This is a really relevant topic for those who love to watch shows and movies. I feel the trend of flatness and underexposure is preposterous because many a time, you cannot see anything! I recently abandoned a show simply because I could not see anything or anybody in that show; and story-wise it was a good show. To this trend of dark and underexposed camerawork, add another new trend: actors talking in whispering voices, rather than their natural voices. All this makes the entire experience of watching very pathetic!
I’m glad people are talking about this, it IS a stylistic choice and a trend. However, I think it looks just terrible most of the time. Particularly overused pukey blue/green color grading that dominates the look of everything. I’d like to see more neutral color schemes and less murky flat shadowy content, I also believe mood lighting achieved in camera with a gel looks orders of magnitude better than relying 100% on post to get your “look”.
"However, I think it looks just terrible most of the time." I agree it look terribly in screen that don't have "deep black" like LCD and projectors. Some movie become a real pain to watch.
I havent seen the video, but I will. Before watching, I am gonna say that I love david fincher’s movies. They are dark but with logic and in moderation.
So many A24 films have the same hideous processing that makes them blue green and dark. I can't take it seriously. It's like a photographer using the default Instagram filters from the 2010s
I don't buy that modern directors, set designers, cinematographers and colorists have somehow lost knowledge and are just pumping out log footage with no understanding of lighting. The flat look is trendy and goes with the recent popularity both of neo-noir and anti-hero story lines. I think if anything, those in the industry need MORE knowledge today because they are often running the gamut from brightly lit commercials with poppy colors to dour premium cable dramas. The folks doing this work know more than 99.9% of the commenters on this video could ever hope to know about the filmmaking process. Take Director of Photography Roger Deakins. In 2010, he made a very traditionally lit and bright "The Company Men". Two years later he made the flat and moody "Skyfall". We are looking at artistic choices, trends, and that is all.
The only possible connection I see with Log profiles contributing to the final edit, is that by allowing the filmmakers to see a flat image (which never would have been the case in the past), they are given the creative inspiration to keep things flat. Sometimes when I shoot log, I find in the editing suite that I actually enjoy the aesthetic more than a punchy, higher contrast and saturation look. But I will give Wolfcrow credit for the point he made about how colourists are monitoring the image on their high-end screens. Most consumers don’t have anything capable of displaying close to pure black, and so the shadow region of the image gets blended together more than how it looked to the editor/colourist. Cinematographers often lament the variety of quality even in cinemas, so you can imagine how they feel about our TVs at home 😅
The fact that this dude is sitting here armchair quarterbacking world-renowned DP's and not for their artistic choices but for their lack of technical knowledge and apparent "mistakes" they are making while creating million dollar art is just mind-boggling. It's an aesthetic choice in the way they decide to create their art. I've watched other videos by this dude, and the amount of face plants while watching has me red in the face. I haven't watched one of his videos in quite some time and now i remember why... SMH.
This has been a slowly growing trend since the 90s. From the X Files on tv to David Fincher’s films. In fact Fincher has become so popular with his visual style, many new cinematographers over the past 2 decades have been duplicating it, especially over the last 5 years… imo.
That's why Game of Thrones Season 8 look like it did. I got that from an actual worker on the VFX studio. They couldn't finish the effects because they were less people working on more FX than they were back in Season 5
This is what I feel from the MCU movies since The Winter Soldier, it's like they discovered that the flat style of the Russos was the key to hide bad FX or just have a faster pipeline of work
I was a proud member of IA Local 659 in Hollywood primarily in the 80s. Prior to that, I was the clerk in the Camera Dept at The Burbank Studios (when Warner’s shared the lot with Columbia). Everything was big and heavy then. The lights were gigantic. There was no digital - all 35mm film stock. The film trucks were big and there were lots of them. A location shoot in your neighborhood was like an army moving in. But the images were beautiful! TV shows were shot the same way as theatrical motion pictures. A one hour TV episode was usually scheduled for 7 or 8 shooting days that were often 12 hours or longer. I remember when Eastman came out with more sensitive film stock which revolutionized lighting. Then you could switch back and forth between 5247 (exterior) and 5294 (interior). I know I’m “an old timer”, but we had some wonderful looking films back then! Now I’ll sit with my wife in the living room and ask, “What is it we’re looking at?”
That's so cool to hear. You dont hear much chatter about film anymore. I mean, to be fair we are in the digital era and we are constantly revolutionize camera technology, but man film is so cool. It doesn't even try hard.
@@veronavalley Quentin Tarantino shoots movies on 35mm film. Actually, on The Hateful Eight he went even further and shot on 65mm film. At specially prepared theatres, it was shown in a roadshow presentation on 70mm projectors. I attended one and the images were wonderful!
@@brucekuehn4031 Your comment is super cool and i agree with you. I'm 22 years old but modern movies just look so terrible color grading, lightning, camera angles and overuse of blue/orange tint in every single movie makes me wanna puke.
I find it amazing that 1950's Technicolor film still looks so great today! Colors are bright and really alive. I wish they would film a few movies in a "modern" form of Techicolor again...I'm getting tired of seeing modern "Edgy" films all shot in the dark.
But that is the same example of what is happening now. The tech then (new film stocks) gave rise to a popular look that fit the technology. What's old is new again.
@@Otokichi786 True! But while China owns the Technicolor proceess, the rich values that process has can be recreated digitally but only as a conscious production choice! Plus, there were several imitations of the Technicolor 'look' that China did NOT buy...yet.
As a cinematographer, this is just way off... We have more modern tools to help with exposure than ever before. I know exactly what IRE my skin tones are falling in as I shoot them. I can also preview all work in rec.709 and rec.2020 while shooting in log. This is an aesthetic, and one that works for alot of storytelling and sometimes is copied just to be modern and doesn't fit the story. It is also an error to call these shots, "underexposed." They are just low contrast with the highlights brought down. The film is shot at proper exposure to maximize DnR in the image and then in the color studio, whether I and doing the color or working with a colorist, we bring the curve down rolling off the highlights. It also helps that alot of modern displays add a ton of their own contrast so this preserves that detail across modern displays as well. But as a DP I would NEVER underexpose my image, to lose detail in post workflow. Expose for the highlights to not be clipped, light everything accordingly to bring my levels to proper exposure and let the grade do the rest.
Would the following be true or is this too general? Shooting digital: priority is to preserve highlights Shooting film: priority is to preserve shadows
@@vlcheish I've honestly haven't worked much with light response on film to be honest, but my guess would be that is off as well. Blown highlights look off and can cause the rest of the film to be off because of halation and bloom. But film also has 16+ stops of DnR which is really hard to achieve with digital.
@@BenjaminMcClain From a photography perspective film's big advantage is it overloads gracefully into white whereas digital sensor highlights clip abruptly and look terrible once it hits white since there is no gradual overload to white unlike film. So the digital sensor's characteristic curve is to head straight to 255 white and blow out. Film tends to mimics human vision more closely than digital as humans in that it cannot pull details out of shadows/dark much like film but we also view highlights closer to film. This would be where the "digital priority is to preserve highlights/priority is to preserve shadows" tends to come from. Highlight gradation behaves differently on digital vs film which is why I would assume highlights would be more essential to preserve for digital cinema over film cinema but I do not work in this space.
I was thinking about this the other day and my theory was that in the past, TVs were low res so you needed a lot more contrast or TV screens would not be able to detect enough details. In addition to that, the high resolutions screens, sharp lenses, and modern sensors, can reveal too much details on people’s skin. The faces of the actors can look “caked” with makeup, and every pour on their face can look exaggerated on close up shots, especially on scenes where the story calls for harsh lighting. The “flat look” helps soften the look. Occasionally I see a film that “exposes correctly” in 4k, and every time the camera comes in for a closeup, I’m thinking “the actor and make up artist must hate this shot!”.
Great perspective! I also have this dilemma when exposing. This trend have also creeped into photography. When I expose for the subject, I think it too punchy nd saturated. Let's just say, it looks like a little child's happy colory painting. But I prefer to explor other moods
Yes, the defocused look. When DVDs were the norm, I thought it was so they could get the movie to fit onto fewer disks. Then there was also the deliberate soft filter for the ladies that Star Trek TV made famous. Intentionally hiding the details helps move the story along.
It is dynamic range, not resolution, that more greatly affects contrast. For television, the tubes, and then early digital sensors, didn't have the dynamic range to start with. Film did, and films (and television shows shot on film) displayed just fine on tellies with CRTs and early digital.
This makes perfect sense to me. Old black and white movies had to use really excessive lighting for the super old and dim cameras they had, until they got better cameras. Now we have better TVs, so the same could be true like you're saying.
I was watching Goodfellas today and I noticed this exact thing. The faces looked weird and unnatural to me and the film grain was unimaginably high even in daytime scenes.
Love this! I was literally working on a video about this a few months ago but gave up and never published it... I am so happy to see people are thinking and talking about this.
I was a lighting tech on commercials about 10 years ago and this one DP I worked with was getting hired all the time because his shots all had a very flat, desaturated and under-exposed look. It was super trendy for a lot of commercial spots to be shot like that. Made for an easy but long and boring day only needing to one or two lights from the truck - sometimes we'd pull other lights of the truck and "stage them" around set so the producers would think the lighting budget was justified lol
I think you might be simplifying the filming process. In many, if not all of these films , exposing correctly and then grade down to reduce noise is common practice. The deep shadows are an esthetic choice, much like skin tone ire levels, most rules in film are meant to be broken
I think a big part of the style trend now is to explore motivation behind context and lighting. In the past there might have been more of a “lit” Hollywood studio sort of look to things. This is probably when “the book “ was written on these things. I battle with the term “under exposed” because I think the digital technology has inspired people to explore and test what the cameras can do and given permission for people to film in darker contexts. There is no way that in the night time it’s realistic to expect 70 ire in a bedroom lit with one lamp at night. I love that we can explore how light and dark can communicate mood, time of day and context. We no longer fully rely heavily upon the story telling in the actors performance. Although it’s still very important even today, there is a movement to support the performance with the other parts of production more than we may have done in the past. There’s loads of tools we have at our disposal to build and tell stories. Although there are some rare occasions where things are genuine mistakes, I think a lot of these “underexposed images” are artistic decisions that are intended to create a mood and better tell the context of the story. Just some of my thoughts?
I fully agree , it’s a natural progression to have a more “naturalistic “ look . One thing I would say from my experience , this motivated lighting scheme , which I use , can be risky , as you’re living on the edge some the of time , it takes take and practice to master
Correct exposure and white balance before the grade is so often overlooked and yet the photographic medium looks best when the image is correctly captured. As a colorist I deal with so much underexposed footage and then part of the image that suffers most is skin tone. Underexposing skin means the light that should be captured as subsurface translucency in the skin is lost, and that feature of skin is what gives it life.
I haven't had thought of the Subsurface Scattering aspect of it. However, is it actually applicable? The light hitting the skin isn't modified at all, only the perception of it, which makes me think intuitively that it shouldn't modify the translucency even if you underexpose.
Most of these "underexposed" films are exposed properly on set, then brought down in post during the grading process. Most all these films that you're showcasing are shot with cameras with their own proprietary raw codec, so each can be "rescued" if "underexposed", which is almost impossible if you're shooting in the raw codec...and if you did underexpose the raw file, you'd get a lot of noise in the shadows, that you'd need to use a noise reduction app to clean it up. These are looks and feel that the filmmakers are going for, it's a choice on the part of the creators not necessarily issues with the camera sensor.
Yep, it's a look that allot of people like. It looks more natural IMO. "Proper Exposure" where skin in bright and clear looks more like Live-TV or Sports.
@@Frontigenics Kind of off topic but what about frame rates for ‘natural’ versus ‘processed’? Like when blue-ray hit and things were in 50fps vs 24fps it felt unnatural although our eyes are capable of so much more than 50 fps. I think we’ve all become acclimated to a type of style
@@NezD yea, 24fps is the standard for the psychological effect. It creates the effect of "moving photography" or that you're watching a "memory". If something looks "live" in 60fps our brains are like "ok, so this is happening NOW... why are there edits and music in it?"
@@Frontigenics interesting, I’ve never heard of that explanation before. That would actually explain higher frame rates on day time soap operas which are literally meant to feel as real and daily as their constant, decades long filming schedules.
I really appreciate the case wolfcrow and probably right in amateur circumstances. However, I'd agree that these are creative choices even made to showcase the lowlight performance of modern sensors and processing and now you can ever offer a more dramatic mood with more confidence due to different lighting techniques that came with the technology.
Excellent and very educational video. Am so tired of crappy looking films where everything is dark and murky with a blue, lifeless tint. Greatly prefer the warm, high contrast look of technicolor films from the 50s and 60s.
a - “properly exposed skin” isn’t a thing. b - you seriously think that The Social Network is underexposed ? c - Digital color grading, real time monitoring on calibrated displays, etc… all make it easier to handle the dark tones of pictures. Fincher and Cronenweth don’t make underexposed films. Dark ones ? Certainly.
Properly exposed skin is a thing. 70 IRE for caucasian skin has been a standard for decades. It's what you get if you use a grey card or light meter to expose too.
The Social Network _is_ notoriously underexposed, I'll give him that. I even remember people complaining about some of the darker scenes when it released.
I didn't want to see The Social Network in the cinema because the trailer was so dark. I bought it on DVD later but it's a shame I was put off watching it in the theatre
I agree with you. Underexposing is 100% a creative choise. Today the “underexposed” look has become more popular because we can have a rough preview of the final image. In film underexposing was much more dangerous because you could only judge exposure by metering with and exposimeter and if you went too far you were screwed due to the low dynamic range in underexposed areas.
These modern "films" are not under-exposed. They have all been exposed properly and according to what the camera requires. The so-called "underexposure" is achieved almost entirely in post. Most if not all of these "underexposed" shots, if seen as they were actually lit and shot, would look much brighter than they do in the finished shows. For the simple reason that to get a proper exposure light is required. The end result is a simple color grading trick. I shot a scene this way a month ago in which the set was lit brightly but flatly, and in post we simply lowered the mid-range levels to make the setting appear much darker...but since we had shot it correctly it still retained great detail and sharpness. This is much easier now with digital cameras that are finally well beyond what film stock can produce.
