinematographer was Cool As Ice. Yes. Cool as Ice.

a job is still a job.

>why pretty
>explain
>tv is retard

>Did they use CG for the HD home video release?
no, but for the bluray release mann said WE NEED MORE BLUE

every bluray release has that filter. i dont think directors even have a say..or do they

did they just use better cameras than anyone? or was the movie's color pallette heavily edited or something

>got his feefees hurt because someone called his shitty reddit movie reddit
>resorts to terrible argument that has nothing to do with the thread
sounds about right.

35mm film have the resolution equal to that of 4K. You can blow up 35mm to anything up to 8K and beyond but by that point it isnt benefitial as the sharpness is the same and all you do is "upscale" it.

I think the Bluray release is has had some color grading, the bluish tint is something I think they added, but other than that. That's how it looked in 1981.

It helps that Mann have always had a great eye for visuals and was a little ahead of his time.

We're used to watching old movies on dingy old VHS tapes, questionable DVD transfers and shitty oxxo rips from 2007. Film also degrade over time so not every film gets a remaster and image correction so some films just looks like ass despite it having looked great when it was released.

using different lenses for each shot

film is a better storage medium than digital in terms of definition. I know it sounds crazy to the novice but it really is and by a large margin. There are drawbacks though in terms of maintenance, standards, fragility and costs.

If you are curious about digital vs film, maybe a good introduction to recommend is the Keanu Reeves documentary Side by Side.

Framing that cuts off anything that doesn't benefit the shot, achieved by using specific lenses. Composition and lighting that directs the eye to the focal point of the shot. Having a color palette that provides a consistent mood or tone to the whole film. Having a good set/costuming department to produce a distinct and cohesive aesthetic, to set the time and place and create a world that reflects the nature of the story. And so on.

That movie has not aged well.

>every bluray release has that filter
not every, that's a stereotype because of the "blu"ray in the title. but the reality is some college fucks fuck around with the film and act like it's some instagram or some shit. there are films with two different bluray versions of the film that look entirely different.

but, iirc, the thief bluray was specifcally made by mann because mann loves blue filter. but the blue or any added filter in the bluray-releases happen often without the filmmaker involvement.

>Why does this movie look so good?
Based Mann shoots night time like no one else.
The tangerine dream score is flawless, and I regularly listen to it on its own.

>but why do the colours look so good in it?
Film stock and the process they use to develop it are going to dictate your colors and richness.

pic related

...

>Mann especially knows how to use digital
I really want to know why his digital movies all have that amazing texture that it just seems like no one else gets.

anyone have one for heat?

sex in the form of movie visuals

Most of the lighting to get those shots is anything but simple.

>All that ugly digital grain in night scenes

Early digital was absolutely horrible. I am glad digital is getting better and will surpass film within 10 years, but good god, early digital looked like ass.

And the motion blur was vomit inducing.

youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xOgO7_eT8

Damn, CGI really can do miracles.
Why the fuck do you even take the time to respond, you fucking retards, I was obviously baiting, I hate digital shit and love film.

Do you really spoonfeed imbecile newfags like that? Don't, please, that's why this board is so shit.

It aged like good wine.

There was a thread about Heat similar to this and some user explained how the visuals were executed in great technical detail. Where you at user

Cool as Ice is a masterpiece, I dunno what you're talking about, just look at the Bennington video.

youtube.com/watch?v=ryvHj2z-0BM

archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/87647971/#87647971

>digital shooting is b-
Nah, it will never catch up to film because film has actual 3D depth.

muh artistic noise

>3D depth
How the fuck did you seriously type that out and clicked on "Post" without feeling like a mentally challenged retard?

Digital isn't the cause of motion blur in Public Enemis...They made a creative choice to shoot with a 360 shutter angle. Digital has nothing to do with the motion blur of the film.

You know digital looks better right?

Digital has allowed DP's to finally shoot in actual night without the need of a fuckload of additional on-set lights, no more unnecessary "moonlight" night scenes.

For example, a shot like this is nearly impossible to pull of with a film camera.

But it's true, just look at a BD like the one of The Thing, you can tell the actors are closer to the camera than the background, you can see the depth and not just because things are more or less on focus.
No.

