What happened to the theatrical look?

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I have to wonder if also the lenses used have changed and become sharper.

Yes, lenses have gotten 'sharper' for several reasons. Older lenses, such as 'pre-50's' often were not coated. Coating became available in the late 30's, but the 'war' effort sort of put everything on hold. One can recall the business about Kaminski having the coating removed from modern lenses to get the vintage look of the shots in "Saving Private Ryan"(1998).

Each glass element in a multielement lens addes to 'flare' if not coated. The coating reduces flare. Flare decreases contrast, which humans interpret as 'sharpness'. In addition, older lenses where 'hand ground', and 'hand calculated', and so did not have the aspheric corrections to allow all the wavelengths in 'visible' light to be focused at the same point. The older lenses would have some aberations, and so, this lended to a 'softer look'. Since most films were B&W, the non-convergence tended to 'blur' rather than color banding/blur.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Yes. Much as with the movement of 24 fps, there's a certain unreality which makes things cinematic.

If you want things truly natural, walk around with a camcorder. Boom. You're done.

Uh... no... the Camcorder will record the scene as 'it sees it'... not how the human would see it... which is why even in 'natural lighting' set ups, care has to be taken to say, 'soften shadows', place light in 'black holes', etc on a given set/location.

That's because the human vision system does a great amount of dynamic adjustment even in the presence of 'high contrast'.

The closest thing I've seen recently that would allow for 'total naturalism'... is a device that I saw at NAB, which was an Neutral Density filter, that was 'individual pixel' controlled. If a realtime analyzer were to 'look' at the image being presented to the camera, and adjust the ND filter on a pixel by pixel basis, a wide dynamic range image could be mapped into what the camera could accommodate...

As it was the company was touting this filter's ability to create a sharper 'temporal' filter to eliminate motion aliasing, such as spoked wheels appearing to 'turn backwards', which is a common film artifact, as well as human vision system artifact...

[Razz16mm]

I'd argue that most old hollywood films AREN'T lit realistically, and that's what gives them the charm and the romance. Rarely is anyone in real life situations lit with 3 point lights... only in photo studios and hollywood backlots.

That's the problem with lighting for realism... it isn't particularly romantic. Realism is boring... just look around you...

Film and theater both emulate motivated natural light sources at their best. But you do have to add sources that may not be naturalistic to get correct exposure, to focus attention on some aspect of a set or scene, or for more flattering appearance for actors in closeup. The art lies in making those look naturalistic. Light is like paint for the cinematographer.
Theater classically uses a combination of 4 point opposite diagonal cool/warm pairs for general modeling and illumination plus motivated key sources too.

TV news crews use 3 point lighting.

[David Jimerson]

Uh... no... the Camcorder will record the scene as 'it sees it'... not how the human would see it... which is why even in 'natural lighting' set ups, care has to be taken to say, 'soften shadows', place light in 'black holes', etc on a given set/location.

That's because the human vision system does a great amount of dynamic adjustment even in the presence of 'high contrast'.

OK, take the limitations of the camera out of it. The point is, doing no work at all would give you total realism. But no one wants that.

[Razz16mm]

OK, take the limitations of the camera out of it. The point is, doing no work at all would give you total realism. But no one wants that.

You can't take the camera out of it and have a film. What the camera records does not necessarily look like what your eyes see. So total realism as in what you see or what the camera sees?
You can do the work to get the most out of the natural available light, you can augment the available light, or you can overpower it and create something completely different. But the camera will only record what it sees, not what you see or want to see.
There is a lot of beautiful compelling footage shot with only natural available light, but you can bet in most cases if it really looks good it was not shot casually. There is always work to do: picking camera angles to get the best composition and light on your subject, picking time of day, scouting locations for light sources intensity and direction, correct exposure, etc. What about camera filtration or light modification with reflectors or diffusion?

But if you don't do the work, there is no one to blame for dull poorly composed boring footage but the photographer.

[David Jimerson]

You can't take the camera out of it and have a film. What the camera records does not necessarily look like what your eyes see. So total realism as in what you see or what the camera sees?
You can do the work to get the most out of the natural available light, you can augment the available light, or you can overpower it and create something completely different. But the camera will only record what it sees, not what you see or want to see.
There is a lot of beautiful compelling footage shot with only natural available light, but you can bet in most cases if it really looks good it was not shot casually. There is always work to do: picking camera angles to get the best composition and light on your subject, picking time of day, scouting locations for light sources intensity and direction, correct exposure, etc. What about camera filtration or light modification with reflectors or diffusion?

But if you don't do the work, there is no one to blame for dull poorly composed boring footage but the photographer.

I'm not at ALL advocating that anyone do what I said. In fact, I'm saying exactly the opposite -- do the work.

[Razz16mm]

I'm not at ALL advocating that anyone do what I said. In fact, I'm saying exactly the opposite -- do the work.

I get really tired of flat noisy grossly underexposed DSLR footy. No "cinematic" qualities there.

[dop16mm]

Much of 'Raiders' was lit with classic Carbon Arc lamps which at the time and for years before was the big gun of studio lighting. They have long since been replaced by big HMI's and modern tungstens that can be 12K and above. Modern lighting instruments just don't have the same look, for better or worse. On several recent period films, 'Crystal Skull' and I think War Horse, Spielberg has lamented about not having access to the old arc's to re-create the style.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

OK, take the limitations of the camera out of it. The point is, doing no work at all would give you total realism. But no one wants that.

Every time I hear(read) the word 'realism'... I think of "Socialist Realism"... which typically wasn't real, but a buzz word created to distance 'socialist' art from 'decadent capitalist' art... and directed to the 'truth'... that is only the positive aspects of the Socialist Worker's Paradise...

But I digress...

I suppose that I think of 'realism' as used here, would be use/support existing 'real light', and modify it for a dramatic effect. If I shot a scene on stage, I may actually setup a spot, hair, and fill in a 'three point' configuration (or just the spot...). But unless the venue had an existing 'hair light' potential like ceiling mounted pars, as some clubs and restaurants do... I'd not set that up normally. If the existing lighting wasn't sufficient for my camera... of course add more... but the 'hard light from nowhere'... there to give a future Marlene Dietrich 'butterflies'... with nose grease on a glass filter to give a 'soft glow' while eye lashes are razor sh not really...

As a note... the "Artist"(2011)... felt 'softer' in lighting than those films of the era... perhaps due to shooting on color film... perhaps lighting... perhaps both... But then I've not seen real(tm) B&W from Negative to Projection Print projected in a very long time... probably since I was young and there would be silent film nights... at certain 'cool' theaters.

[David Jimerson]

By "realism," I mean "exactly like real life."