@@jamiefenner9443 Might be a good term for it. But the bottom line is that as far as the camera is concerned you can not really, truly underexpose it...if you do you will get noise, artifacting, a mess...these dark scenes we are all seeing today in many series and movies are achieved by exposing correctly during shooting and then lowering the levels in post. It is a wonderful tool to have on hand! We can now create scenes with tremendous darkness if we choose.
Excellent video. I have noticed but hearing your evaluation of it I realize how this has become a trend. The look works great in a scene that requires it. But when an entire production is "dark and moody", it loses it edge. It then just becomes fatiguing to the viewer who strain to recognize what is in the scene. And yes, it is a trend. As is constant camera motion. And the pendulum swings....
Next....why do films have audio you can't hear when those on screen speak in normal conversations and when fight or other action scenes occur, it's so loud the neighbors hear it?
LA adjacent non-industry accidental drive-by RUclips viewer here. So NOW I get why you guys are always the most fun to watch at Awards Shows. Cue the Sally Field clip here. I don't have a clue to half the technical stuff, but I AM a consumer and appreciate your hard work and passion.
I think part of this is because the rec709 look became associated with cheapness and with greater dynamic range in the shadows it is easier and lazier not to adjust the highlights because it would pull on the shadows too
It could also be a reaction to old standards as before, you had to shoot very bright as colors in TVs were not as deep. Filmmaker now wants to shoot darker because they re finally able to. It could also be the curiousness to push the boundaries of HDR. Your takes on "modern trend" and "filmmaker being biased by working too much with flat logs" are also very interesting
No that's wrong, CRT TV's had excellent color gamut and contrast, lacking only in peak brightness. There for sure was a period with early LCD's with very poor color performance but we are past that.
Thank you for making this. I thought I was going crazy with the way most modern films look nowadays. That flat, dark look. David Fincher used it stylistically in The Social Network, but the vast majority of films fell short. A more egregious recent movie was Pig with Nicolas Cage. I had buddies who said they were employing the technique of "chiaroscuro" that old films did, but I disagree. The entire image is flat, low light. The old movies had to employ external lighting to get these effects and there were conscious choices.
The SOUND is BIG problem on modern films , if you listen to an old movie you can make out every word being said,, with modern movies it’s hard sometimes,, not sometimes a lot of times to make out what is being said , Try listening even to an old black-and-white movie and you will hear the dialogue absolutely clearly
Thanks for the discussion on this. I don't really buy bad habit/incorrect workflow arguments for most mainstream media we experience. however it looks I'm sure cinematographers 100% intended it to look that way. But different colorists do impose their own "signature" onto things, have their own particular post prod environments; some like to color time with cinematic settings in mind, while sitcoms and comedies still embrace high key, assuming you'll be watching it on tv with the lights on. Not to mention older films that once were exposed a certain way can be re-timed for modern, low-exposure sensibilities (like Criterion's Wong Kar Wai remasters, for instance) - and vice versa. It's definitely a complicated issue with no one correct answer.
That explains a lot, I never thought of that. I always find when watching new movies that my eyes get exhausted quickly. Older ones are much more pleasing to watch.
First and foremost, these wildly successful filmmakers know exactly what they are doing. No mistakes are being made. You don’t get handed a $100 million budget without knowing how to read a scope. People are making what they want to make because they want to make it that way. Also largely the trend in film and television as far as script and tone is far darker and more realistic today than it ever was back then, which in theory would call for darker settings. Ozark wouldn’t quite be the same feel if it was as bright and colorful as The Wizard of Oz.
Just the other day I though the same thing, why almost all last movies (especially TV shows) are so underexposed and low-contrasty. And here is your video. Thanks, that's really interesting and also relaxes a little bit since you understand there is no "gold standard" and even modern pro's in cinema could be wrong somewhere, and there is a lot of room still to experiment.
I Totally agree!! This is pretty-much the *"LOUDNESS WAR"* for video! The beginning of the end (which sadly still hasn't happened yet but it is slowing down) was when Metallica released their decent album Death Magnetic in 2008, sadly, its final mix for retail release was SO badly compressed/clipped that it was a flat mess where it was actually giving me an ear ache or even a headache just after 3 or 4 songs! What made this obvious was the video game 'Guitar Hero 3' had the original stems of all songs from that album before it got to the final mix so they are barely slightly clipped vs the final retail release which is absolute trash. I am a Metallica fan saying this... lol I can also relate to this with my editing and mixing of my original music, if my ears are blocked a bit without my realising it (due to wax) then when I mix the songs they could sound more tinny because of my over compensating for my hearing. But I do have visual guides that can help to an extent. The best tool is your ears though tbh. But with video it is your eyes and it is tricky because every monitor even when "calibrated" can be different depending what sort of screen it is using just for a start! I have gone through the entire process of editing and mixing a song ready to release, then got my ear wax removed and heard the song was so bassy that I tried to do it again from scratch but couldn't...lol So, I had to remaster the way too bassy one down a LOT and then released it (still too bassy, but passable.) You do become accustomed to seeing or hearing it a particular way, some it is fashion, some it is future proofing for HDR and some it will be like me - accidental! Well, now I do not edit or mix when I know my ears are blocked or when I need to POP them after a trip!
I am not an expert on this topic, but I think the under exposure and the colour grade together create / set the mood or tone for the overall intended vibe of the movie or series much more easily thus the scenes become more dramatic (so creative choice). This is also a reason along with all the reasons pointed out in this video but at the same time the super dark / ultra underexposed scenes of GOT S8 are unforgivable.
Yes and no. Are you saying that by exposing the skin properly in Apocalypse Now for example, they lost that dramatic feel? I think that, out of all the thing he mentions, log profiles combined with HDR may be the cause. The trick for that dramatic feel you mention is actually exposing the skin properly and give less light to the rest of the image, making the shadows deeper and the contrast bigger.
@@familygonzcartwright It's a case of they don't know what they're missing because they don't know what to miss. It's lost knowledge at this point. Flatness became soo overused to the point now people see it as an artistic choice, because they have no clue what the movie would look like if it was color graded and exposed properly.
You are all missing on key ingredient in all of this and its not skin ire or color grading… lighting. Modern cinema and cinematography use allot of backlighting techniques which enhances the moodiness and creates lots of contrast, filling up the shadows or getting 70 ire skin tones while backlit would make it look artificial and less “cinematic”.
This is EXACTLY why ACES was implemented everywhere. ACES is the standard for colour space now. While a film may be exported as 709 or other comparable formats, if all the work is converted to ACES, ACESCG for cg or other formats then there won't be any HDR mishaps. It may not take away the trendy flat look, but it will help with preventing accidental flatness from working in different formats.
"Underexposed" is an antiquated term when talking about digital cinematography. Technology on the shooting end and the viewing end (audience side) allows for images that are truer to life. None of the images shown in this video have anything wrong with them, they were shot by professionals who knew exactly what they were doing, trends aside, and accomplished some dark, mysterious and pleasing images that suit the respective themes/plots of the screenplays they were created for.
@@dagkaszlikowski8358 Allows for. Not necessarily has to be. Overcast exteriors in Ozark make no sense and are too dark if compared to reality, but the interior night scenes are closer to what you'd actually see in a dimly lit room illuminated only by moonlight. Ozark's cinematography is a stylistic choice that reflects the dark nature of that fictional world. My point isn't that stopping down always makes for truer to life images, its that sometimes you need to stop down in order to be true to life. It makes no sense at all to always shoot 60+ IRE with the technology we have today. Thinking that you have to be "properly exposed" and that "properly exposed" is just a certain number on a graph really spits in the face of artistic choice enabled by today's cameras and HDR viewing systems.
@@dagkaszlikowski8358 well, News-Broadcasts are true to life. Is that what you like? Everything looking like Sports or News in 60fps because it's "true to life".
When I first started in video production, I shot most things flat and liked that look. I hired an editor and he was not complimentary about the flat look and so I changed it. I thought I was doing it wrong. Knowing more about luts and how to apply them has helped, but I still like the look of ungraded log footage, with just a bit of contrast. Thanks for letting me know I am not crazy.
As an actor, writer and director I prefer dynamic “exposure” (grading) throughout a film as appropriate for the mood of each scene. If entire film is happy, I make it pop, but I recently watched a high budget, recently released feature film from a famous director on a new mini-led HDR display (also recently released) and the film was so dark I had to concentrate to see what was happening in the scenes.
unfortunately the vast majority of movies in HDR is not true HDR, but an SDR movie in an HDR container, I honestly don't know why they do this, I don't think it's the budget, the studios have the resources, staff and money to do it but they don't do it because they are lazy.
I had to stop watching, same with this Teen Titans series, I can't stand the look. There are just no normal colors or light. Hell, even a fleshlight was green, it's just unnatural and there is no good reason for it. A Terry Giliam movie, something like Alice in Wonderland, if your world is unnatural, sure go ahead but why does everything needs these filters?
Personally, I like the choices digital film is giving us nowadays. Like any creative choice, the key is that it serves the story. If you look at television shows from the 70's, you will see what I call "grocery store lighting". Lighting that is so bright that almost everything is in focus. But, I feel such lighting can take away from the mood or the character that creative lighting can bring to a scene. Although I have seen scenes that were so underexposed, you couldn't tell what was going on. But, it is a rare occurrence. For myself, I liked the cinematography in Ozark. It was a dark series. So, the lighting always gave the stories a dark and foreboding feel to the scenes. Which, in the case of Ozark, fit its story world. I'm not a fan of flat imagery, such as shots that have milky shadows. When you're outdoors or in an interior where there is smoke or other effects, flat shadows are more likely. But, when I see a scene shot in broad daylight and the shadows are flat and milky, it takes me out of the story. It's moments like those where the imagery is too distracting to stay focused on what's happening. Most of what I consider to be bad cinematography usually happens in low budget films with bad scripts. So, I come to expect lower quality work when the film itself lacks quality in script and casting. For me, if the look supports the story, then I am more accepting of the choices.
"grocery store lighting" Good word, If it's comedy shows mostly depends on dialogues with timing, Punch etc. then ok for flat lights. Sorry respected one, its my view.
It makes sense then that the most visually impressive movies of the past ten years or so we're Tarantino's Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Both shot and seen in 70mm. Beautiful. Film must never die.
Great video. The color and dimness of this underexposed style remind me of living in Geneva in February. Seeing the Salève in the background of scenes in Ozark wouldn’t have shocked me. If anyone reading this recognizes what I am talking about, you might also understand the feelings of winter depression this kind of color and dimness evoke for me. I start to feel a little desperate, like I have had cabin fever for far too long. This is followed by an intense, irrational, internal pressure to find a way to get out into the Alps and above the clouds, or drive to France… either of which would be, um, exceedingly difficult from where I now live in the US. It’s a bizarre idiosyncratic reaction, which is my point. When a creator makes stylistic choices that are more extreme or pervasive there is always a risk of evoking feelings that are not what were intended for the audience to feel as part of the story. It can alter how the story you are trying to tell is being received and interpreted in such a fundamental way. Therefore, I think this sort of underexposed stylization is best done as a calculated gamble knowing that it can divide people’s reactions to the work. The choice may result in a subset of would-be critics who hate it (sometimes for reasons they cannot quite put their finger on) because they find it unpleasant, or the feelings evoked do not mesh well with the content and are jarring or excessive. That said, this is just the sort of risk-taking experimentation and exploration of trends that is needed to make really great art. It is a natural manifestation of changes in technology, technique, and medium as they affect creative processes. Let us hope that people can start to use the underexposed style as an effective tool rather than a default setting.
Well laid out opinion. I see a very distinct trend around season 3-4 of recent TV series. Cheap dark shots hide cheap sets. Watch TV series made within the last decade and you will be able to identify where the cinematography jumps the shark. Night scenes, indoor sets, a general green look. Saving money on sets allows the production to pay talent what they think they deserve when a series gets legs. Sadly, some series are shot cheap from the start.
Also, aside from HDR monitors, you've got to contend with OLED monitors too. Every cinematographer is using a fancy OLED monitor to do their grading, the brightness and black levels of which can't be replicated on anything other than another OLED screen. Most of what I see is unwatchable on all but the best OLED screens.
The problem with HDR is that, if the picture is too bright, the light will fill the entire room, reflecting back on the screen of the television and destroying image quality, as Sareesh explains in a video about HDR that he published a few years back. What many fail to realize is that SDR is a relative standard, where gamma and brightness can be adjusted to accommodate ambient light levels, whereas HDR is an absolute standard - brightness cannot be increased, and to appreciate the picture, content must be viewed in a room that has no more than 5 nits of light and black walls - something that few if any consumers can manage. Incidentally, high end post houses use Sony LCD reference monitors nowadays, not OLED. And cinematographers don't grade their own films - colorists do. And TV shows are graded to a level a mere half stop brighter than most ordinary OLED TVs are capable of. Moreover, all shows are monitored on a consumer set before distribution for approval. And few, - apart from you - would say that watching a DoVi show on a modestly priced OLED is unwatchable.
i noticed this around 2016 in music videos. My video editing friends said they liked the ‘flat look’ but I thought the same as you: it was clearly a mistake and lack of understanding with color grading (at the time I was learning it myself). I mean why would a music video want to illicit middle of the road ‘grayness’ especially considering it was largely dance and pop music using this aesthetic.
Another reason is that as TVs become larger and brighter, keeping the high-key lighting aesthetic would simply hurt your eyes and distract you from the story. Even in productions that call for a bright and cheery aesthetic, screenwriters consciously include night time or indoor scenes to "give the eyes a break".
I've always been confused by this "Correct skin tones exposure" thing. If we are trying to capture a scene for example at Dusk where we want to represent the time of the day kind of low light look then we NEED to expose skin lower than a set 70 IRE. If we try to expose for 70 IRE all the time then the shadows will be brought up and the DUSK (Kind of low light look) will not be depicted correctly. Its easy to place skin @ 70 IRE when its 4 PM and there is enough light or we have reflectors filling or whatever but what about a low light indoors at night scene where we want to depict the low lightness of the scene? if we expose skins for 70 then the room will look bright. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Sounds right to me. Stuff shouldn't look "bright" and "properly exposed" at night/dusk time. Now, it shouldn't be noisy/grainy either-- but low-light situations look fake with "proper exposure". At least IMO.
I think the simple answer to that is the flexibility in post. You are maximising the sensor ability to gather data. You can then use the tools in post to push/pull the image where it needs to land. Making selections for grading is easier on a well exposed image. That said, at that point you are relying on the post workflow to honour what the DP wants the final to look. Therefore, many DPs will opt-in to shoot as close to final as possible on-set so that in post your final image is still somewhat retained.
