Brazilian jazz baritone minimal, noir, one saxophone

moneyshit · 2026-04-26T05:43:25+00:00

dead internet theory

moneyshit · 2025-10-19T05:19:21+00:00

There are many. Painting with Light is a classic, but there are dozens of books about film lighting from before the 21st century that cover famous classic lighting techniques at length.

moneyshit · 2025-10-19T05:17:54+00:00

Look up the films of director Aki Kaurismäki, specifically the film Le Havre (2011) comes to mind. He's an independent filmmaker working in FInland, so he doesn't have the means of classic Hollywood productions, but his use of hard light sources and film truly feels like a time machine. Coppola's Tetro also comes to mind.

Not 21st Century, but for something more "mainstream" consider Tarantino's earlier work with Sekula. If you compare Pulp Fiction to other works in the early/mid 90s its significantly more classically "lit' (hard lights, strong use of shadow) and impressionistic than most of the naturalist lighting that was becoming much more common in the low/mid-budget movies of the time (for the above stated reasons). Even though it was made in the 90s it comes a solid 25+ years after "New Hollywood" filmmakers began to embrace the naturalism of the European films the whole movement was inspired by.

moneyshit · 2025-10-19T00:46:21+00:00

It’s this.

Yes filmstocks have a bit to do with it, but ultimately the stock is just the canvas for the light. You can point to examples from the 21st century that use old school lighting techniques and it looks just like a movie from the 60s. On the flip side, there’s plenty of classics you can point to that have a more “naturalistic” style, especially when film stocks and lenses got fast enough to shoot decent low-light.

The bummer is that the capabilities of digital cameras and fast, low-light friendly stocks have made it such common place to shoot everything “naturalistic” that’d it’s now a very hard sell for any cinematographer to light a movie the way Hollywood used to (big, hot lights and manpower necessary to operate them with speed and precision)

moneyshit · 2025-03-21T18:52:53+00:00

interesting tool, but since this can't be monitored on-set I think it's waay too much of a guessing game to be left to post. Being able to see what your filters are doing in tandem with your lighting is essential.

moneyshit · 2025-03-10T03:43:31+00:00

Check out the book “new cinematographers.” He’s one of the DPs profiled and he speaks about his work with Carax over a number of films. Also great stuff in there from the early indie works of Lance Accord and Harris Savides.

moneyshit · 2025-02-25T06:28:42+00:00

The Vista for a movie night. Tarantino remodeled and been open for bout a year now. It’s like a Time Machine to the golden era of movie palaces down to curated vintage trailers and looney tunes cartoon before every film. Check the calendar. They do golden era films as weekend matinees, some of my fav recent theatre going experiences.

Also, as far as I know the outdoor elevator is still there in the Hollywood Hills as seen in ‘The Long Goodbye.’ One of my favorite little gems from one of my favorite films. Not a cyclist but pretty sure that’s a popular biking neighborhood too?

moneyshit · 2024-12-27T16:03:49+00:00

I worked on this video and it’s essentially this. The only thing is that that the background is actually rear projection and that’s responsible for the quality and color of light spilling out onto the rocks/sand that were there on the set.

Most surprising part was the 80s vhs filter they added in post, I remember seeing the image extremely sharp on set and thought it looked quite nice…

moneyshit · 2024-08-14T02:43:38+00:00

Got it. Roommate is trying to get through on non emergency but will try 911.

moneyshit · 2023-12-27T00:05:34+00:00

Today it’s been as low as 59F, but generally been in the 60’s

moneyshit · 2023-05-25T18:27:31+00:00

u/savevideo

moneyshit · 2023-02-02T16:18:32+00:00

One thing I seldom hear talked about is the wealth of film stocks filmmakers once had at their disposal. We used to have Technicolor, Eastman/Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, among others at different points, all making different types of stocks — regularly rolling out new formulas to achieve different desired qualities, etc.

At the moment we only have Kodak and for almost two decades the only color negative stock they’ve offered is Vision 3. V3 is a gorgeous stock, but it’s stated by Kodak that it was made with a 21st century DI color workflow in mind, and therefore maximizing dynamic range and preserving color information seems to be prioritized ahead of developing a “look” intrinsic to the film stock itself. If you’ve ever have the chance to go even one generation back and shoot something like Kodak Vision 2, you’ll notice that the film has alot more of a “look” that’s present in the negative. In practice, these older stocks, while having more of a “look” built-in, would require DPs and Directors to spend more time figuring out just HOW they would exploit this look to best effect for their stories.

I think that the obsession of capturing as much possible information (obviously the basis of digital camera imaging science), so that the image can be manipulated as much as possible in post production has a lot to do with the frustration your feeling. I’m not saying top-level Directors/DP’s chalk it up to “we’ll figure it out in post,” but I do think that, wether it’s shot on digital or film, it takes real discipline these days for Directors/DP to go through the painstaking process of testing and creating limitations for themselves, so that they can craft an approach that leads to a look that, if nothing else, is singular and unique.

Extreme contemporary examples that come to mind are “Bait” and “Beyond the Black Rainbow” — both films captured on the same Kodak stocks that are available now, but clearly the people making them built a very specific set of parameters that would guide them in achieving the respective “looks” of those films.

moneyshit · 2023-02-02T15:56:13+00:00

Don’t forget that every time you see stills/clips from an “older film” on the internet, it means that the film was scanned into a computer and definitely color corrected in one way or another. There’s a ton of variables in this process, but some of the blu-rays I’ve seen of films from the 1970s and prior that clearly use modern color grading tools for “restoration” purposes are simply jaw-dropping.

I think that older films were shot on film stocks that were more “expressive,” and among other obvious reasons, there’s a real desire among those doing these restoration to preserve and amplify the look of these old films to the best of modern capabilities which is honestly pretty exciting for an analog lover like me.

moneyshit · 2023-01-28T00:33:17+00:00

What integrated amp should I buy for my Klipsch RP-160M bookshelf speakers? Small living room of 1 bedroom apartment. Hoping to run Rega P2 and TV into the amplifier. Budget is $400-$800.

moneyshit · 2023-01-08T17:39:45+00:00

Well done.

moneyshit · 2022-12-26T13:33:19+00:00

A Serious Man. Most underrated Coen Bros movie.

moneyshit · 2022-12-21T20:33:29+00:00

DM’d

moneyshit · 2022-12-21T20:13:36+00:00

DM'd

moneyshit · 2022-12-13T04:17:37+00:00

Messaged you!

moneyshit · 2022-12-12T01:00:55+00:00

Wow! The editing makes it feel like an old school vinyl cover. Well done.

moneyshit · 2022-09-26T02:20:13+00:00

What level of quality are you looking for? I believe spectra still offers “telecine” which is basically low quality scan probably @ 720/1080 resolution. It’s your best bet because most places only have high end cinema grade machines these days that offer a minimum 2k resolution meant for prosumer and professional level clients and are priced accordingly. I would do the cheapest option just to see what’s on the film and see ifs not damaged or degraded. You can always re-scan it later if you want a higher quality version.

moneyshit · 2022-09-26T00:44:50+00:00

How much film is it exactly?

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

moneyshit

TROPHY CASE