Blade Runner Final Cut Color Filter Pallet in 1981: The Movie

>Do you really spoonfeed imbecile newfags like that? Don't, please, that's why this board is so shit.

why do you need to troll about this then user? This isn't Sup Forums or Sup Forums is it?
this behavior of yours is also part of the problems in this board. Much more so than sharing some insignificant technical movie knowledge on a Sup Forums thread

And I'll keep replying wtf I want fuck off already

A movie like that has no business looking that good. Fucking old-Ridley knew his stuff.

Fuck Tangerine Dream. Ruined the movie. Don't bother replying

Because this board is not about movies, it's a cesspool already, a containment board, so I don't feel bad when I shitpost, even thought I still discuss seriously.
Actually I trolled expecting to get called out, instead I got taken seriously and spoonfed. Eh.

I mean, who takes a board that allows frogposting seriously? I don't.

Kind of agree. Film always looks like some old catalogue picture. It may looks pretty, I guess, but it's just not very cinematic.

BR2049 was shot on digital.

reading comprehension brainfart.
I thought you meant that shots like that was almost impossible to pull of WITHOUT a film camera
my bad.

>For example, a shot like this is nearly impossible to pull of with a film camera.
Explain in great detail

No meme arrows, quick one word replies, etc

OP is asking why it looks aesthetically pleasing instead of "why does it look like X" so it's harder to talk about. The technology plays less of a role here; the operative factor is the keen eye of Michael Mann. It's what everyone else is saying: the strong graphic compositions, the sense of tension in the compositions, the high contrast ratios with the really deep blacks, the carefully chosen use of color in the lighting, production design, and use of locations, etc. etc. It's all imparting the feeling of a a dense, three-dimensional world that's romantic and mysterious and dangerous. It's baroque.

Mann has always talked about his decision to shoot at night on Thief being motivated by the sense of night turning the city into a grid, of night giving a sense of dimensionality, and James Caan traveling through that grid and penetrating that space.

all these thief threads recently are fucking stupid. its a decent flick but its not worth all this forced meme hype.

different user here
I might be talking out my ass here, but as far as I know, digital now has a higher sensitivity for light than film has. That wasnt the case 10-15 years ago but digital has really surpassed film in that regards. Meaning if you shot it on film with the same lighting, it would probably look more like pic related.

I'm no expert so someone better chime in here.

Yes, digital has higher light sensitivity and more shadow information then film. Film still handles highlights better, and these days when you see an image that screams "digital" this is what you're usually responding to.

I suspect that DPs are more lazy with lighting these days because they know they can retrieve that information in post, while with film you had to light it a certain way or things would be lost, and even if things didnt turn out exactly the way you wanted it, the shot still had merit because it was so intricately and artistically lighted.

Am I wrong to believe that or is minimalist/realist just the aesthetic choice of modern films?

all I remember thinking about the narrative was getting to see an american acting like a condescending asshole in a foreign country but un-ironically

The use of natural light and shadow is impressive considering they shot mostly at night. I'd say it works so well because of shot composition and consistent color balance. Not a single shot in this film looks out of place. It all fits together perfectly

He still does. He knows how to shoot a movie despite he seems to be unable to differentiate a good script from a bad one.

But visuals he knows how to do, no matter what.

i've literally never seen a thief thread.

>more shadow information then film
Can you elaborate on "shadow information"?

We had Thief threads for the whole past week.

Not him but look at the car in the darkness. One has no detail (info), the one he filtered to make it seem film, the other has detail, the non modified one.

is this supposed to look good?

Why does Barry Lyndon look so good? How would you describe to someone in technical terms what it is that makes it this way?

Can anyone on/tv/ even articulate a response to this? Or is it too Reddit in here?

*pukes*

thief is a good-ass movie

>be autistic
>set your camera in a fixed position with a nice backdrop
>have your actors standing around in 18th century costumes like they are in a thomas cole painting
>Wait for the weather to be perfect
>reply sarcastically to anyone who dares to comment on the 2 hour waiting for a cloud.
>roll film and edit in Sarabande in post
>???
>profit

>old catalogue picture
honestly can't tell if you're baiting or not but that's exactly what I like about it

based expertmovieanalysisanon