I’m glad someone else brought this up, the guy making this video is also defeating his own argument at multiple points. Wonder woman 2017 was primarily shot on 35mm with select portions shot on the alexa. The truth is lighting styles change over time
wow i recently came across HDR technology and never realized what it is. It was very subtle, I had upgraded to a 4k widescreen monitor that didn't have HDR so basically lower
Excellent video with lots to think about cinematography-wise. I think of film-making in analog era versus the digital era. Analog was from the birth of films, through the 40s, 60s,70s,80s,90s, to 2000s. In all these films, lighting was was done on set, exposure was done on set. No luts, no color grading. The above video explains the digital era of filmmaking. I watch alot of films from Criterion collection, as well as restored versions of films on other labels, and even study various releases of a movie. (The original Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon blu-ray, no color grading, closer to the film, versus the 10th anniversary blu-ray, where the color grading is different, and to my eye not as good). There is a YT channel "Blu-ray comparisons" where you can see the color palette in a film change from release to release. It's made me happy I've gotten older blu-rays for some films, where no color-grading was done and it's close to the original film's look. (If color grading is done well, I don't mind. When it isn't, skin colors aren't as good, details get lost, it lacks depth, etc.).
I feel like a lot of Netflix film makers all love the Red. They fell in love with its low light ability and have the NEED to show it off. I hate this trend a lot. Tell the story. Stop trying to show off the camera technology.
It was the same in the 70s when zoom lenses became popular. Every DOP and his dog started using zooms in shot. The fad eventually died down to eventually be replaced by wild jib shots for no other reason than to play with this new cool tech. This dark video where you can't see what's going on and everyone has green skin is just another fad. Boys with new toys.
I am glad I am not the only one who is noticing this trend. It gets frustrating sometimes to watch everything underexposed. I think this trend is also helpful in hiding bad quality of sets and VFX.
Early film noir was focused on edgy topics, shot in black and white and grayscale, and conversely, used strong lighting to create intense shadow and contrast. It was dark, but clean, and often precise. I’ve had it with the pukey, ill-defined greenish cast of sets, locations and people’s skins. If I were going to go to cinematography school, I’d experiment where I could with other lighting methods and sensibilities. This current one is nauseating.
Big budget films never left log footage untouched. Cinematographers and colourists knew very well how to deal with log style footage from the beginning. There was no confusion about it. Colourists have been dealing with such footage ever since the Cinema Praxis curves on the F900 from the first Star Wars prequels, and the Dalsa Origin and Viper Filmstream. Although the latter I think was linear space. The main culprit I think for this darkened footage is due to HDR grades having to be performed alongside SDR ones. If you have a grade for Dolby Vision and you have a DV compatible TV, you really need to be watching it in ideal lighting conditions. These grades also need to be made for SDR, while still keeping true to the character of the HDR grade, and I think there's a tendency to assume that people are always watching films in perfect lighting, with a well setup television. There's also associations of a high key look with cheap television. One thing that the lower light levels are not due to, however, is incompetence or confusion. The DPs and colourists know what they're doing, although as per many styles over the years, perhaps this one needs thinking over again.
This occurred to me the other day after watching Matrix4 and then Planet Earth by Nat Geo. The colors are gorgeous in some of these documentaries. I think if I were to shoot a film, I would love to have it lit something like Planet Earth. It would really set it apart as a film, if it were possible to have those colors combined with realistic CGI.
Planet earth is amazing ! But a man in an office isn’t Gorgeous, it’s a man in the office and if it were lit anything different than that then it isn’t the reality of a man … in an office
@@perspectiveproductions7634 I agree, but it would be amazing to see Zion through the lens of planet earth, contrasted against the drab green overtones of the Matrix.
Then your film would look like a TV documentary. Films aren't supposed to just have "tHe bRigHtEsT bEstEst ColoRs EvAr!". They're supposed to create a mood/tone.
Fantastic video. I often thought about this. And regarding the flat look, I often see that too. Some tv ads are really flat and they shouldn’t be. It’s nuts.
Thanks for this great video! It’s an interesting question why people choose more the „modern underexposed log/flat“ look rather the high contrast bright celluloid look. Personally I much more like the film look of the old times. I really find it hard to watch modern movies and series, especially due to the modern color grading and log look and that the picture looks like it’s calculated by a calculator rather than something real. I don’t also find the „modern“ look is more real. Maybe in the dark and more underexposed scenes, but in general I find this washed out film look which is more irregular blurry and sharp more close to reality. Not always, but most times. I think that filmmakers tried to explore the new technology to find out it’s limitations and benefits. Also it seems like its a technology which is easily available. Digital Cinematography is more easy to process than touchable filmstock. And also I think that shooting in Log and than color-grading just became hype and trendy and that some just lead and others followed. If I look at regular TV-documentaries, without special fancy Color grading or artistic look and manipulate, i really line the natural-ness of this images. And then I wish that also movie films would use more of this neutral look. Personally I have a problem with modern films and fast cut, lots of cgi, log-shooting, color grading, cliffhangers, crazy story-twists, clickbait, ect. It’s just that I think, that the culture also has changed. It seems like filmmakers habe much more competition and there is pressure to release movies to streaming services fast. Also through modern technology movies are much more quickly shoot and edited and so the rules of the game changed massively compared to the time from the 1960-2000 for example. People nowadays have movies 24/7 in their pocket via smartphones. Also there are commercials or video content in subways or everywhere in urban public spaces. I wish we would have something like Dogma95 did in the 90s, where artists consciously reduce the technology they use, to focus more on the storytelling or the interesting characters, instead of showing perfectionism of aesthetics everywhere. Just some random thoughts….
I think it's a style choice. It's more about the feeling. Underexposed gives a much more dramatic feeling to it. That's my take. Turn down the lights and get immersed. I love it!
Yes and no. Are you saying that by exposing the skin properly in Apocalypse Now for example, they lost that dramatic feeling? The trick for that dramatic feeling you mention is actually exposing the skin properly and give less light to the rest of the image, making the shadows deeper and the contrast bigger. An example would be Fight Club.
@@bobditty I won't fight you on that. I'll only say this: at least you will agree with us that there are occasions when like in Game of thrones season 8, they underexpose wrong making it too dark to even be able to see anything.
I remember looking at The Amazing Spider-Man and thinking it had that flat look (no LUT), like the color correction wasn't finished or done properly. And as this video began my mind immediately went to HDR, so many factors at play. It's one of the great digital revolutions, for better and sometimes worse, because it can absolutely alter the look and experience of a film or show we are already familiar with, and it's still in its infancy, with highly mixed results.
I remember that Marvel also explained they finish their movies "flatter" for distribution flatter because everyone cranks up the garbage "enhancement" settings on their TV which ruins the picture otherwise. There really needs to be meta-data that sets everything properly when you open an app or start a blu-ray. Maybe something like a promp saying "allow Movie/Series to adjust to intended settings?". There's already "film-maker mode" on many new tv sets. Just have it a bit more automated.
Yes, been noticing underexposure and flatness together with white balance variations for some time now. I would agree the editing has not been tested as mostly viewed and excellence has become so underrated.
Great video! I know a few filmmaker friends that like these flat looks. When they show me their edits, I always asked if they had grade it and they all they me yes. To me, it still looks Log. My theory is that the Log look makes everything look very natural and cinematic to the casual viewer, they just love it because it looks different from the "standard" look that they all see in their phones when they take videos. When it's graded, it becomes too close to what they can also do with their phone, thus diminishing their awe. The big problem with this flat look, as mentioned in your video too, is that you need a very good projection or TV to see it at its best. The good news is that most phones today have great screens and is able to do this better than most small theaters across the country. Watch anything at an older theater and you will notice the projector needs to bump up their brightness.
I really appreciate, how much information you were able to pack into a short video and not drawing it out, for over 10 minutes. Thank you, you got a sub and like from me 👍🤙
Yes, in far too many new movies, it seems that the lighting director is "the prince of darkness." If I wanted to NOT see action in a movie, I would turn my back to the screen and MOON it! As a photographer, I NEVER forget what "properly exposed skin tone" looks like. These "digital vidiots" need to learn how to USE MORE LIGHTS! A related issue is the "whispered dialogue that requires Closed Captioning to see." If I wanted to "see dialogue" all I have to do is watch a English-subtitled foreign language movie. "Tenet" was the pits; I became a foreigner during the movie. Turn up the dialogue volume and MUTE the explosions and shouting! Is that too hard for "modern artistes" to do? :( As far as the "nearly silent dialogue/no shadow detail" chic goes, "IQs have dropped sharply" in Hollyweird.
Yep, mumbling actors talking quietly is a big bugbear of mine. I frequently have to resort to turning on the CC. The sound mix on Interstellar was atrocious. Distortion galore because the volume was cranked up to 11 and you still couldn't hear the dialogue. Same on disc as well. But it's 'arty'. I found myself laughing through Tenet.
If you watch behind of scenes of any movie there is tons of light on the set. They are actually over exposing in most cases and under exposing it in the post processing to get cleaner shadows from digital camera sensor.
Ive noticed this in a few films recently too - It's a weird choice as you even miss important details of the characters and objects in the sequences that are shot underexposed. Im not sure whether it's because its a deliberate choice or the eye of the colour-grader cannot tell that its too dark (because they are used to seeing it so much) - I prefer the look of films before the current era, where everything is popped and beautiful and lit up, in some cases that may not be realistic but its beautiful and dramatic while still retaining some darkness.
Which really destroys a lot of the effort put into scenes. Scenes are still setup to be photographed, so they have focal points and contrasts....but in a film without a focal point or contrast, these considerations are diminished or lost entirely. There is an art of science behind how to draw peoples eyes when viewing an image. A flat underexposed image doesn't really express any of that.
Personally this is a pet peeve of mine; if i have to turn up the brightness of my display when dark scenes are happening just to tell what is going on then you're doing something wrong. Obscuring things in darkness can be an intended effect, chiaroscuro is an amazing style, but this is not it.
Good reasons, I tend to prefer the more muted look nowadays. It’s often times more nuanced. We have so much dynamic range and we use much softer sources now. Many years ago people were just blasted with tungsten and HMI. Just watch Vanessa Williams’s “colors of the wind” music video. It’s a super harsh and punchy look, which is also why they used so much filtration in those days for that glamorous look
Woww. This is a perfect analysis of the situation. It affects how scenes are lit as well! What drives me particularly nuts is the lack of highlights when faces are underexposed. Give me a backlight or something, some separation please. Moody doesn’t mean an underexposed frame, film noir is a great example of the way you can achieve moody, but contrasty/dynamic images :)
Interesting. As a photographer I'm often under exposing too, and where other's put in an S curve, I leave flat to preserve detail. I prefer dark moody images with character rather than brightly lit scenes. I do have to check my histogram though, and am often surprised, because like you say, your brain is trained to make it's own adjustments. This is why I never release work the day I work on it. I always review it a day later to spot obvious things I missed, including exposure.
You are seeing more “under exposed” projects because that’s the style cinematographers and directors want. Colour grading is a technical job and should be done based off the wants and needs of the DOP and or Director. Yes sometimes a colorist has creative freedom but their job is to serve the vision of others. We have a big problem these days in the industry with post colouring changing the look of the work based off their creative decisions. This is not good. You are there to assist not to try and make your own. Too many liberties are taken I have had way too many projects completely changed by colourists even after I have created a look with my onset colorist. Stop saying what you think should be or you’re happy a style has stopped. It’s a creative choice and most of the time not yours. There’s a reason you hear people say “ruined in post” and that is a a lot of the time because of decisions made by post not involving the DOP or Director. You are technician not the one setting the creative look whom like I said are the Director and the DOP.
Of course the Director and DOP are who set the vision and have the last word, but it should be a collaborative process. As a colorist, I think the look should be established before shooting when possible, so that colorists can bring their view both from a technical and creative perspective, creating a show LUT and so on. If you think you don't need a colorist for that, you probably don't even need a colorist at all. A colorist that imposes his view is a bad colorist to me, but so is the colorist that is only technical and has no creative view.
Have you ever considered the fact that you think you know the job better than the person who actually, like have an education and know what they are doing? The fact that you consider the colorists a “technician” while the director is some divine creature that knows better tells me a lot. Maybe you should work with a colorist that you respect that can improve your product rather than consider your coworker as a technician to just do whatever you think is good without other than your whims of what you think is good based on your limited preferences over someone who actually know what they’re doing. This is basically why so many movies, fashion photography and even good old video ads look terrible these days. You have an AD or a director who thinks they know better than the people who actually know what they’re doing instructing them how to do their job, and the result is absolutely crushingly mediocre, cause people who have no artistic vision are directing people who actually do. How about trusting people’s ability, or at least work with people you respect more than being “technicians” to realize your limited scope? I get it, you are a “self made man” and everyone except yourself are retards. You have a singular unique vision, and no one can ever be trusted to actually add to your singular vision to improve upon it. This is precisely why we don’t get good stuff anymore, cause people don’t respect others artistic aid to unite different talents to make something each single individual can’t do alone. You expect people to respect your amazing talent, but refuse to look at anyone else as anything else than peasants to do your bidding, cause these people are soulless creatures just doing the technical bits. Hell, do you not even realize that the guy doing light is a valuable asset to realize your vision? You might give him the general idea, but he’s the guy who knows how to achieve it. But you sound like the kind of guy who will probably not listen and have a shittier product from it. Ffs, “technicians”, you’re a sad man my friend.
