Why do old films look old?

[Huy Vu]

As far as I understand it, the basic technology of 35 mm film have not evolved all that far from when it was first invented, barring all the new digital effects enhancement. So I'm just wondering why films from the 60s or 70s always have that grungy old look to them and why the newer films seems to be more glossy and clear?

[donkathon]

The technology of the film hasnt changed too terribly much... but the cameras have. And plus, old film is old and prone to damage, scratches, and other stuff. And, believe it or not, film can "die", or kinda rot, so to speak.

[GlimmerGhost]

Areation ... just like good wine, sweet cheese & salty crackers.

Cheese hasnt evolved much either... yet it always gets that old, moldy look when i leave it in the fridge a couple of years:zombie_smiley: . same concept here.:beer:

[Cheesesailor77]

well, I think the biggest thing is that almost all movies are color graded with computers now, and before that was a standerd telecine effects were. The movies from the 70's look much more like the film that was actually shot (i know they're color timed, but still)

When you watch movie now, they look almost nothing like the footage that was actually captured on film.

Another thing is that film stock is a lot faster now. Especially looking at the technicolour films from the '50s, you can see just how "slow" the stock is and how much light they're pouring on to get a good exposer. That has a lot to do with the "look" of older films.

[Barry_Green]

Film technology has advanced enormously since the 1900's! Heck, it's advanced significantly just in the last 10 years. Vision and Vision 2 stocks are much better than the EXR stocks that came before.

[ksteiger]

About 10 years ago I had the privilege of seeing a screening of an original nitrate Technicolor print of a film starring Henry Fonda from 1935 at UCLA. I believe it was "Trail of the Lonesome Pine". It was pristine and practically glowed off the screen, and the color was astounding. (Tons of outdoor forest shots). To tell you the truth it looked like it was shot yesterday. The nitrate stock can be really transparent, but very flammable. My point is that I think what makes old film look that way is just as much old technology as poor preservation. And color stock from the 50s and 60s faded rapidly and had odd color shifts. Blurry transfers, shrinkage, jumpy splices, scratches all contribute.

BTW, Sylvia Sydney, Henry Fonda's leading lady in the film was in attendance at the screening. She answered several questions from the audience in a highly cantankerous manner. Her last comment was, "...just remember, OLD AGE SUCKS!!":dankk2:

[dasonras]

well, I think the biggest thing is that almost all movies are color graded with computers now, and before that was a standerd telecine effects were. The movies from the 70's look much more like the film that was actually shot (i know they're color timed, but still)

When you watch movie now, they look almost nothing like the footage that was actually captured on film.

Another thing is that film stock is a lot faster now. Especially looking at the technicolour films from the '50s, you can see just how "slow" the stock is and how much light they're pouring on to get a good exposer. That has a lot to do with the "look" of older films.

In the day of 3-strip technicolor, they used medium speed films not because the technology wasn't there but because fast speed films look like crap. Even today fast speed films are super grainy. They had to pump a lot of light on the set because the light hitting the film also had to go through a shutter, prism, and colored filter.