Questions about film cameras

J

JaredSMark

Active member
If this is in the wrong section, please move it.

I have a few questions about film seeing as I started with digital video.

1) In the 70s, 80s, and 90s - when you compare films from those decades, the 'look' seems to be a bit different. I can tell a 70s, 80s and 90s film apart pretty well from looking at it. Did film cameras, the features they had, or the types of rolls of film themselves change or get better over these 3 decades? That might explain it.

2) Was there much 'cleanup' or processing done on the films from these eras? I ask because for some films I see these pops/clicks, as well as some blurry stuff, but others look fine and don't have that problem.

3) When you get bonus features on a DVD, sometimes it has deleted scenes, alternate endings, lost footage and so on. When I take a look at it, 9 times out of 10, it looks TERRIBLE compared to the main film. Color is whack, it's really blurry, pops and clicks in the film galore, etc. Raw film surely doesn't look like that, does it?


Maybe basic questions but I'm curious. Sometimes I watch movies released on DVD that are from the 70s and 80s and they look phenomenal. Crystal clear and sharp without all of that popping. I was wondering if it was just some hardcore digital video processing that took care of all of that or if film really does have the ability to look as crystal clear and perfect as what we see on DVDs and BluRays.
 
Digital is JUST now getting to the point where it can look as good as film, so yes, "Film really does have the ability to look as crystal clear and perfect as what we see on DVDs and BluRays." In fact the majority of what you watch on Blu Ray was shot on film. Film is still the mainstay of major Hollywood productions.

The reason behind the scenes stuff looks like crap is that it didn't have many thousands of dollars of post processing done on it the way the primary footage did.
 
JaredSMark said:
So you're confirming that the deleted scenes stuff is actual raw/unprocessed film footage?
Click to expand...

I would expect it to have minimal if any color or other work done on it. At a rate of probably several thousand bucks a running minute for a colorist, etc... they aren't going to spend that money on scenes that didn't make it into the final edit. Also, if it's from the 70's (and maybe even the 80's) before digital editing took over it's possible that footage was dug out of a garbage can where it was thrown by the editor cutting the film with a razor and tape.
 
The deleted scene footage you are seeing is most likely what we referred to as one light dailies. These were cut on a Movieola or the like thus the dust and scratches. If this were to have made it to the final film it would have been used to conform the original camera negative and make a pristine print. But since it was deleted what you are seeing is the original one light.
 
The look of films from different decades of the twentieth century is not only the improvement of film stock and cameras and processing but also cinematographic technique, direction, production designing and costuming, and in some ways, acting. For instance, a film in the 1940s looks different partially because of the way it was shot. There was a standard practice in lighting and camera work that was relevant with each of the five major studios that made them unique from one another. You could actually tell the difference between a Warner Bros picture and one from MGM or Paramount. They all had a distinct look. As time went on, technique was built upon brick by brick, and improvements were made, as was film technology. Practices changed, standards skewed, and were torn apart to make way for new techniques, built from the old. A lot of films from the 1970s have an organic edge to them, that stays there well into the early 80s. Furthermore, it is not only what you see on screen that gives them their distinct decade look but it's also your perception of that period that gives it that look.
 
Last edited:
Paul Hudson said:
The deleted scene footage you are seeing is most likely what we referred to as one light dailies. These were cut on a Movieola or the like thus the dust and scratches. If this were to have made it to the final film it would have been used to conform the original camera negative and make a pristine print. But since it was deleted what you are seeing is the original one light.
Click to expand...

Good point, didn't think of that, also probably a cheap print.
 
My (almost 50 year old) DP calls a shot with the top of someone's head chopped off a "Warner Brother's haircut". I think because it was a popular way to frame during one era at WB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top