@@dangermuz The director is the creative lead on the project. Not divine leader. I wouldn't tell a CEO how to run a company or take liberties without asking or offering my opinion first. My point is you are there to service the look of the project not to set it. I too am educated in colour theory and post production workflows and yes colouring is part of that. As and example techno color just went bankrupt last year and they were the industry standard in post for over 100 years. They use to tell and boss productions how to expose their film stock until a producer on a film listen to his DOP and allowed the creative lead on the technical side of production run the show. This story was told on Cooke master class for your reference. You can totally explain why something is technically good but look is subjective and is set by the DOP and the director. I have a partnership with my colonist I give them freedom to make choices on my behalf only because they have learnt my style of shooting over the years. But my point again these are creative choices and if you want to be butt hurt about not being in charge then become the DOP or director. Myself as the DOP can offer things to the director but its their creative vision and its my job to service and make come to light their creative choices. I am an expert in my craft and that not just knowing colour, its also lighting, composition and managing a crew of many people. Anyone can follow a vector scope for skin tone line or see how detail is clipping in the shadows or highlights. Learning how to colour is pretty self explanatory once you get these concepts but If I want my shadows to crunch for a creative choice, well again that's mine or the directors creative choice. This is different for each project as sometimes I have quality control guidelines to follow, set by studios or networks. I know you can make the argument that there's some DOP's and directors that don't know what they are doing and this is true but the vast majority of professional top level directors and DOP's know everyones job cause they have to manage everything as they are burden with weight of the project in its totality. Another example is Ive worked with one of the top colourist in my city and they only colour correct on one node for 90% of what they do. Someone whom has worked on academy award winning films so when this RUclipsr shows a node tree the size of may family tree they look at it and say that so inefficient. "I'm not saying the RUclipsr is wrong I actually like his work flow" Again my argument is because this person has a dislike from a technical point they don't understand why the creative choice was made. Lastly I won't even touch trends cause I disagree with trends all the time but if my director say. "Jay I want to use heavy lens diff on this and wash out the contrast" Well guess what I'm doing... I hate that look but hey I guess we all have our biases. Be blessed 🙏
Bravo!! and I suggest reason #4: In earlier days movie making was more on BIG BUDGET side, so there were culture of doing right, doing classy - working with light sources! It's tedious and expensive, but it brings art! Nowadays, when TV scores enormously, most productions rely more and more on post and simply drop gaffers - "we'll brighten up area with face in post, IF there will be an issue" and in most cases this question never raises again and they render as is with global CC for the whole scene.
Yeah i couldnt get past the first episode of ozark and stopped watching it purely for the fact it was too dark. I felt like i was wearing sunglasses indoors and wanted to take them off. I couldnt see shit!
All of the reasons unified: Noob cinematographers and editors are to blame, because they have no clue what actually makes a good image. Most of these people went to film school, not because they love photography, but because they wanted to make money in the business. So they didn't have the drive to learn the art, but instead just learned the motions to get the job. Most of them are less skilled than your average hobbyist photographer.
@@diethermanicat Except you don't take a job that requires artistic knowledge, and only put technical people in charge of it. It's like having a chef that only knows half the steps to making a dish. They have all the ingredients put in front of them, but they just throw them in the pot. So the things that should be sauteed or baked or roasted or smoked before introducing, aren't. Imagine if you went to an asian restaurant and ordered some fried rice, but the vegetables were just boiled and added to the rice. How tasty would it be? That's what differentiates fine dining from slop.
Good point. You are right, i see so many people uploading videos on RUclips that was shot with a log. file and not graded at all. And i am sure it was not a mood choice. Looks terrible, everything was just flat. It looks unfinished, like the colour grading person didnt come to work that day and they just outputted the vid. I dont know why so many people have to shoot in a log file when it is not even a challenging backlit situation. Sensor tech is getting so good that in most surroundings, log. is not needed. You can already recover a lot of shadows and highlights in standard format. Why give yourself more work in grading when you dont need to !
The real reason is that TVs got brighter through time even before HDR was a thing. The old SDR standard was 100 nits but TVs were showing SDR images at 300 or 400 nits. The exposure and color grading on modern shows had to compensate to that. Plus, HDR is supposed to look like that. It reflects the real world as it is. It's supposed to be dark in the shade against a bright background. HDR was created for that purpose. There's nothing wrong with it.
Yeah the current exposure trends are very intentional and meant to look natural and pleasing on modern screen technology. HDR or not, seemingly underexposed films need only be watched on a bright enough screen and they come alive. Suddenly everything looks very natural with believable skin tones, and then stuff like lamps, skies and other things that “glow” are putting out a ton of light in comparison to the actor’s face. It’s realistic. There is literally no reason to put human skin at 70 IRE (near the top of the exposure range!) and leave little room for anything to be brighter, unless you’re worried about the screen people watch it on being too dim.
@@ConnerFoxx ikr. People in other comments saying it's an error are dellusional or don't know what they're talking about. Some are comparing Netflix shows to their local filmmaker.
@@ConnerFoxx correct. The Standard of 70IRE is just a measure of signal/noise/grain based on older mediums. It's nice to know, but not always applicable. Especially in modern-cinematography where cameras can see in the dark with almost no noise at all.
@@GabrielAlves-lp1qr I suppose it doesn’t help that this video presents darker exposure as a mystery to be solved, and suggests a lot of it could be the result of professionals getting their process messed with by newer technology. The shift we’ve seen WAS enabled by improving cameras and screens, but style changes have been in the very intentional pursuit of making a pleasing image. That process contained some experimentation, but it had little to do with anyone not knowing what they were doing.
@@ConnerFoxx Yeah. This video is a bit misleading and I suppose people are watching shows the wrong way. They must be using old TVs or they are badly set up. I've never seen a brand with good configs out of the box.
P3 DCI - 48 nits (equivalent to Film capture for a theatrical preview) Rec709 - starts from 100 nits ( for consumer level devices) ** Even the most accurate transformation may not mimic the exact Film deliverable on a consumer level monitor unless it is properly remastered for a lower colour space like Rec 709. But many movies leaving their log curve untouched to avoid all the transformations in order to save some budgets is like a silly gimick to me 😅 **
I heard an old anecdote about studio era executives complaining about under lit scenes and saying, "Get some light on the lead, we're paying a fortune for this actor, and the audience is paying to see them." Personally, I prefer a realistically lit scene, as long as I can see what I am supposed to see. I abhor the '60s and '70s style lighting in which everything is illuminated like a department store portrait. Night-time exteriors in the woods with actors blasted by a 10k from an unmotivated source.
No. 4. Directors want more realistic natural lighting effects, with the intention of increasing audience immersion. The real world isn't artificially lit by professional lighting technicians, as is the case with most, if not all, film sets, whether soundstage and backlot, or outside on location. Just a thought...
Great video, great topic, as always! Well I think, adding to your reasons for underexposure, it's also a matter of distancing oneself from that "old school film look". Way back in the 1960s and 70s a lot of movies (35mm film prints)looked very high contrast and way too evenly and brightly lit. The reason, obviously, was to avoid dark areas with no detail with rather rough looking color film stock. With better film stocks, I'd say starting in the late 1970s, came more shadow detail, but it still was better to hit the film emulsion with healthy doses of light. The second reason is IMHO to distance oneself from a "happy and colorful dish washing detergent commercial" look. Underexposed and low contrast, but with enough shadow detail, looks more serious and more subltle. So IMHO it's a mixture of technical and psychological reasons.
I think many of your suggestions are fair, but ultimately, I do think the flatter/darker look appears more realistic than bright/punchy. To me, realism is the highest order in the craft of filmmaking, so I prefer it.
Yea, because it's antiquated and dumb/cumbersome technology. You really think Greig Fraser and Denis Villeneuve lacked "discipline" when making Dune? No it simply LOOKS BETTER in naturalistic lighting.. and modern digital camera capture this BETTER. Get over yourself. Film is stupid and only popular with hipsters and youtube commenters.
The problem with this type of analysis is that it lazily assumes the "old way" was correct. There would have been many master-filmmakers working decades ago who would have loved to have captured/presented flatter/darker images in this way, but were thwarted by the (often frustrating) limitations of the time. Shooting on film was often a battle with compromise. You couldn't even shoot night scenes for much of the celluloid era, and everything had to be shot in the day using the "day for night" process. Filmmakers have far more freedom and choice with digital - and they are using it do things previous generations simply couldn't.
It looks generic and like shit. That's why this resonated so much. It's not past vs present. I'd bet anything if you took survey data on which style people would prefer, they'd pick the movie that looks like its daylight and not some dark mess.
@@jonniecandito181 It doesn't matter what your (assumed) "survey data" says, your assertion that it "looks like shit" is just an opinion. Also, by definition, it would be the conventional looking movies that are generic. The fact remains, beyond the romantic notions of old-school cinematography, that the filmmakers of old were often compromised and frustrated by the technology of their time, much of which is now infinitely improved. We already make far too many films based on surveys. If you don't like the way certain films/TV shows look, then don't watch them.
А ещё потому, что современное киноизображение стремиться к реалистичности. А в реальности нас редко окружают яркие пространства. And also because modern cinematography strives for realism. And in reality, we are rarely surrounded by bright spaces.
I just got back into photography I am 53. Collage we had to learn exposure and film. Today, my camera takes care of the exposure for me. Generally it averages the exposure of the whole shot. Before, I exposed for the subject. My stuff now is not as clear. Then I read that (at least my camera) - has a low pass filter on the chip, which international lowers the detail. And my lenses for the new autofocus lenses are not as bright, f stops are slower. I only do still photography but these are my observations. Oh yea. People are more impatient when I shoot. Before it would be ok for me to take a meter reading, ie. set correct exposure - frame subject correctly, confirm manual focus then take the shot. In all between 15 seconds. Now, 2022-with cell phones, people get impatient and what the shot in a second. Just more observations on why our pictures now are not as good. But I do notice the substandard cinematography - most people do not.
Hi wolfcrow, I watched this video with pleasure. Thank you! I think it is a trend in the first place and a creative decision of those responsible for the looks. Since digital cinematography allows for much more choices in exposure and grading, people responsible for the final looks of movies try things. Mostly they succeed with it but sometimes fail. Another reason is, that cinematographers are not responsible for the final image anymore. They don't even control the final framing. Saying professionals unlearned how correctly exposed scenes look like and they are judging the image on the wrong monitors is far from reality. Most if not all of them know very well how to use a histogram or other tools properly. Time constraints and budgets sometimes lead to reduced lighting set-ups, which might have unwanted effects.
none of your reasons explains why "The White Ribbon" or "The Lighthouse" (which have gorgeous images) are "under" exposed... it's only a matter of choice and not a contraint of the digital technology... this technology only let cinematographers better used the dark parts of the images (because there's more dynamic range in that area nowadays))... take Gordon Willis, Darius Khonji or Néstor Almendros for example... they didn't underexposed only because of contraint, but by choice. Btw you didn't mentioned it but it's more realist (at least to my eyes) to "under" expose when it's night time than exposing "correctly" like older cinematographers tended to do... that's definitely one of the reasons dop "under" expose their images (also the image looks more dramatic when it's under, etc.) (The lack of contrast is a disease of bad cinematographers, that's true and the serie that you took as example lacks contrast...) (btw sorry for my poor english)
This is a great talk and well done. But is totally not true that film has less shadow. A 35mm film has more shadow dynamic range than nearly any digital sensor available today and more restitution also. Only in the past couple of years is digital RAW footage getting close to what film had, it's just digital is so much more flexible.
What I've noticed with a lot of 21st century movies is they even downcast scenes shot outside in the sunny daytime. WHY? Even if the movie has a depressing storyline, if a scene is shot outside in the middle of the day, give us a nice, clear, colorful picture! You can use downcast, gloomy colors when they're inside or when it's night time. Also, what's with all the camera shake with modern movies. Sometimes, it drives me nuts! Directors back in the 20th century knew better.
Great video but I’ve to disagree on this, when you under expose a raw camera like an Arri on set the colorist can always change the ISO in davinci resolve that’s the best thing of raw, also they’re experts at what they do when they want to get an under exposed image they get it and when they want it perfectly exposed they get that too, they’re using exposure as an extra tool to tell a story you can’t have a perfectly expose commercial look on a dark tv show like Ozark for example…
Inspiration for Film Directors, guaranteed! ruclips.net/video/-Anr_KnEfCw/видео.html
This is a really relevant topic for those who love to watch shows and movies. I feel the trend of flatness and underexposure is preposterous because many a time, you cannot see anything! I recently abandoned a show simply because I could not see anything or anybody in that show; and story-wise it was a good show.
To this trend of dark and underexposed camerawork, add another new trend: actors talking in whispering voices, rather than their natural voices.
All this makes the entire experience of watching very pathetic!
I’m glad people are talking about this, it IS a stylistic choice and a trend. However, I think it looks just terrible most of the time. Particularly overused pukey blue/green color grading that dominates the look of everything. I’d like to see more neutral color schemes and less murky flat shadowy content, I also believe mood lighting achieved in camera with a gel looks orders of magnitude better than relying 100% on post to get your “look”.
As a gaffer I prefer to get as much right in camera as possible.
"However, I think it looks just terrible most of the time." I agree it look terribly in screen that don't have "deep black" like LCD and projectors. Some movie become a real pain to watch.
I havent seen the video, but I will.
Before watching, I am gonna say that I love david fincher’s movies. They are dark but with logic and in moderation.
@@anteeko Right... it's like they're graded for an OLED.
So many A24 films have the same hideous processing that makes them blue green and dark. I can't take it seriously. It's like a photographer using the default Instagram filters from the 2010s
I don't buy that modern directors, set designers, cinematographers and colorists have somehow lost knowledge and are just pumping out log footage with no understanding of lighting. The flat look is trendy and goes with the recent popularity both of neo-noir and anti-hero story lines.
I think if anything, those in the industry need MORE knowledge today because they are often running the gamut from brightly lit commercials with poppy colors to dour premium cable dramas. The folks doing this work know more than 99.9% of the commenters on this video could ever hope to know about the filmmaking process.
Take Director of Photography Roger Deakins. In 2010, he made a very traditionally lit and bright "The Company Men". Two years later he made the flat and moody "Skyfall". We are looking at artistic choices, trends, and that is all.
The only possible connection I see with Log profiles contributing to the final edit, is that by allowing the filmmakers to see a flat image (which never would have been the case in the past), they are given the creative inspiration to keep things flat. Sometimes when I shoot log, I find in the editing suite that I actually enjoy the aesthetic more than a punchy, higher contrast and saturation look.
But I will give Wolfcrow credit for the point he made about how colourists are monitoring the image on their high-end screens. Most consumers don’t have anything capable of displaying close to pure black, and so the shadow region of the image gets blended together more than how it looked to the editor/colourist. Cinematographers often lament the variety of quality even in cinemas, so you can imagine how they feel about our TVs at home 😅
Unpopular opinion: Skyfall is one of the worst looking Bond films.
