Jump to content

Caf


Recommended Posts

I finally caught Café Society on blu-ray.

 

I must say I didn't care for the cinematography. The lighting was obviously inspired by classic Hollywood. But I think the digital look didn't really fit that style. At least not the F65 look. I just couldn't get into the mood I was watching a story set at that time period. I kept having to remind myself it was set in the past. When I car showed up or something I was reminded of it. But in general it all felt too modern. It felt like people wearing costumes and playing theater. The dialog also made me ask myself sometimes, "Did people really talk like that back then?".

 

But all together I think it might have been the choice of the F65. It just looked all so digital and the cinematography itself felt forced in my opinion. I had to keep telling myself, "But it's Storaro!"

 

What did you think of it?

 

On a side note, on the same day I also saw Billy Lynn and didn't care for the image either. I saw it on blu-ray so no 120fps. I avoided seeing it in 120fps on theaters on purpose. I knew how it would look and that it would take me out of the story. I had enough of that in The Hobbit with 48fps.

 

But even conformed to 24fps the image looked very meh.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

each to their own.. I thought it looked good.. in a very stylized way.. its a Woody Allen film and you talk about natural dialogue.. :) I think you need to see more Allen films.. not really famous for "normal" dialogue.. I think thats one of the reasons people go to see his films actually ..

 

With 16 bit Raw I dont think the F65 really made alot of difference .. it could have been graded a million different ways.. gain added.. taken out etc..any color..tone,hue.. it could have looked like any camera.. but the lighting for sure was stylized ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, sure. I know Allen's dialog is different. But it was a period piece. It took me out of it sometimes. But like I said, my main problem was the image.

 

I'm not saying it looked bad. I agree with you that it looked good. The problem I found was that it was not fitting to the story or time period. It is not the lighting though. It is the image as a whole. Many classic films have stylized lighting and they still fit the time period. It was not the lighting. This is why I think digital is to blame. And when it comes to digital looking, the F65 is on the top of the scale. Only Red comes close to it as looking very digital. Alexa, F35, Genesis etc don't look as digital.

 

So if the lighting wasn't the problem, the only thing left to "blame" is digital. Maybe it would have looked more fitting if it was shot on film. I just never bought it that it was set in the 30's/40's because of how it looked and felt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure some people like something and others don't.. but these days.. given the time and money ,which I would guess they had both of, for post on this film.. and Im pretty sure Storaro would have been in there.. you can replicate film almost exactly.. if you want to.. for good or for bad.. presuming they shot Raw 16 bit.. it can be manipulated to look like anything.. Coppola and a bunch of ASC dp, s famously all chose footage from a 5D.. as the one they liked the most.. in one of those blind test things.. against 35mm/Alexa etc..Its like the F55 is yellow and looks ENG.. then The Crown comes along.. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...