2 ms·

Even before 2010, directors and their cinematographers put a lot of thought into what film stock to use in order to build the aesthetic they want for their film

• cogman10 4y ago
  Again, depends on what's being shot. Like I said, 300 is a good pre-2010 example of a film stock/grain specifically chosen for it's artistic value. However, for a bunch of film and especially tv shows, the choice had FAR less to do with aesthetics and was more related to cost. Big budget films certainly could pick any sort of equipment/stock they wanted. Lower budget productions didn't necessarily have that luxury. I'm not saying it didn't happen, rather that the choice in stock was more often than not "cheap while being as clear as we can afford". Again, you see this with modern film where grain is almost never added (except for specific scenes trying to give more of a dated effect). That, to me, says cinematographers aren't generally trying to pick their stock to add grain. Some do, but that's the exception and not the rule.