The fact that this dude is sitting here armchair quarterbacking world-renowned DP's and not for their artistic choices but for their lack of technical knowledge and apparent "mistakes" they are making while creating million dollar art is just mind-boggling. It's an aesthetic choice in the way they decide to create their art. I've watched other videos by this dude, and the amount of face plants while watching has me red in the face. I haven't watched one of his videos in quite some time and now i remember why... SMH.
wrong, buddy. those are not conscious choices at all and the youtube commenters know mrore than the pros
This has been a slowly growing trend since the 90s. From the X Files on tv to David Fincher’s films. In fact Fincher has become so popular with his visual style, many new cinematographers over the past 2 decades have been duplicating it, especially over the last 5 years… imo.
Reason #4: Underexposing hides poor quality visual FX.
That's why Game of Thrones Season 8 look like it did. I got that from an actual worker on the VFX studio. They couldn't finish the effects because they were less people working on more FX than they were back in Season 5
This is what I feel from the MCU movies since The Winter Soldier, it's like they discovered that the flat style of the Russos was the key to hide bad FX or just have a faster pipeline of work
@@MarcoBayod_MB I think MCU movies has shaded their flat looking style since Ragnarok, but yeah their VFX doesn't look as punchy as Ironman 1 or 2.
True
DC: you better not say that b****
I was a proud member of IA Local 659 in Hollywood primarily in the 80s. Prior to that, I was the clerk in the Camera Dept at The Burbank Studios (when Warner’s shared the lot with Columbia). Everything was big and heavy then. The lights were gigantic. There was no digital - all 35mm film stock. The film trucks were big and there were lots of them. A location shoot in your neighborhood was like an army moving in. But the images were beautiful! TV shows were shot the same way as theatrical motion pictures. A one hour TV episode was usually scheduled for 7 or 8 shooting days that were often 12 hours or longer. I remember when Eastman came out with more sensitive film stock which revolutionized lighting. Then you could switch back and forth between 5247 (exterior) and 5294 (interior). I know I’m “an old timer”, but we had some wonderful looking films back then! Now I’ll sit with my wife in the living room and ask, “What is it we’re looking at?”
That's so cool to hear. You dont hear much chatter about film anymore. I mean, to be fair we are in the digital era and we are constantly revolutionize camera technology, but man film is so cool. It doesn't even try hard.
@@veronavalley Quentin Tarantino shoots movies on 35mm film. Actually, on The Hateful Eight he went even further and shot on 65mm film. At specially prepared theatres, it was shown in a roadshow presentation on 70mm projectors. I attended one and the images were wonderful!
@@brucekuehn4031 Your comment is super cool and i agree with you. I'm 22 years old but modern movies just look so terrible color grading, lightning, camera angles and overuse of blue/orange tint in every single movie makes me wanna puke.
I find it amazing that 1950's Technicolor film still looks so great today! Colors are bright and really alive. I wish they would film a few movies in a "modern" form of Techicolor again...I'm getting tired of seeing modern "Edgy" films all shot in the dark.
But that is the same example of what is happening now. The tech then (new film stocks) gave rise to a popular look that fit the technology. What's old is new again.
Sorry, Technicolor got sold to...China!
Agreed.getting tired of movies looking so dark
@@Otokichi786 True! But while China owns the Technicolor proceess, the rich values that process has can be recreated digitally but only as a conscious production choice! Plus, there were several imitations of the Technicolor 'look' that China did NOT buy...yet.
There's nothing remotely modern about the idea of shooting movies "in the dark".
As a cinematographer, this is just way off...
We have more modern tools to help with exposure than ever before. I know exactly what IRE my skin tones are falling in as I shoot them. I can also preview all work in rec.709 and rec.2020 while shooting in log.
This is an aesthetic, and one that works for alot of storytelling and sometimes is copied just to be modern and doesn't fit the story.
It is also an error to call these shots, "underexposed." They are just low contrast with the highlights brought down. The film is shot at proper exposure to maximize DnR in the image and then in the color studio, whether I and doing the color or working with a colorist, we bring the curve down rolling off the highlights. It also helps that alot of modern displays add a ton of their own contrast so this preserves that detail across modern displays as well. But as a DP I would NEVER underexpose my image, to lose detail in post workflow. Expose for the highlights to not be clipped, light everything accordingly to bring my levels to proper exposure and let the grade do the rest.
Would the following be true or is this too general?
Shooting digital: priority is to preserve highlights
Shooting film: priority is to preserve shadows
@@vlcheish I've honestly haven't worked much with light response on film to be honest, but my guess would be that is off as well. Blown highlights look off and can cause the rest of the film to be off because of halation and bloom. But film also has 16+ stops of DnR which is really hard to achieve with digital.
@@BenjaminMcClain From a photography perspective film's big advantage is it overloads gracefully into white whereas digital sensor highlights clip abruptly and look terrible once it hits white since there is no gradual overload to white unlike film. So the digital sensor's characteristic curve is to head straight to 255 white and blow out.
Film tends to mimics human vision more closely than digital as humans in that it cannot pull details out of shadows/dark much like film but we also view highlights closer to film. This would be where the "digital priority is to preserve highlights/priority is to preserve shadows" tends to come from. Highlight gradation behaves differently on digital vs film which is why I would assume highlights would be more essential to preserve for digital cinema over film cinema but I do not work in this space.
well this aesthetic looks like shit
Agreed. If you have used a light meter to light a scene, this video is highly inaccurate
I was thinking about this the other day and my theory was that in the past, TVs were low res so you needed a lot more contrast or TV screens would not be able to detect enough details. In addition to that, the high resolutions screens, sharp lenses, and modern sensors, can reveal too much details on people’s skin. The faces of the actors can look “caked” with makeup, and every pour on their face can look exaggerated on close up shots, especially on scenes where the story calls for harsh lighting. The “flat look” helps soften the look. Occasionally I see a film that “exposes correctly” in 4k, and every time the camera comes in for a closeup, I’m thinking “the actor and make up artist must hate this shot!”.
Great perspective! I also have this dilemma when exposing. This trend have also creeped into photography. When I expose for the subject, I think it too punchy nd saturated. Let's just say, it looks like a little child's happy colory painting. But I prefer to explor other moods
Yes, the defocused look. When DVDs were the norm, I thought it was so they could get the movie to fit onto fewer disks. Then there was also the deliberate soft filter for the ladies that Star Trek TV made famous. Intentionally hiding the details helps move the story along.
It is dynamic range, not resolution, that more greatly affects contrast. For television, the tubes, and then early digital sensors, didn't have the dynamic range to start with. Film did, and films (and television shows shot on film) displayed just fine on tellies with CRTs and early digital.
This makes perfect sense to me. Old black and white movies had to use really excessive lighting for the super old and dim cameras they had, until they got better cameras. Now we have better TVs, so the same could be true like you're saying.
I was watching Goodfellas today and I noticed this exact thing. The faces looked weird and unnatural to me and the film grain was unimaginably high even in daytime scenes.
Love this! I was literally working on a video about this a few months ago but gave up and never published it... I am so happy to see people are thinking and talking about this.
Would love to see your take on this Epic Light Media.
Thanks for supporting other creators. Would love to see your take on it too
I am going to unscubscribe to you for this comment. :-)
Do it! Just… do. it! Make our dreams come true ( a new video is our dream)
I was a lighting tech on commercials about 10 years ago and this one DP I worked with was getting hired all the time because his shots all had a very flat, desaturated and under-exposed look. It was super trendy for a lot of commercial spots to be shot like that. Made for an easy but long and boring day only needing to one or two lights from the truck - sometimes we'd pull other lights of the truck and "stage them" around set so the producers would think the lighting budget was justified lol
I think you might be simplifying the filming process. In many, if not all of these films , exposing correctly and then grade down to reduce noise is common practice. The deep shadows are an esthetic choice, much like skin tone ire levels, most rules in film are meant to be broken
That GoT episode was the best and worst example of underexposing - surprising how everyone involved thought it was good to go
I think that was really more to do with HBO Max having absolutely horrid stream compression. They still do.
@@ethanhegel8576 no. It was mastered to 100 nits in a COMPLETELY BLACK ROOM. do you have a room with all black walls and no light seeping in,
I think a big part of the style trend now is to explore motivation behind context and lighting. In the past there might have been more of a “lit” Hollywood studio sort of look to things. This is probably when “the book “ was written on these things.
I battle with the term “under exposed” because I think the digital technology has inspired people to explore and test what the cameras can do and given permission for people to film in darker contexts. There is no way that in the night time it’s realistic to expect 70 ire in a bedroom lit with one lamp at night. I love that we can explore how light and dark can communicate mood, time of day and context.
We no longer fully rely heavily upon the story telling in the actors performance. Although it’s still very important even today, there is a movement to support the performance with the other parts of production more than we may have done in the past.
There’s loads of tools we have at our disposal to build and tell stories. Although there are some rare occasions where things are genuine mistakes, I think a lot of these “underexposed images” are artistic decisions that are intended to create a mood and better tell the context of the story.
Just some of my thoughts?
I fully agree , it’s a natural progression to have a more “naturalistic “ look . One thing I would say from my experience , this motivated lighting scheme , which I use , can be risky , as you’re living on the edge some the of time , it takes take and practice to master
Correct exposure and white balance before the grade is so often overlooked and yet the photographic medium looks best when the image is correctly captured. As a colorist I deal with so much underexposed footage and then part of the image that suffers most is skin tone. Underexposing skin means the light that should be captured as subsurface translucency in the skin is lost, and that feature of skin is what gives it life.
Thank you for this insight
If it's comedy shows mostly depends on dialogues with timing, Punch etc. then ok for flat lights. Sorry respected one, its my view.
good to know dude, thx for the insight
I haven't had thought of the Subsurface Scattering aspect of it. However, is it actually applicable? The light hitting the skin isn't modified at all, only the perception of it, which makes me think intuitively that it shouldn't modify the translucency even if you underexpose.
@@BrunoDeAngelis Agreed. The OP sounds like he's swiping wisdom from a 3D modeling app that doesn't apply here.
Most of these "underexposed" films are exposed properly on set, then brought down in post during the grading process. Most all these films that you're showcasing are shot with cameras with their own proprietary raw codec, so each can be "rescued" if "underexposed", which is almost impossible if you're shooting in the raw codec...and if you did underexpose the raw file, you'd get a lot of noise in the shadows, that you'd need to use a noise reduction app to clean it up. These are looks and feel that the filmmakers are going for, it's a choice on the part of the creators not necessarily issues with the camera sensor.
Yep, it's a look that allot of people like. It looks more natural IMO. "Proper Exposure" where skin in bright and clear looks more like Live-TV or Sports.
@@Frontigenics Kind of off topic but what about frame rates for ‘natural’ versus ‘processed’? Like when blue-ray hit and things were in 50fps vs 24fps it felt unnatural although our eyes are capable of so much more than 50 fps. I think we’ve all become acclimated to a type of style
@@NezD yea, 24fps is the standard for the psychological effect. It creates the effect of "moving photography" or that you're watching a "memory". If something looks "live" in 60fps our brains are like "ok, so this is happening NOW... why are there edits and music in it?"
@@Frontigenics interesting, I’ve never heard of that explanation before. That would actually explain higher frame rates on day time soap operas which are literally meant to feel as real and daily as their constant, decades long filming schedules.
I really appreciate the case wolfcrow and probably right in amateur circumstances. However, I'd agree that these are creative choices even made to showcase the lowlight performance of modern sensors and processing and now you can ever offer a more dramatic mood with more confidence due to different lighting techniques that came with the technology.
Excellent and very educational video. Am so tired of crappy looking films where everything is dark and murky with a blue, lifeless tint. Greatly prefer the warm, high contrast look of technicolor films from the 50s and 60s.
a - “properly exposed skin” isn’t a thing.
b - you seriously think that The Social Network is underexposed ?
c - Digital color grading, real time monitoring on calibrated displays, etc… all make it easier to handle the dark tones of pictures. Fincher and Cronenweth don’t make underexposed films. Dark ones ? Certainly.
Properly exposed skin is a thing. 70 IRE for caucasian skin has been a standard for decades. It's what you get if you use a grey card or light meter to expose too.
@@gabriel101x Standardised skin brightness. Wonderfull. Artistry at its best.
The Social Network _is_ notoriously underexposed, I'll give him that. I even remember people complaining about some of the darker scenes when it released.
I didn't want to see The Social Network in the cinema because the trailer was so dark. I bought it on DVD later but it's a shame I was put off watching it in the theatre
I agree with you. Underexposing is 100% a creative choise. Today the “underexposed” look has become more popular because we can have a rough preview of the final image. In film underexposing was much more dangerous because you could only judge exposure by metering with and exposimeter and if you went too far you were screwed due to the low dynamic range in underexposed areas.
These modern "films" are not under-exposed. They have all been exposed properly and according to what the camera requires. The so-called "underexposure" is achieved almost entirely in post. Most if not all of these "underexposed" shots, if seen as they were actually lit and shot, would look much brighter than they do in the finished shows. For the simple reason that to get a proper exposure light is required. The end result is a simple color grading trick. I shot a scene this way a month ago in which the set was lit brightly but flatly, and in post we simply lowered the mid-range levels to make the setting appear much darker...but since we had shot it correctly it still retained great detail and sharpness. This is much easier now with digital cameras that are finally well beyond what film stock can produce.
Good expert comment. Would it be more helpful to call this trend "under-development"?
@@jamiefenner9443 Might be a good term for it. But the bottom line is that as far as the camera is concerned you can not really, truly underexpose it...if you do you will get noise, artifacting, a mess...these dark scenes we are all seeing today in many series and movies are achieved by exposing correctly during shooting and then lowering the levels in post. It is a wonderful tool to have on hand! We can now create scenes with tremendous darkness if we choose.
@@arlingodwindigitalfilms Thanks for a thoughtful reply :-)
Excellent video. I have noticed but hearing your evaluation of it I realize how this has become a trend. The look works great in a scene that requires it. But when an entire production is "dark and moody", it loses it edge. It then just becomes fatiguing to the viewer who strain to recognize what is in the scene. And yes, it is a trend. As is constant camera motion. And the pendulum swings....
Next....why do films have audio you can't hear when those on screen speak in normal conversations and when fight or other action scenes occur, it's so loud the neighbors hear it?
