Foreman vs Lyle (early 1930s style)

Did you make this??

 

Strange that Joe Louis looks terrific here!

This content is protected

 

This is absolutely incredible

Did you make this??

Using today's software effects can't match up to the actual way 1930's footage was filmed. You would need the actual camera. Certain things like depth perception, framerate, and other things can never be matched without using the same lenses and equipment.

But this is pretty damn good.
The sound design is the best part, because it often most overlooked.
I love the care and detail that went into this.

Can I ask you what you used to make this? Was it just some filter or plugin?

 

Think Freddie Steele looks unskilled here?

This content is protected

 

It's terrible. First off, the post effects make it worse with the stretch.
Second, the lenses used for those cameras made scale and depth perception very strange.
You can easily tell by looking at the distance between the back of the ring, and the side of the ring that is closest to the camera. The depth there, or lack of, doesn't make sense.
Focus, scale, depth, are all wonky.

The Foreman clip in the OP on the other hand does not have these issues.

 

How does Louis look, quality or a clumsy oaf?

 

No, the point is he would look way better with modern cameras.

Try listening to Adele through a 1910 Gramophone, and see how that sounds.
Or try comparing the depth between a good Humphry Bogart scene, versus a scene from Inception. One looks like an amateur play, while the other one looks like a vast, rich universe.

 

You don't get it.
Stick your fingers in your ears all you want, and insinuate that 1930 cameras have no negative effect next to 2017 equipment.
That's 80+ years of camera and post technology. lmao

Next you are going to tell me that the production difference of Modern Times versus Star Wars IIV is negligible because Charlie Chaplin is clearly a good actor?

 

Cool video! But even with the distortion, these men slugging it out in their epically wild, sloppy fight still look more skilled than Carnera, imo.

 

Look at the feather fist pawing the heavybag at the beginning

 

I know nothing about cameras' ,what I do know is what my eyes show me.
When I watch Carnera I see a fighter who pushes his jab retreats with his head in the air and his hands down by his shorts.
When I watch the Joe Louis of the 30' s ,or the clip of Freddie Steele against Lesnevich I posted I see two terrific fighters,irregardless of the deficiencies of the 1930's cameras.

I see the same when I watch Mickey Walker or any number of great 30's fighters.
I'm not suggesting that today's techniques cannot enhance such films but there is enough clarity for me to see I am watching great skilled fighters..Other examples
Ross v Petrolle

This content is protected

Chocolate v Canzoneri.

This content is protected

Its you who doesnt get it. I'm not for a moment suggesting todays equipment isn't superior to bygone cameras. I see a recurring theme here, you misunderstanding posts on a regular basis ,whether wilfully of by lack of perception I'm undecided .
Bottom line, you can still see and recognize quality in the old 30's films.

 

I don't . You could put Carnera on CGI he would still look like a lumbering, underpowered ,glass jawed bodkin.

 

How do you account for many 30's fighters still looking terrific on the old films?

 

They were really damn good