That late 80's film is set up at daylight in a brightly lit joint. So that cameras could actually record it. The other scene is in a dimly lit dining room with directly visible light sourcee (that don't saturate). You can bet that 80's film could not have captured this kind of low-light high-contrast scene.
https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-fa...
> Kubrick obsessively researched the problem. He eventually discovered that Nasa had commissioned Carl Zeiss to build ten Planar 50mm f/0.7 stills lenses in the sixties, which were used to take photos of the dark side of the moon.
> ...
> Anyway, Kubrick promptly bought three of the Zeiss Planars. He liked to own equipment himself, rather than hire it in, and to this end he had also purchased at least one Mitchell BNC camera. As befits Kubrick’s perfectionism, these were perhaps the world’s most precisely engineered cameras, previously used for special effects work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7
> In total there were only 10 lenses made. One was kept by Carl Zeiss, six were sold to NASA, and three were sold to Kubrick.
Make sure you look at the http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed03.html - the Scentless Mayweed is really neat for its depth of field.
The AI Noct Nikkor 58mm F1.2 is another neat lens. https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0016/index.htm (make sure you look at the full size examples of the 58mm f/1.2 and the 50mm f/1.2 and look at the car lights in the corner of the frame).
(and digging - found it). You might also enjoy Philip Greenspun's review of the Canon 50/1.0L https://web.archive.org/web/20040605021643/http://www.photo.... and the Graceland paperweights https://web.archive.org/web/20040617130935/http://www.photo....
And it doesn't have any weird perspective issues with flattening on long lenses or the exaggerated perspective of things closer.
It's just the right lens for so many situations. Light enough to handhold without any issue. Fast enough to get a nice shallow depth of field.
As an aside, if you are looking at primes, a 35mm f/2 is a good "I want something wider" and the 85mm f/1.8 is a very nice "I want something longer" while not being ungainly or slow.
For my Nikon 35mm cameras... I have a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye; 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom; 35mm f/2.0; 50mm f/1.4; 85mm f/1.8; 105mm f/2.8 micro; 135mm f/2 DC; 70-200 f/2.8; 80-400 f/4-5.6 VR; 200-500mm f/5.6
The 80-400 is very nice and I used it for a long time but when I got the 70-200 (I have, though it is in the car bag rather than hiking bag) the 80-400 just doesn't have as much of a place.
The 16mm I'm not even sure where it is now - it was too easy to make mistakes with it ( https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Fisheye-Oops-2767240 ) - the 180° field of view means that straight down is straight down - lean out and do funky tripod setups to avoid having what is straight down show up in the frame.
And yea... Nikon... I've also got a Maymia 645e with 3 lenses, Hasselblad XPan with 2 lenses (I just couldn't justify the price tag on the 30mm f/5.6), and two Horseman 4x5 (one field, one rail) and I typically have the Nikkor 210mm f/5.6 on it though I've got a shorter lens too - just that one doesn't have the image circle allowing for useful movements... I think it's a Schneider 135mm f/5.6, but I'd have to check. The common design for a 135mm has a 200mm image circle while the Nikkor 210mm has a 295mm image circle - and that's a big difference.
---
Another thing to do with the shallow depth of field is to get some extension tubes. I've seen photographers use the thinnest extension tube for some shots so that it reduces dof (it gets into macro equations), but not too much that they loose too much distance focus. And since there's no glass in there you're not degrading image quality with another refraction (compare teleconverters).
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375238-REG/Kenko_AEXT...
https://www.diyvideostudio.com/do-extension-tubes-cause-shal...
I was that close to pull the trigger on a great condition 80-200 f2.8 Af-D, but then I realized that the, again manual focus, 80-200 f4.5 just sits in a shelf... But heck, is that old thing sharp, I'd say on par with the 50mm.
Regarding teleconverters, the old 300mm works incredible with the equally old 2x TC, the 1.6 AF TC had worse image quality. And telling the camera that it is a 600mm f7.1 lense gets exposure just right, shooting handheld at ISO 200-400 for stills and 800 for birds and such gets quite some keepers. It does lack the flexibility of zoom, I love this 300 regardless. It is such a master piece of precision mechanics and optics, without any electronics, that I don't even miss AF. Well, most of the time that is...