LA adjacent non-industry accidental drive-by RUclips viewer here. So NOW I get why you guys are always the most fun to watch at Awards Shows. Cue the Sally Field clip here. I don't have a clue to half the technical stuff, but I AM a consumer and appreciate your hard work and passion.
I think part of this is because the rec709 look became associated with cheapness and with greater dynamic range in the shadows it is easier and lazier not to adjust the highlights because it would pull on the shadows too
I don’t like the rec709
It could also be a reaction to old standards as before, you had to shoot very bright as colors in TVs were not as deep. Filmmaker now wants to shoot darker because they re finally able to. It could also be the curiousness to push the boundaries of HDR.
Your takes on "modern trend" and "filmmaker being biased by working too much with flat logs" are also very interesting
Yes Mr. David.
No that's wrong, CRT TV's had excellent color gamut and contrast, lacking only in peak brightness. There for sure was a period with early LCD's with very poor color performance but we are past that.
Thank you for making this. I thought I was going crazy with the way most modern films look nowadays. That flat, dark look. David Fincher used it stylistically in The Social Network, but the vast majority of films fell short. A more egregious recent movie was Pig with Nicolas Cage. I had buddies who said they were employing the technique of "chiaroscuro" that old films did, but I disagree. The entire image is flat, low light. The old movies had to employ external lighting to get these effects and there were conscious choices.
The SOUND is BIG problem on modern films , if you listen to an old movie you can make out every word being said,, with modern movies it’s hard sometimes,, not sometimes a lot of times to make out what is being said , Try listening even to an old black-and-white movie and you will hear the dialogue absolutely clearly
Thanks for the discussion on this. I don't really buy bad habit/incorrect workflow arguments for most mainstream media we experience. however it looks I'm sure cinematographers 100% intended it to look that way.
But different colorists do impose their own "signature" onto things, have their own particular post prod environments; some like to color time with cinematic settings in mind, while sitcoms and comedies still embrace high key, assuming you'll be watching it on tv with the lights on.
Not to mention older films that once were exposed a certain way can be re-timed for modern, low-exposure sensibilities (like Criterion's Wong Kar Wai remasters, for instance) - and vice versa. It's definitely a complicated issue with no one correct answer.
That explains a lot, I never thought of that.
I always find when watching new movies that my eyes get exhausted quickly.
Older ones are much more pleasing to watch.
First and foremost, these wildly successful filmmakers know exactly what they are doing. No mistakes are being made. You don’t get handed a $100 million budget without knowing how to read a scope. People are making what they want to make because they want to make it that way. Also largely the trend in film and television as far as script and tone is far darker and more realistic today than it ever was back then, which in theory would call for darker settings. Ozark wouldn’t quite be the same feel if it was as bright and colorful as The Wizard of Oz.
100%. this is not a "disease" -- it's a purely artistic choice. Ben Kutchins is a phenomenal cinematographer, and super underrated.
Yes!
lmao it’s not realistic at all, it all looks like utter dogshit nowadays
I'll take the Justified look as a compromise.
I am Italian, born and raised in Brazil.
The things you discussed give me the same impression and mood I get when I go from Brazil to England.
No sun.
Just the other day I though the same thing, why almost all last movies (especially TV shows) are so underexposed and low-contrasty. And here is your video. Thanks, that's really interesting and also relaxes a little bit since you understand there is no "gold standard" and even modern pro's in cinema could be wrong somewhere, and there is a lot of room still to experiment.
This is so on point! Especially with TV ads, which I found so annoying. I agree with you a 100% that "it's a technical mess"! Thank you wolfcrow.
Wonder Woman was shot on film. Check IMDB technical specs
I Totally agree!! This is pretty-much the *"LOUDNESS WAR"* for video! The beginning of the end (which sadly still hasn't happened yet but it is slowing down) was when Metallica released their decent album Death Magnetic in 2008, sadly, its final mix for retail release was SO badly compressed/clipped that it was a flat mess where it was actually giving me an ear ache or even a headache just after 3 or 4 songs! What made this obvious was the video game 'Guitar Hero 3' had the original stems of all songs from that album before it got to the final mix so they are barely slightly clipped vs the final retail release which is absolute trash. I am a Metallica fan saying this... lol I can also relate to this with my editing and mixing of my original music, if my ears are blocked a bit without my realising it (due to wax) then when I mix the songs they could sound more tinny because of my over compensating for my hearing. But I do have visual guides that can help to an extent. The best tool is your ears though tbh. But with video it is your eyes and it is tricky because every monitor even when "calibrated" can be different depending what sort of screen it is using just for a start! I have gone through the entire process of editing and mixing a song ready to release, then got my ear wax removed and heard the song was so bassy that I tried to do it again from scratch but couldn't...lol So, I had to remaster the way too bassy one down a LOT and then released it (still too bassy, but passable.) You do become accustomed to seeing or hearing it a particular way, some it is fashion, some it is future proofing for HDR and some it will be like me - accidental! Well, now I do not edit or mix when I know my ears are blocked or when I need to POP them after a trip!
I am not an expert on this topic, but I think the under exposure and the colour grade together create / set the mood or tone for the overall intended vibe of the movie or series much more easily thus the scenes become more dramatic (so creative choice). This is also a reason along with all the reasons pointed out in this video but at the same time the super dark / ultra underexposed scenes of GOT S8 are unforgivable.
Yes and no. Are you saying that by exposing the skin properly in Apocalypse Now for example, they lost that dramatic feel? I think that, out of all the thing he mentions, log profiles combined with HDR may be the cause. The trick for that dramatic feel you mention is actually exposing the skin properly and give less light to the rest of the image, making the shadows deeper and the contrast bigger.
@@familygonzcartwright It's a case of they don't know what they're missing because they don't know what to miss. It's lost knowledge at this point. Flatness became soo overused to the point now people see it as an artistic choice, because they have no clue what the movie would look like if it was color graded and exposed properly.
You are all missing on key ingredient in all of this and its not skin ire or color grading… lighting. Modern cinema and cinematography use allot of backlighting techniques which enhances the moodiness and creates lots of contrast, filling up the shadows or getting 70 ire skin tones while backlit would make it look artificial and less “cinematic”.
@@MrLivesformusic not always. Those Ozark shots don't look backlit. But I agree with the backlight and how exposing is different when you do it
Everything about GOT (SPOILER). post Tywin's exit is unforgivable. And they even messed that up.
This is EXACTLY why ACES was implemented everywhere. ACES is the standard for colour space now. While a film may be exported as 709 or other comparable formats, if all the work is converted to ACES, ACESCG for cg or other formats then there won't be any HDR mishaps. It may not take away the trendy flat look, but it will help with preventing accidental flatness from working in different formats.
For the most part it is a style choice. Artists don't want to be repetitive. They want to stand out from the past work.
"Underexposed" is an antiquated term when talking about digital cinematography. Technology on the shooting end and the viewing end (audience side) allows for images that are truer to life. None of the images shown in this video have anything wrong with them, they were shot by professionals who knew exactly what they were doing, trends aside, and accomplished some dark, mysterious and pleasing images that suit the respective themes/plots of the screenplays they were created for.
Truer to life? I don’t see the world as dark as Ozark inspite of the fact that i’m rather a pessimistic person.
@@dagkaszlikowski8358 Allows for. Not necessarily has to be. Overcast exteriors in Ozark make no sense and are too dark if compared to reality, but the interior night scenes are closer to what you'd actually see in a dimly lit room illuminated only by moonlight. Ozark's cinematography is a stylistic choice that reflects the dark nature of that fictional world. My point isn't that stopping down always makes for truer to life images, its that sometimes you need to stop down in order to be true to life. It makes no sense at all to always shoot 60+ IRE with the technology we have today. Thinking that you have to be "properly exposed" and that "properly exposed" is just a certain number on a graph really spits in the face of artistic choice enabled by today's cameras and HDR viewing systems.
Exactly right. It's photography 101. This video is bs
@@dagkaszlikowski8358 well, News-Broadcasts are true to life. Is that what you like? Everything looking like Sports or News in 60fps because it's "true to life".
They’re only mysterious if I can fucking see them! A Picasso that I can’t see is simply a black page of A2.
When I first started in video production, I shot most things flat and liked that look. I hired an editor and he was not complimentary about the flat look and so I changed it. I thought I was doing it wrong. Knowing more about luts and how to apply them has helped, but I still like the look of ungraded log footage, with just a bit of contrast. Thanks for letting me know I am not crazy.
I just had a huge "a ha!" moment watching this. Great content!
As an actor, writer and director I prefer dynamic “exposure” (grading) throughout a film as appropriate for the mood of each scene. If entire film is happy, I make it pop, but I recently watched a high budget, recently released feature film from a famous director on a new mini-led HDR display (also recently released) and the film was so dark I had to concentrate to see what was happening in the scenes.
unfortunately the vast majority of movies in HDR is not true HDR, but an SDR movie in an HDR container, I honestly don't know why they do this, I don't think it's the budget, the studios have the resources, staff and money to do it but they don't do it because they are lazy.
a huge reason why i never watched ozark is bc how it looks. Its always hard to explain to people
I had to stop watching, same with this Teen Titans series, I can't stand the look. There are just no normal colors or light. Hell, even a fleshlight was green, it's just unnatural and there is no good reason for it. A Terry Giliam movie, something like Alice in Wonderland, if your world is unnatural, sure go ahead but why does everything needs these filters?
Personally, I like the choices digital film is giving us nowadays. Like any creative choice, the key is that it serves the story. If you look at television shows from the 70's, you will see what I call "grocery store lighting". Lighting that is so bright that almost everything is in focus. But, I feel such lighting can take away from the mood or the character that creative lighting can bring to a scene. Although I have seen scenes that were so underexposed, you couldn't tell what was going on. But, it is a rare occurrence.
For myself, I liked the cinematography in Ozark. It was a dark series. So, the lighting always gave the stories a dark and foreboding feel to the scenes. Which, in the case of Ozark, fit its story world. I'm not a fan of flat imagery, such as shots that have milky shadows. When you're outdoors or in an interior where there is smoke or other effects, flat shadows are more likely. But, when I see a scene shot in broad daylight and the shadows are flat and milky, it takes me out of the story. It's moments like those where the imagery is too distracting to stay focused on what's happening.
Most of what I consider to be bad cinematography usually happens in low budget films with bad scripts. So, I come to expect lower quality work when the film itself lacks quality in script and casting. For me, if the look supports the story, then I am more accepting of the choices.
"grocery store lighting" Good word, If it's comedy shows mostly depends on dialogues with timing, Punch etc. then ok for flat lights. Sorry respected one, its my view.
It makes sense then that the most visually impressive movies of the past ten years or so we're Tarantino's Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Both shot and seen in 70mm. Beautiful. Film must never die.
Great video. The color and dimness of this underexposed style remind me of living in Geneva in February. Seeing the Salève in the background of scenes in Ozark wouldn’t have shocked me. If anyone reading this recognizes what I am talking about, you might also understand the feelings of winter depression this kind of color and dimness evoke for me. I start to feel a little desperate, like I have had cabin fever for far too long. This is followed by an intense, irrational, internal pressure to find a way to get out into the Alps and above the clouds, or drive to France… either of which would be, um, exceedingly difficult from where I now live in the US. It’s a bizarre idiosyncratic reaction, which is my point. When a creator makes stylistic choices that are more extreme or pervasive there is always a risk of evoking feelings that are not what were intended for the audience to feel as part of the story.
It can alter how the story you are trying to tell is being received and interpreted in such a fundamental way. Therefore, I think this sort of underexposed stylization is best done as a calculated gamble knowing that it can divide people’s reactions to the work. The choice may result in a subset of would-be critics who hate it (sometimes for reasons they cannot quite put their finger on) because they find it unpleasant, or the feelings evoked do not mesh well with the content and are jarring or excessive.
That said, this is just the sort of risk-taking experimentation and exploration of trends that is needed to make really great art. It is a natural manifestation of changes in technology, technique, and medium as they affect creative processes. Let us hope that people can start to use the underexposed style as an effective tool rather than a default setting.
Well laid out opinion. I see a very distinct trend around season 3-4 of recent TV series.
Cheap dark shots hide cheap sets. Watch TV series made within the last decade and you will be able to identify where the cinematography jumps the shark. Night scenes, indoor sets, a general green look. Saving money on sets allows the production to pay talent what they think they deserve when a series gets legs. Sadly, some series are shot cheap from the start.
Also, aside from HDR monitors, you've got to contend with OLED monitors too. Every cinematographer is using a fancy OLED monitor to do their grading, the brightness and black levels of which can't be replicated on anything other than another OLED screen. Most of what I see is unwatchable on all but the best OLED screens.
The problem with HDR is that, if the picture is too bright, the light will fill the entire room, reflecting back on the screen of the television and destroying image quality, as Sareesh explains in a video about HDR that he published a few years back. What many fail to realize is that SDR is a relative standard, where gamma and brightness can be adjusted to accommodate ambient light levels, whereas HDR is an absolute standard - brightness cannot be increased, and to appreciate the picture, content must be viewed in a room that has no more than 5 nits of light and black walls - something that few if any consumers can manage. Incidentally, high end post houses use Sony LCD reference monitors nowadays, not OLED. And cinematographers don't grade their own films - colorists do. And TV shows are graded to a level a mere half stop brighter than most ordinary OLED TVs are capable of. Moreover, all shows are monitored on a consumer set before distribution for approval. And few, - apart from you - would say that watching a DoVi show on a modestly priced OLED is unwatchable.
i noticed this around 2016 in music videos. My video editing friends said they liked the ‘flat look’ but I thought the same as you: it was clearly a mistake and lack of understanding with color grading (at the time I was learning it myself). I mean why would a music video want to illicit middle of the road ‘grayness’ especially considering it was largely dance and pop music using this aesthetic.
Because it looked artistic and new at the time. Lots of reasons to pick that look intentionally.
Another reason is that as TVs become larger and brighter, keeping the high-key lighting aesthetic would simply hurt your eyes and distract you from the story. Even in productions that call for a bright and cheery aesthetic, screenwriters consciously include night time or indoor scenes to "give the eyes a break".
I've always been confused by this "Correct skin tones exposure" thing. If we are trying to capture a scene for example at Dusk where we want to represent the time of the day kind of low light look then we NEED to expose skin lower than a set 70 IRE. If we try to expose for 70 IRE all the time then the shadows will be brought up and the DUSK (Kind of low light look) will not be depicted correctly. Its easy to place skin @ 70 IRE when its 4 PM and there is enough light or we have reflectors filling or whatever but what about a low light indoors at night scene where we want to depict the low lightness of the scene? if we expose skins for 70 then the room will look bright. Correct me if I'm wrong.
