Not a film stock hater, love film, whole film languages were forged on the medium, just saying theres bad cinematography on both mediums, independant of spec requirements from studios.

I could actually throw that ''low contrast'' bad faith critique at Indiana Jones, the Last Crusade, the third installment. ''Image don't pop like first two movies, studio proritize low contrast for post, that why spielberg bad, spielberg hurt story with low contrast''.

Just saying there are many factors which contribute to that look and the signatures of ''good lighting'' are sometimes just workarounds for low contrast in older film stocks.

The question of whether or not it's a weapon by executives to dictate the creative workflow of production teams is another debate entirely.

(And there have been countless exceptions to the ''netflix camera spec requirements'' in their catalouge)

The advancement of higher dynamic range and low light performance in digital sensors and codecs is a good thing, actually. Provides more leeway for post-production, makes interior lighting easier/cheaper to stage and provides more options on the consumer end when viewing on displays or projection.

A spreadsheet?

''Yet you use bluesky, I am very intelkigent''

surprise! consumers want offline software!

sends them on a dungeon quest

(historical indigenous uses of plants and medicines is not the same thing as alternative kooks removing the contexts and methods of using plants in indigenous medicine)

among? they organized the rally from day one

as an amateur baker that is actually fair