Is the look of old movies just a thing of the physical material they worked with at the time or like some sort of aging, or is it literally just that they didn't have computers to mess with it all?
Theres something really appealing to me about that era when it comes to the basic technical look of the colors and lighting, comes off as looking natural.
Sometimes both, but in this particular instance, they absolutely could have colored it that way, they just didn't because it looks like shit.
I'm pretty sure color correction has been around since color films existed. Sergio Leone could have made his movies look yellow if he wanted, but didn't, so I think this is an aesthetic decision.
Aged celluloid films tend to look very pale from the ones I've seen, so maybe that's part of it too. Probably still mostly an aesthetic decision.
Yeah it's always been there but it was prohibitively expensive on top of regular exposure/processing to get the movie to look right. Now you can just change some sliders or curves on a computer. So everyone always does a CC pass just because it's there.
I love the idea of a film restoration company solely restoring old films to add the racist mexico yellow filter.
The intent is to depict non-white regions of the world as alien lands that lack blue skies. People don't filter out the blue sky and recolor natural skin tones when some McCracker Middle America suburb is getting filmed.
Whats the most sickly color you could give the UK while not making it look diseased in a kind of appealing way, the most boring sickness?
South African cities in Gauteng unironically look like the Hollywood Chernobyl/depressed Soviet Union/Russia filter during the winter when it's cloudy lol.
Kind of disagree. The blue filter kind of gives me the feeling of a cold day. I think it's mostly because the coldest winter days are where there's zero cloud cover, so I have a mental association between blue skies and cold temps tho.
Agree though, there's nothing more wintery than seeing green and yellow everywhere because the snow is projecting sunlight straight into your eyes constantly.
So, Andalusia in Spain is not piss colored in real life?
THE CONTRAST ISNT SUPPOSED TO BE THAT HIGH, YOURE LITERALLY SACRIFICING DETAIL FOR A SHITTY COLOR GRADE :agony-limitless:
I'm no film editor or color tech, but this just looks like they are upping the contrast and saturation which ends up losing many details that are clearly visible in the Italian one. Is there just not a good master to start from for MGM? Seems like that Italian blu-ray would be better than whatever they have in the vault.
The irony of seeing this while watching an episode of breaking bad
Not sure how that's kino. The Italian coloration is by far the best in this excerpt when it comes to making out details throughout the entire scene, not too dark, not too light, good contrast, somewhat true to life and a bit muted to fit the theme of this western, etc.
it's from the name of the company that did the restoration, Kino Lorber. Not sure why it was shortened to just Kino, it does make it kind of confusing
Interesting, kino is used by /tv/ as a mark of approval. Wonder if it came from Kino Lorber.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kino
I think they both come from the same word, which is just "cinema" in German (and in a ton of other languages which took it as a loan-word, like basically all Slavic ones)
Who in the fresh hell thought that yellow tint looked good?
the kino looks alright, and if you have to color grade it that's what you should be going for
to be clear we're complaining about the '4k master'? the word 'master' makes me think that's the original... but it isn't? is Mondo or Kino closer?
Mondo's the original (or at least an original, there's probably been a ton of different releases), while MGM and Kino (Lorber) are two different 4K (re)masters
edit: I found an article on this. I guess the KIno Lorber one is a modification of the MGM one, rather than a whole new remaster