My thoughts as well. As long as skin is not blown out or shadows crushed, then its a creative decision imo
Sounds right to me. Stuff shouldn't look "bright" and "properly exposed" at night/dusk time. Now, it shouldn't be noisy/grainy either-- but low-light situations look fake with "proper exposure". At least IMO.
I think the simple answer to that is the flexibility in post. You are maximising the sensor ability to gather data. You can then use the tools in post to push/pull the image where it needs to land. Making selections for grading is easier on a well exposed image. That said, at that point you are relying on the post workflow to honour what the DP wants the final to look. Therefore, many DPs will opt-in to shoot as close to final as possible on-set so that in post your final image is still somewhat retained.
Completely agree. And Ozark is a dark show about wrong choices. You don’t want it to look like a Downy commercial.
I’m glad someone else brought this up, the guy making this video is also defeating his own argument at multiple points. Wonder woman 2017 was primarily shot on 35mm with select portions shot on the alexa. The truth is lighting styles change over time
wow i recently came across HDR technology and never realized what it is. It was very subtle, I had upgraded to a 4k widescreen monitor that didn't have HDR so basically lower
Excellent video with lots to think about cinematography-wise. I think of film-making in analog era versus the digital era. Analog was from the birth of films, through the 40s, 60s,70s,80s,90s, to 2000s. In all these films, lighting was was done on set, exposure was done on set. No luts, no color grading. The above video explains the digital era of filmmaking. I watch alot of films from Criterion collection, as well as restored versions of films on other labels, and even study various releases of a movie. (The original Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon blu-ray, no color grading, closer to the film, versus the 10th anniversary blu-ray, where the color grading is different, and to my eye not as good). There is a YT channel "Blu-ray comparisons" where you can see the color palette in a film change from release to release. It's made me happy I've gotten older blu-rays for some films, where no color-grading was done and it's close to the original film's look. (If color grading is done well, I don't mind. When it isn't, skin colors aren't as good, details get lost, it lacks depth, etc.).
I feel like a lot of Netflix film makers all love the Red. They fell in love with its low light ability and have the NEED to show it off. I hate this trend a lot. Tell the story. Stop trying to show off the camera technology.
I've felt the same thing. Not sure if it's accurate but it certainly seems that way.
It was the same in the 70s when zoom lenses became popular. Every DOP and his dog started using zooms in shot. The fad eventually died down to eventually be replaced by wild jib shots for no other reason than to play with this new cool tech. This dark video where you can't see what's going on and everyone has green skin is just another fad. Boys with new toys.
I am glad I am not the only one who is noticing this trend. It gets frustrating sometimes to watch everything underexposed. I think this trend is also helpful in hiding bad quality of sets and VFX.
Step 1: Hire the best camera in the world
Step 2: Underexpose it and make it look like an iphone footage
Early film noir was focused on edgy topics, shot in black and white and grayscale, and conversely, used strong lighting to create intense shadow and contrast. It was dark, but clean, and often precise.
I’ve had it with the pukey, ill-defined greenish cast of sets, locations and people’s skins.
If I were going to go to cinematography school, I’d experiment where I could with other lighting methods and sensibilities. This current one is nauseating.
Big budget films never left log footage untouched. Cinematographers and colourists knew very well how to deal with log style footage from the beginning. There was no confusion about it. Colourists have been dealing with such footage ever since the Cinema Praxis curves on the F900 from the first Star Wars prequels, and the Dalsa Origin and Viper Filmstream. Although the latter I think was linear space.
The main culprit I think for this darkened footage is due to HDR grades having to be performed alongside SDR ones. If you have a grade for Dolby Vision and you have a DV compatible TV, you really need to be watching it in ideal lighting conditions. These grades also need to be made for SDR, while still keeping true to the character of the HDR grade, and I think there's a tendency to assume that people are always watching films in perfect lighting, with a well setup television. There's also associations of a high key look with cheap television.
One thing that the lower light levels are not due to, however, is incompetence or confusion. The DPs and colourists know what they're doing, although as per many styles over the years, perhaps this one needs thinking over again.
I wish that we could all have a MadVR Envy at home to do our tonemapping.
There are people saying that it's an artist choice, and that he explains what is going on wrong. You may be right but I still can't see a darn thing.
This occurred to me the other day after watching Matrix4 and then Planet Earth by Nat Geo. The colors are gorgeous in some of these documentaries. I think if I were to shoot a film, I would love to have it lit something like Planet Earth. It would really set it apart as a film, if it were possible to have those colors combined with realistic CGI.
Planet earth is amazing ! But a man in an office isn’t Gorgeous, it’s a man in the office and if it were lit anything different than that then it isn’t the reality of a man … in an office
@@perspectiveproductions7634 I agree, but it would be amazing to see Zion through the lens of planet earth, contrasted against the drab green overtones of the Matrix.
Then your film would look like a TV documentary. Films aren't supposed to just have "tHe bRigHtEsT bEstEst ColoRs EvAr!". They're supposed to create a mood/tone.
@@Frontigenics Well, his film could also just have that TV documentary look, lol
Fantastic video. I often thought about this. And regarding the flat look, I often see that too. Some tv ads are really flat and they shouldn’t be. It’s nuts.
Thanks for this great video!
It’s an interesting question why people choose more the „modern underexposed log/flat“ look rather the high contrast bright celluloid look.
Personally I much more like the film look of the old times. I really find it hard to watch modern movies and series, especially due to the modern color grading and log look and that the picture looks like it’s calculated by a calculator rather than something real. I don’t also find the „modern“ look is more real. Maybe in the dark and more underexposed scenes, but in general I find this washed out film look which is more irregular blurry and sharp more close to reality. Not always, but most times.
I think that filmmakers tried to explore the new technology to find out it’s limitations and benefits. Also it seems like its a technology which is easily available. Digital Cinematography is more easy to process than touchable filmstock. And also I think that shooting in Log and than color-grading just became hype and trendy and that some just lead and others followed.
If I look at regular TV-documentaries, without special fancy Color grading or artistic look and manipulate, i really line the natural-ness of this images. And then I wish that also movie films would use more of this neutral look.
Personally I have a problem with modern films and fast cut, lots of cgi, log-shooting, color grading, cliffhangers, crazy story-twists, clickbait, ect.
It’s just that I think, that the culture also has changed. It seems like filmmakers habe much more competition and there is pressure to release movies to streaming services fast. Also through modern technology movies are much more quickly shoot and edited and so the rules of the game changed massively compared to the time from the 1960-2000 for example.
People nowadays have movies 24/7 in their pocket via smartphones. Also there are commercials or video content in subways or everywhere in urban public spaces.
I wish we would have something like Dogma95 did in the 90s, where artists consciously reduce the technology they use, to focus more on the storytelling or the interesting characters, instead of showing perfectionism of aesthetics everywhere.
Just some random thoughts….
I think it's a style choice. It's more about the feeling. Underexposed gives a much more dramatic feeling to it. That's my take. Turn down the lights and get immersed. I love it!
Yes and no. Are you saying that by exposing the skin properly in Apocalypse Now for example, they lost that dramatic feeling? The trick for that dramatic feeling you mention is actually exposing the skin properly and give less light to the rest of the image, making the shadows deeper and the contrast bigger. An example would be Fight Club.
@@familygonzcartwright I still think it's a different feel to it though. Both dramatic but in different ways.
@@bobditty I won't fight you on that. I'll only say this: at least you will agree with us that there are occasions when like in Game of thrones season 8, they underexpose wrong making it too dark to even be able to see anything.
I remember looking at The Amazing Spider-Man and thinking it had that flat look (no LUT), like the color correction wasn't finished or done properly. And as this video began my mind immediately went to HDR, so many factors at play. It's one of the great digital revolutions, for better and sometimes worse, because it can absolutely alter the look and experience of a film or show we are already familiar with, and it's still in its infancy, with highly mixed results.
I remember that Marvel also explained they finish their movies "flatter" for distribution flatter because everyone cranks up the garbage "enhancement" settings on their TV which ruins the picture otherwise. There really needs to be meta-data that sets everything properly when you open an app or start a blu-ray. Maybe something like a promp saying "allow Movie/Series to adjust to intended settings?". There's already "film-maker mode" on many new tv sets. Just have it a bit more automated.
@@Frontigenics People love the look of their television when they saw it on the wall in Best Buy. So they go home and put it on vivid mode lol
Yes, been noticing underexposure and flatness together with white balance variations for some time now. I would agree the editing has not been tested as mostly viewed and excellence has become so underrated.
Great video! I know a few filmmaker friends that like these flat looks. When they show me their edits, I always asked if they had grade it and they all they me yes. To me, it still looks Log. My theory is that the Log look makes everything look very natural and cinematic to the casual viewer, they just love it because it looks different from the "standard" look that they all see in their phones when they take videos. When it's graded, it becomes too close to what they can also do with their phone, thus diminishing their awe. The big problem with this flat look, as mentioned in your video too, is that you need a very good projection or TV to see it at its best. The good news is that most phones today have great screens and is able to do this better than most small theaters across the country. Watch anything at an older theater and you will notice the projector needs to bump up their brightness.
I really appreciate, how much information you were able to pack into a short video and not drawing it out, for over 10 minutes. Thank you, you got a sub and like from me 👍🤙
Yes, in far too many new movies, it seems that the lighting director is "the prince of darkness." If I wanted to NOT see action in a movie, I would turn my back to the screen and MOON it! As a photographer, I NEVER forget what "properly exposed skin tone" looks like. These "digital vidiots" need to learn how to USE MORE LIGHTS! A related issue is the "whispered dialogue that requires Closed Captioning to see." If I wanted to "see dialogue" all I have to do is watch a English-subtitled foreign language movie. "Tenet" was the pits; I became a foreigner during the movie. Turn up the dialogue volume and MUTE the explosions and shouting! Is that too hard for "modern artistes" to do? :( As far as the "nearly silent dialogue/no shadow detail" chic goes, "IQs have dropped sharply" in Hollyweird.
Yep, mumbling actors talking quietly is a big bugbear of mine. I frequently have to resort to turning on the CC. The sound mix on Interstellar was atrocious. Distortion galore because the volume was cranked up to 11 and you still couldn't hear the dialogue. Same on disc as well. But it's 'arty'. I found myself laughing through Tenet.
If you watch behind of scenes of any movie there is tons of light on the set. They are actually over exposing in most cases and under exposing it in the post processing to get cleaner shadows from digital camera sensor.
Ive noticed this in a few films recently too - It's a weird choice as you even miss important details of the characters and objects in the sequences that are shot underexposed. Im not sure whether it's because its a deliberate choice or the eye of the colour-grader cannot tell that its too dark (because they are used to seeing it so much) - I prefer the look of films before the current era, where everything is popped and beautiful and lit up, in some cases that may not be realistic but its beautiful and dramatic while still retaining some darkness.
Which really destroys a lot of the effort put into scenes. Scenes are still setup to be photographed, so they have focal points and contrasts....but in a film without a focal point or contrast, these considerations are diminished or lost entirely. There is an art of science behind how to draw peoples eyes when viewing an image. A flat underexposed image doesn't really express any of that.
Personally this is a pet peeve of mine; if i have to turn up the brightness of my display when dark scenes are happening just to tell what is going on then you're doing something wrong. Obscuring things in darkness can be an intended effect, chiaroscuro is an amazing style, but this is not it.
Good reasons, I tend to prefer the more muted look nowadays. It’s often times more nuanced. We have so much dynamic range and we use much softer sources now. Many years ago people were just blasted with tungsten and HMI. Just watch Vanessa Williams’s “colors of the wind” music video. It’s a super harsh and punchy look, which is also why they used so much filtration in those days for that glamorous look
Woww. This is a perfect analysis of the situation. It affects how scenes are lit as well! What drives me particularly nuts is the lack of highlights when faces are underexposed. Give me a backlight or something, some separation please. Moody doesn’t mean an underexposed frame, film noir is a great example of the way you can achieve moody, but contrasty/dynamic images :)
Interesting. As a photographer I'm often under exposing too, and where other's put in an S curve, I leave flat to preserve detail. I prefer dark moody images with character rather than brightly lit scenes. I do have to check my histogram though, and am often surprised, because like you say, your brain is trained to make it's own adjustments. This is why I never release work the day I work on it. I always review it a day later to spot obvious things I missed, including exposure.
You are seeing more “under exposed” projects because that’s the style cinematographers and directors want. Colour grading is a technical job and should be done based off the wants and needs of the DOP and or Director. Yes sometimes a colorist has creative freedom but their job is to serve the vision of others. We have a big problem these days in the industry with post colouring changing the look of the work based off their creative decisions. This is not good. You are there to assist not to try and make your own. Too many liberties are taken I have had way too many projects completely changed by colourists even after I have created a look with my onset colorist. Stop saying what you think should be or you’re happy a style has stopped. It’s a creative choice and most of the time not yours. There’s a reason you hear people say “ruined in post” and that is a a lot of the time because of decisions made by post not involving the DOP or Director. You are technician not the one setting the creative look whom like I said are the Director and the DOP.
Of course the Director and DOP are who set the vision and have the last word, but it should be a collaborative process. As a colorist, I think the look should be established before shooting when possible, so that colorists can bring their view both from a technical and creative perspective, creating a show LUT and so on. If you think you don't need a colorist for that, you probably don't even need a colorist at all. A colorist that imposes his view is a bad colorist to me, but so is the colorist that is only technical and has no creative view.
Have you ever considered the fact that you think you know the job better than the person who actually, like have an education and know what they are doing?
The fact that you consider the colorists a “technician” while the director is some divine creature that knows better tells me a lot.
Maybe you should work with a colorist that you respect that can improve your product rather than consider your coworker as a technician to just do whatever you think is good without other than your whims of what you think is good based on your limited preferences over someone who actually know what they’re doing.
This is basically why so many movies, fashion photography and even good old video ads look terrible these days.
You have an AD or a director who thinks they know better than the people who actually know what they’re doing instructing them how to do their job, and the result is absolutely crushingly mediocre, cause people who have no artistic vision are directing people who actually do.
