A question about old vs new film.

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    • #85302

      Hey guys, I’m totally new to this site and I have a question that I’ve been wondering about for quite a long time. I’m not very knowledgeable at all about video editing/filming or anything like that, so excuse what might seem like a nooby (perhaps even strange) question.

      There’s something I’ve often noticed about some older films and music videos, something that has definitely changed over time. What I’m talking about is a certain “warmth” to the older stuff that isn’t there in the vast majority of modern-day films.
      It seems to me to be in spite of resolution, because if I watch a very low quality version of a modern film on YouTube or something, there’s still this inherent coldness that remains. The same is true in reverse.
      I’m struggling to describe what I’m talking about, so here are video examples that perfectly demonstrate what I’m referring to:

      Michael Jackson – Man In The Mirror 1988:

      Michael Jackson – Man In The Mirror 1992:

      In the 1988 version, there’s something more… distant, grand, and otherworldly about the qualities of the video. Whereas in the 1992 video, it seems much less otherworldly, due to something about the way the video looks. It’s definitely got nothing to do with what’s being filmed, and everything to do with the techniques used during and/or after filming.

      I may not have done a good enough job of explaining myself, but if anyone knows what I’m talking about, I’d greatly appreciate it if you could shed some light on the subject for me. Was there something different about camera technology back in the 80s that had that inherent difference? Or maybe it was a stylistic choice that was sought after in those days? Or maybe it’s a number of different things? And if it’s a stylistic choice that is just no longer as fashionable, I’d love to know what went into creating that look.

      I’m into audio, and it reminds me very much of the change from analog to digital audio that brought many great benefits, but also replaced warmth with a more inherent coldness.
      My instincts tell me that there’s something creating a situation where my brain doesn’t receive all the information of something in particular when it comes to the recorded image, and that I subconsciously fill in the gaps, creating a sense of distance and otherwordlyness. It feels like with the 92 version, there’s less illusion. It seems more realistic in a way that ends up being less exciting to me. Very much like with the difference between a low and high frame rate in a cinematic setting.

      Anyway, sorry for the odd question. Any answers are appreciated!

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • The forum ‘Video and Film Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.


Panasonic LUMIX GH5s w/ Leica lens

Given away to one lucky winner

Competition is open worldwide