I like the fish-eye shot with the shoes in it! Just thinking of that problem with a camera where the VF only shows 95% of the image...
Are those Kenko rings any good? I'm asking for a friend with occasional bouts of GAS...
And then there was '09 after I was laid off and just drove around for a few months.
Outside of that... I really haven't had the time in the past several years to take a dedicated chunk off and just go. Maybe this year.
The Kenko rings work fine for AF lenses (G lenses have some difficulty). Two of my photos from long ago shot with 'em:
https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Daisy-s-Closeup-511810...
I'll look for some used, affordable Kenko rings then, the only G lens I have is the 24-120, all others are either AF of Ai-S ones.
?? more like ever. are you suggesting that we have lenses widely available that are faster today?
However, it's pretty much guaranteed that both the old and new scenes mentioned in TFA have a _ton_ of extra lights and flags just out of camera. If anything, the article is pretty naive in assuming that they just walked up to some diner and started filming using available daylight.
Going further back in history there's also this thing called Film Noir that further disproves the argument that digital cameras (or, more narrowly, Netflix) is the origin of the high-contrast look.
I mean, even the most celebrated film of all time, Citizen Kane, is celebrated among other things for its stark contrast and that was shot in 1941 or thereabouts.
The final episode of Midnight Mass comes to mind. And much of The Vvitch. Both aren't totally ideal -- they can be difficult to follow at times -- but I think they use the range to convey chaos and fear of the unknown in a meaningful way.
Curious if anyone has other examples of this pulled off well.
The lack of dynamic range in movies meant we got away with glossy TV screens in brightly lit rooms, often combined with compression algorithms that do worse in dark scenes. And with more and more content shot for television or streaming instead of cinema, this will limit what filmmakers can do without causing problems.
Watch it on a good screen in a dark room, and come away wishing other nighttime shots were done that way.
Edit: darkness is like a good score. It adds a ton but it doesn’t degrade well and people with potato setups won’t be able to see/hear.
The Craster's fight and the wall fight were both at night and looked great. But maybe they should have been a bit brighter so there was more room for the narrative dimming and actually seeing things. This all feels like betting into an empty pot, though, because the darkness of episode 3 isn't even a top-10 season 8 complaint for me.
Case in point: House of the Dragon. The beautiful sets and costumes are all hard to enjoy when it's all drab blue and orange. Take a look at the picture:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/15/house-o...
This happens in movie after movie after movie.
Its similar to the unimaginative western boring shit color palette that exists in Windows, Apple and Android permeating all software guis across the world.
Yep. Modern movies have become the cinematic equivalent of Corporate Memphis.
By drenching everything in one monchrome color gradient it is also easier to hide bad set design, costume and VFX. Doing a crystal clear shot with a steady camera, full color and a believeable effect is much harder to pull off (and thus: more expensive).
Technically nothing speaks against doing any other style of lighting and coloration, but then you cannot hide behind the colors and then you have to think a bit more deeply about color schemes than "blue=calm/depressive" and red/orange=aggressive/dangerous".
But Netflix is not in the business of producing motion pictures that are deep, Netflix wants to crank out as much content that people watch as possible, for the least budget possible.
The mood it imparts on me is annoyance.
those films were mostly grain.
But as other people point out, the grade of a film has been a deliberate choice for over 20 years. None of what you've seen has ever been natural. but now its a bit more obvious.
I.e. obviously worse. Much worse.
But another important factor was that movies couldn't be too dark because tvs couldn't reproduce them properly.
We all now have devices that can display the full SDR and HDR is becoming more common.
Filmmakers were forced to shoot and deliver bright images. So now the pendulum has gone to the other side. It's probably going to stabilize at some point.
Most TV camera setups were about lighting and the needed amount.
Since a few years cameras are so good, we have almost real blacks and real whites sometimes even in the same frame and its naturally filmed and does not look like total shit. We have crazy aperture sizes and we use them and there is the often coitized gaussian/blur backgrounds. We have very sharp images even with very bad lightning conditions so some movies are very dark.
I think like the younger ones are already very used to it and wonder about "how odd old films look".