How about trusting people’s ability, or at least work with people you respect more than being “technicians” to realize your limited scope?
I get it, you are a “self made man” and everyone except yourself are retards. You have a singular unique vision, and no one can ever be trusted to actually add to your singular vision to improve upon it.
This is precisely why we don’t get good stuff anymore, cause people don’t respect others artistic aid to unite different talents to make something each single individual can’t do alone.
You expect people to respect your amazing talent, but refuse to look at anyone else as anything else than peasants to do your bidding, cause these people are soulless creatures just doing the technical bits.
Hell, do you not even realize that the guy doing light is a valuable asset to realize your vision? You might give him the general idea, but he’s the guy who knows how to achieve it. But you sound like the kind of guy who will probably not listen and have a shittier product from it.
Ffs, “technicians”, you’re a sad man my friend.
@@dangermuz The director is the creative lead on the project. Not divine leader. I wouldn't tell a CEO how to run a company or take liberties without asking or offering my opinion first. My point is you are there to service the look of the project not to set it. I too am educated in colour theory and post production workflows and yes colouring is part of that.
As and example techno color just went bankrupt last year and they were the industry standard in post for over 100 years. They use to tell and boss productions how to expose their film stock until a producer on a film listen to his DOP and allowed the creative lead on the technical side of production run the show. This story was told on Cooke master class for your reference. You can totally explain why something is technically good but look is subjective and is set by the DOP and the director.
I have a partnership with my colonist I give them freedom to make choices on my behalf only because they have learnt my style of shooting over the years. But my point again these are creative choices and if you want to be butt hurt about not being in charge then become the DOP or director. Myself as the DOP can offer things to the director but its their creative vision and its my job to service and make come to light their creative choices.
I am an expert in my craft and that not just knowing colour, its also lighting, composition and managing a crew of many people. Anyone can follow a vector scope for skin tone line or see how detail is clipping in the shadows or highlights. Learning how to colour is pretty self explanatory once you get these concepts but If I want my shadows to crunch for a creative choice, well again that's mine or the directors creative choice. This is different for each project as sometimes I have quality control guidelines to follow, set by studios or networks.
I know you can make the argument that there's some DOP's and directors that don't know what they are doing and this is true but the vast majority of professional top level directors and DOP's know everyones job cause they have to manage everything as they are burden with weight of the project in its totality.
Another example is Ive worked with one of the top colourist in my city and they only colour correct on one node for 90% of what they do. Someone whom has worked on academy award winning films so when this RUclipsr shows a node tree the size of may family tree they look at it and say that so inefficient. "I'm not saying the RUclipsr is wrong I actually like his work flow"
Again my argument is because this person has a dislike from a technical point they don't understand why the creative choice was made. Lastly I won't even touch trends cause I disagree with trends all the time but if my director say. "Jay I want to use heavy lens diff on this and wash out the contrast" Well guess what I'm doing... I hate that look but hey I guess we all have our biases.
Be blessed 🙏
Bravo!!
and I suggest reason #4:
In earlier days movie making was more on BIG BUDGET side, so there were culture of doing right, doing classy - working with light sources! It's tedious and expensive, but it brings art!
Nowadays, when TV scores enormously, most productions rely more and more on post and simply drop gaffers - "we'll brighten up area with face in post, IF there will be an issue" and in most cases this question never raises again and they render as is with global CC for the whole scene.
This has been bothering me for quite awhile. I kinda figured it was all creative choices or lower budget.
DP here, There is so much wrong in this video that I don't know even where to start.
Yeah i couldnt get past the first episode of ozark and stopped watching it purely for the fact it was too dark. I felt like i was wearing sunglasses indoors and wanted to take them off. I couldnt see shit!
Well this explains why nothing looks real anymore in film or television. This has bugged me for years but I never knew exactly what they were doing.
I found rhis very interesting even though I understood maybe 5% of it.
I stumbled across this and this is on point. I can barely see faces or make out anything in recent movie scenes due to it being underexposed.
All of the reasons unified: Noob cinematographers and editors are to blame, because they have no clue what actually makes a good image. Most of these people went to film school, not because they love photography, but because they wanted to make money in the business. So they didn't have the drive to learn the art, but instead just learned the motions to get the job. Most of them are less skilled than your average hobbyist photographer.
Fr - it’s mad to me that so many people work in film and tv have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the actual art of filmmaking.
@@diethermanicat Except you don't take a job that requires artistic knowledge, and only put technical people in charge of it. It's like having a chef that only knows half the steps to making a dish. They have all the ingredients put in front of them, but they just throw them in the pot. So the things that should be sauteed or baked or roasted or smoked before introducing, aren't. Imagine if you went to an asian restaurant and ordered some fried rice, but the vegetables were just boiled and added to the rice. How tasty would it be? That's what differentiates fine dining from slop.
Good point. You are right, i see so many people uploading videos on RUclips that was shot with a log. file and not graded at all. And i am sure it was not a mood choice. Looks terrible, everything was just flat. It looks unfinished, like the colour grading person didnt come to work that day and they just outputted the vid. I dont know why so many people have to shoot in a log file when it is not even a challenging backlit situation. Sensor tech is getting so good that in most surroundings, log. is not needed. You can already recover a lot of shadows and highlights in standard format. Why give yourself more work in grading when you dont need to !
The real reason is that TVs got brighter through time even before HDR was a thing. The old SDR standard was 100 nits but TVs were showing SDR images at 300 or 400 nits. The exposure and color grading on modern shows had to compensate to that. Plus, HDR is supposed to look like that. It reflects the real world as it is. It's supposed to be dark in the shade against a bright background. HDR was created for that purpose. There's nothing wrong with it.
Yeah the current exposure trends are very intentional and meant to look natural and pleasing on modern screen technology. HDR or not, seemingly underexposed films need only be watched on a bright enough screen and they come alive. Suddenly everything looks very natural with believable skin tones, and then stuff like lamps, skies and other things that “glow” are putting out a ton of light in comparison to the actor’s face. It’s realistic. There is literally no reason to put human skin at 70 IRE (near the top of the exposure range!) and leave little room for anything to be brighter, unless you’re worried about the screen people watch it on being too dim.
@@ConnerFoxx ikr. People in other comments saying it's an error are dellusional or don't know what they're talking about. Some are comparing Netflix shows to their local filmmaker.
@@ConnerFoxx correct. The Standard of 70IRE is just a measure of signal/noise/grain based on older mediums. It's nice to know, but not always applicable. Especially in modern-cinematography where cameras can see in the dark with almost no noise at all.
@@GabrielAlves-lp1qr I suppose it doesn’t help that this video presents darker exposure as a mystery to be solved, and suggests a lot of it could be the result of professionals getting their process messed with by newer technology. The shift we’ve seen WAS enabled by improving cameras and screens, but style changes have been in the very intentional pursuit of making a pleasing image. That process contained some experimentation, but it had little to do with anyone not knowing what they were doing.
@@ConnerFoxx Yeah. This video is a bit misleading and I suppose people are watching shows the wrong way. They must be using old TVs or they are badly set up. I've never seen a brand with good configs out of the box.
P3 DCI - 48 nits (equivalent to Film capture for a theatrical preview)
Rec709 - starts from 100 nits ( for consumer level devices)
** Even the most accurate transformation may not mimic the exact Film deliverable on a consumer level monitor unless it is properly remastered for a lower colour space like Rec 709. But many movies leaving their log curve untouched to avoid all the transformations in order to save some budgets is like a silly gimick to me 😅 **
I heard an old anecdote about studio era executives complaining about under lit scenes and saying, "Get some light on the lead, we're paying a fortune for this actor, and the audience is paying to see them." Personally, I prefer a realistically lit scene, as long as I can see what I am supposed to see. I abhor the '60s and '70s style lighting in which everything is illuminated like a department store portrait. Night-time exteriors in the woods with actors blasted by a 10k from an unmotivated source.
No. 4. Directors want more realistic natural lighting effects, with the intention of increasing audience immersion. The real world isn't artificially lit by professional lighting technicians, as is the case with most, if not all, film sets, whether soundstage and backlot, or outside on location. Just a thought...
Correct.
Great video, great topic, as always! Well I think, adding to your reasons for underexposure, it's also a matter of distancing oneself from that "old school film look". Way back in the 1960s and 70s a lot of movies (35mm film prints)looked very high contrast and way too evenly and brightly lit. The reason, obviously, was to avoid dark areas with no detail with rather rough looking color film stock. With better film stocks, I'd say starting in the late 1970s, came more shadow detail, but it still was better to hit the film emulsion with healthy doses of light. The second reason is IMHO to distance oneself from a "happy and colorful dish washing detergent commercial" look. Underexposed and low contrast, but with enough shadow detail, looks more serious and more subltle. So IMHO it's a mixture of technical and psychological reasons.
+1 for "happy and colorful dish washing detergent commercial" look :-)
@@jamiefenner9443 🤣
In 20 years people are going to wonder if everyone in film suffered from poor eyesight and terrible migraines.
I think many of your suggestions are fair, but ultimately, I do think the flatter/darker look appears more realistic than bright/punchy. To me, realism is the highest order in the craft of filmmaking, so I prefer it.
Terrific video Sareesh! A seldom spoken of phenomenon yet so so important and prevalent.
DPs got spoiled by the "I can shoot under any light" digital camera world. Film requires discipline.
Yea, because it's antiquated and dumb/cumbersome technology. You really think Greig Fraser and Denis Villeneuve lacked "discipline" when making Dune? No it simply LOOKS BETTER in naturalistic lighting.. and modern digital camera capture this BETTER. Get over yourself. Film is stupid and only popular with hipsters and youtube commenters.
@@Frontigenics Ha. You're dumb. Film still looks amazing. 🤡
The problem with this type of analysis is that it lazily assumes the "old way" was correct. There would have been many master-filmmakers working decades ago who would have loved to have captured/presented flatter/darker images in this way, but were thwarted by the (often frustrating) limitations of the time.
Shooting on film was often a battle with compromise. You couldn't even shoot night scenes for much of the celluloid era, and everything had to be shot in the day using the "day for night" process.
Filmmakers have far more freedom and choice with digital - and they are using it do things previous generations simply couldn't.
It looks generic and like shit. That's why this resonated so much. It's not past vs present. I'd bet anything if you took survey data on which style people would prefer, they'd pick the movie that looks like its daylight and not some dark mess.
@@jonniecandito181 It doesn't matter what your (assumed) "survey data" says, your assertion that it "looks like shit" is just an opinion. Also, by definition, it would be the conventional looking movies that are generic.
The fact remains, beyond the romantic notions of old-school cinematography, that the filmmakers of old were often compromised and frustrated by the technology of their time, much of which is now infinitely improved.
We already make far too many films based on surveys. If you don't like the way certain films/TV shows look, then don't watch them.
А ещё потому, что современное киноизображение стремиться к реалистичности. А в реальности нас редко окружают яркие пространства.
And also because modern cinematography strives for realism. And in reality, we are rarely surrounded by bright spaces.
I just got back into photography I am 53. Collage we had to learn exposure and film. Today, my camera takes care of the exposure for me. Generally it averages the exposure of the whole shot. Before, I exposed for the subject. My stuff now is not as clear. Then I read that (at least my camera) - has a low pass filter on the chip, which international lowers the detail. And my lenses for the new autofocus lenses are not as bright, f stops are slower. I only do still photography but these are my observations. Oh yea. People are more impatient when I shoot. Before it would be ok for me to take a meter reading, ie. set correct exposure - frame subject correctly, confirm manual focus then take the shot. In all between 15 seconds. Now, 2022-with cell phones, people get impatient and what the shot in a second. Just more observations on why our pictures now are not as good. But I do notice the substandard cinematography - most people do not.
If someone can explain to me why recent films and TV shows are so dark, I would be forever grateful. I cannot see what is on the screen....
Hi wolfcrow, I watched this video with pleasure. Thank you!
I think it is a trend in the first place and a creative decision of those responsible for the looks.
Since digital cinematography allows for much more choices in exposure and grading, people responsible for the final looks of movies try things. Mostly they succeed with it but sometimes fail.
Another reason is, that cinematographers are not responsible for the final image anymore. They don't even control the final framing.
Saying professionals unlearned how correctly exposed scenes look like and they are judging the image on the wrong monitors is far from reality. Most if not all of them know very well how to use a histogram or other tools properly.
Time constraints and budgets sometimes lead to reduced lighting set-ups, which might have unwanted effects.
none of your reasons explains why "The White Ribbon" or "The Lighthouse" (which have gorgeous images) are "under" exposed... it's only a matter of choice and not a contraint of the digital technology... this technology only let cinematographers better used the dark parts of the images (because there's more dynamic range in that area nowadays))... take Gordon Willis, Darius Khonji or Néstor Almendros for example... they didn't underexposed only because of contraint, but by choice. Btw you didn't mentioned it but it's more realist (at least to my eyes) to "under" expose when it's night time than exposing "correctly" like older cinematographers tended to do... that's definitely one of the reasons dop "under" expose their images (also the image looks more dramatic when it's under, etc.)
(The lack of contrast is a disease of bad cinematographers, that's true and the serie that you took as example lacks contrast...)
(btw sorry for my poor english)
This is a great talk and well done. But is totally not true that film has less shadow. A 35mm film has more shadow dynamic range than nearly any digital sensor available today and more restitution also. Only in the past couple of years is digital RAW footage getting close to what film had, it's just digital is so much more flexible.
Lately I have been complaining that many movies are so dark that characters can barely be recognized. This video came at the right time!
What I've noticed with a lot of 21st century movies is they even downcast scenes shot outside in the sunny daytime. WHY? Even if the movie has a depressing storyline, if a scene is shot outside in the middle of the day, give us a nice, clear, colorful picture! You can use downcast, gloomy colors when they're inside or when it's night time.
Also, what's with all the camera shake with modern movies. Sometimes, it drives me nuts! Directors back in the 20th century knew better.
Great video but I’ve to disagree on this, when you under expose a raw camera like an Arri on set the colorist can always change the ISO in davinci resolve that’s the best thing of raw, also they’re experts at what they do when they want to get an under exposed image they get it and when they want it perfectly exposed they get that too, they’re using exposure as an extra tool to tell a story you can’t have a perfectly expose commercial look on a dark tv show like Ozark for example…
True but many aren't going raw they're going log still, no?
@@adamdrakestudio what are you trying to say?