Are pretty CGI colors good cinematography?

Good cinematography is about proportion and relation between elements and relevancy of those elements with the film intentions. Pretty shots can be bad cinematography (or inadequate) the same way that ugly shots can be good cinematography.

>Pretty CGI colors
Colors are colors at the end of the day. Does it really matter if it was natural lighting or post-production lighting if it looks good in the final product?

>Haha pretty colors on screen

Attached: 7EFBEE01-B207-4938-A306-BE00BFAC8630.jpg (1068x601, 65.13K)

You forgot one point perspective

>cherry picking this one scene

Usually no, unless there is more to it than complementary colors and vistas. Good cinematography comes from most of the same things that make a good painting -- a mix of creativity, composition and framing, and attention to lighting. Most of the Marvel shit looks samey and doesn't stick out in the least, they look like old stock Windows XP desktop backgrounds I used to use. Meanwhile pic related immediately draws attention and sticks in your memory among many other shots in the movie by utilizing simple things things like leading lines and symmetry, lighting, contrast between the white and black/orange, etc.

Attached: p0639ffn.jpg (1280x640, 84.94K)

>Good cinematography is about proportion and relation between elements and relevancy of those elements with the film intentions
This

The Thor one isn't awful.

These shots in Thor 3 were pretty good though
And they're not even pretty colors with the washed out color grading

Attached: wp3787493.jpg (2156x1136, 168.78K)

I find it funny how CGI and greenscreen in theory should vastly broaden the scope of what is possible to show on film, and yet most of these blockbusters always go for the most trite, conventional, and restrictive shots that leave nothing to imagination.

Looks fake. Every human character looks out of place in marvel movies.

Paradoxically, limitations fuels more the imagination than infinite possibilities. It doesn't help that most blockbusters are made by bland middlemen that merely follows the indications of uncultured suits.

>Looks fake.
Art is fake

Depends on how well they managed to work computer effects in tandem with real-world lighting and camerawork. This is why movies like Avatar, Life of Pi and Gravity won Best Cinematography Oscars despite being heavy on CGI.

The vision sequences in Age of Ultron were pretty dope, loved the visuals there.

Just turn your brain off bro, and have some sex

this looks literally like some cutscene in final fantasy game, what the fuck?

Attached: kh.jpg (1080x810, 193.51K)

Attached: God of War 2.jpg (449x453, 37.12K)

That’s not cgi you fucking brainlet

having a broader scope of tools doesn't improve your creativity or gift you with vision

i guess yeah if you regularly drink s.oy milk

Unironically yes, in addition to stuff like placement, composition etc. It gains meaning in context and in unison with other separate parts of filmmaking. And there is artistry in special effects as well. I don't care about capeshit btw.

art is deception

for me, it's sunsets

Attached: War Horse (1).webm (1280x532, 2.76M)

They aren’t pretty. Pretty is BR2049. If people think the prequels have bad cgi (they don’t), these are going to age much worse

That Effect looks better than CGI especially on the big screen

>Pretty is BR2049

Attached: 1545827590288.jpg (920x800, 169.93K)

>they don’t
lmao

Attached: cartoon network screencap.jpg (1920x1080, 115.02K)

Art is Satanic

First and foremost "good cinematography" isn't just empty pretty pictures by themselves, the visual narrative is the most important aspect.
Quality cinematography isn't just pretty frames but actually telling the story using visual narrative through framing and composition and the lighting.
So the context is important, you can't judge it by a screenshot alone.

There is technically bad cinematography, like too strong obvious night scene lighting or breaking the 180 rule for no reason.
And there is bad cinematography because of the lack of actual substance, empty pretty pictures which only fill the form without actually using framing and composition to propell the visual narrative.
And I think the second one is a bigger problem in today's industry because everyone can learn basic photography and produce balanced well framed pictures, but it takes talent/vision to be able to actually tell the story through the visuals.

And in the context of the work of cinematographers, atleast 90% of it cinematography is purely lighting.

>If people think the prequels have bad cgi (they don’t),

Attack of the Clones does because even the practical effects look like PS2 cutscences

Attached: 1560472051240.webm (720x300, 2.9M)

no

Attached: St Peters Basilica.webm (1200x506, 3M)

I've seen nicer looking shit made by fat dykes on deviantart

Satan's church

It's fucked up how great this movie looks. I've heard nothing about it since release.

reminder that MCU movies have better cinematography on the camrips

you would like so, lucifer virgin

its just glossy and gross with a bunch of greys and dark blues mixed in. it barely even has good standout colors to begin with

Attached: what is wrong with you good sir.png (231x305, 112.93K)

this lmao

I really liked Rango.