It's a bit humourous to hear how spoiled everyone has become... Think of all the legendary movies shot with T3.9 25-250 zooms, 50 ASA
or 100 ASA stocks, and hand zooming or more primitive zoom motors, and no one bitched back then.
Many movies were shot without zooms. I also know of some classics that were shot using a single prime lens, like "20,000 Leagues..."
What about "Barry Lyndon" which had scenes lit entirely by candles on 100 ISO film? I'm not a fan of that movie but there's no doubt of its cinematic beauty.
I actually think being stuck with lower ISOs can have advantages. It forces people to compose and light better rather than what a lot of people do now, which is show up on-scene with little/no lighting and relying on electronics to make the image work. I said it elsewhere my go-to stock for indoor AND outdoor shoots was 7217 because it was so sharp and low-grain. I really miss it. The last shoot I did on location was with a camera that was NATIVELY 800 ISO, and not "marketing ISO" like BM but the actual ISO. It was an F16 day so I was really struggling to get in the sweet spot of the lens, even with an ND filter.
On a side note, I can't for the life of me figure out why 400+ ISO still film would be daylight balanced. If you want to shoot indoors, you have to use an 80a filter, effectively making it 200 ISO.
I saw today a 55 inch 4K TV for approx $500 !!
More evidence that marketing is more important than quality. I gladly paid a lot more for a mere 1920x1080 TV because there simply wasn't any denying it had the best image. Most people simply think "more pixels is better", like why cell phone image sensors have 12-20MP when more than 6MP or so is actually detrimental to quality due to dynamic range and limitations of the lens.
To explain myself more clearly: you cannot shoot a classic like The Third Man or The Lady From Shanghai in 16:9 or reframed by somebody else than the DoP. One can’t even enjoy Chaplin’s Modern Times on a pixel screen. One kills films with computers.
I said films.
You sort of touched on two big pet peeves of mine: One is producers etc. changing the DP's content in post, often without his knowledge or input. I've witnessed it first hand at premieres when the DP goes "that's not how I shot it!" or a grip saying "it looked so good on the studio monitors, now it looks like an Instagram filter."
The other is people who aren't even competent at video production calling what they do "films". I cringe every time I hear one call themselves a "filmmaker". I want to go "You have no idea what being a filmmaker means. You don't have the basic knowledge or equipment required to do a proper job. Have you ever even touched film? You don't understand the workflow and you cheapen the entire industry by claiming to be a part of it." Of course, I don't actually say that. I just keep referring to their work as "video" and watch them get annoyed. I don't really care, they harm the industry by producing inferior product while cutting into clientele that could have gone to reputable businesses. I spend countless hours cleaning up their messes too. I recently had to prep a video for projection in a 400-seat venue. Not a single shot was within legal values and the dialogue AVERAGED -6dBfs RMS. Nothing would have made it look/sound good but at least I could get levels within standard. Most of them don't understand lighting, none of them understand audio. They'll spend five hours on location and 30 hours color correcting/reframing/denoising etc. when an extra hour on location would mean only needing a few hours in post, yielding a better final product in process.
Call me an elitist if you must (and some do), which is odd because I make a lot of quick and dirty videos. The difference is I don't call that film, nor do I call myself a "filmmaker". I think that brings up another point. Film costs money, so you better be sure you get it right. Video costs virtually nothing, so who cares about a bad shot?