Yuku free message boards

There are several reasons for this look.

Intentionally underexposing really had nothing to do with it.
Flashing was not overly common back then. It was done , but mainly on high end productions-like MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER.
There was no reason for a quickly produced, low budget movie to flash the negative. If they underexposed it was because they didn't have enough light
to shoot properly. Then they'd have to print up. It wasn't some 'artistic' thing to do. Owen Roizman underexposed THE FRENCH CONNECTION as an
artistic decision but we're not talking high end Hollywood here-we're talking about the look of low budget 70's horror movies.

There were 2 Kodak stocks used in the 1970's. 5254 was used from 1968-1974. It was 100 ASA stock. Slow by today's standards.
From 1974 onwards 5247 was used. Another 100 ASA stock with some improvements, notably with the new ECN 2 developing process.

That 70's look had nothing to do with 'inferior' 70's stocks. Those stocks were actually VERY high quality stocks that virtually every feature film used
in the 1970's. Put it this way. Some cheap exploitation movie shot on 35mm that played the drive-ins in the early 70's was shot on the same filmstock used for THE GODFATHER.
5254 was actually a smooth creamy looking stock. 5247 had more contrast. A lot of these cheap 70's movies were lacking money so quite often when they didn't have enough lighting
equipment they would "push" the stocks 1 or 2 stops-basically extending the developing time. Now, this would bring up grain and contrast, although 5254 handled pushing very well.

Because stocks were slow quite often you see scenes in movies from the 70's where they look like they were blasting a lot of light. That will wash things out a bit.
Handheld camerawork was often seen not as some artistic choice but because shooting schedules were so short and tight in these low budget films that shooting handheld allows you to shoot faster than
framing, panning and tilting with a tripod. You can make movement and framing adjustments on the fly. It's noticeably faster to shoot that way.

The other thing is this. A lot of those cheap 70's movies were actually shot on 16mm film and blown up to 35mm for theatrical release. The quality of blow ups back then was not good
and that gave a grainy and murky picture.

There's no doubt also that the quality of the color timing and release printing was also a factor. Print stocks back then were not the best.

So really, there were many factors involved.

Where are you getting your information that 5254 and 5247 weren't good filmstocks?
Are you a cinematographer? I'm a cinematographer. I've shot 5247, and I've spoken to many dp's that shot those stocks,
and they've never remarked that the stocks were subpar. Many guys now still believe that 5254 still has the best flesh to neutral balance
of any stock ever made. It also pushed very well. The first batch of 5247 in 1974 had problems but Kodak ironed them out by 1976.
Barry Lyndon was shot on 5254 and you're saying that 5254 was a detriment to the way that movie looked? Apocalypse Now was shot with
5247 and you're telling me that the inferior quality of the stock shows?

There's no doubt that dye transfer prints were the best release prints ever made but they're not going to make a bad color negative stock look good.

We have to make the distinction between high end, bigger budget 70's studio productions and low budget 70's horror films because there's going to be a
noticeable difference in quality. Not all 70's studio movies looked like "70's" movies. A lot of the best studio stuff shot back then rivals anything shot now.

And yes, a lot of cheap drive in stuff made in the 70's was shot on 16mm and blown up. For instance many of Al Adamson's movies were shot on 16mm and blown up.
Dracula vs. Frankenstein is a good example. You can tell by the quality but also because in behind the scenes stills I can clearly see the DP Gary Graver shooting with
an Eclair NPR 16mm camera. The Last House on the Left was shot on Super16 and blown up to 35mm for theatrical release also.