John Holland Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 What a great series this was so many 80's films references plus looked fantastic . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Berger Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 It looks awful, we didn't have digital in 1982. They're going for the '82 look but then they shoot in 2:1 which is nonsense and in digital which is sacrilege. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Lindblom Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 It's fine to critic things, but "It looks awful" brings nothing to the table, don't just bring down -- contribute. Saying that historical films can only use technology from it's time, is just silly. What about films, taking place before film was invented? And why is 2:1 aspect ratio more or less nonsense then any other aspect ratio? Interview with Tim Ives about season 1 and 2... http://deadline.com/2017/08/stranger-things-tim-ives-duffer-brothers-cinematography-emmys-interview-1202141889/ They shot Red Dragon on the first, Red Helium on the second. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Berger Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 It's fine to critic things, but "It looks awful" brings nothing to the table, don't just bring down -- contribute. Saying that historical films can only use technology from it's time, is just silly. What about films, taking place before film was invented? What about Scarecrow's Brain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo Arellano Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 I didn't like the 2nd season too much, story wise or the look of it. I felt that the first season looked a bit better but the 2nd one looked modern despite the timeline of the story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatih yıkar Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) I think show looks awful to the problem is this show set on 80s but the image look so new, when i watching i don't believe it was set on 80s and dont feeling. It's just look a set in 2017 and dresses,set design from 80s, they only create so much fake 80's look. Edited November 3, 2017 by fatih yıkar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted November 3, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted November 3, 2017 They for sure mucked up shooting digitally. It's just, Netflix is anti-film, it's not even one of their "required" acquisition formats for internal production. I would have shot the entire show 250D/500T, standard 2x anamorphic 4 perf 35mm. Then I would have done some grain-enhancement in post to make it look like it's been printed. The net result would have been a very 80's, super analog look and it wouldn't have even been a blip on their HUGE budget. I do like the show, I do think it's shot well too. I don't mind the digital aspect personally, but that's because most content these days I consume on my laptop in bed, so who cares. I don't bother turning on the home theater to watch stuff very much due to my crazy life schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tristan Noelle Posted November 3, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) Indeed, what sort of clown would even propose shooting in a 2:1 aspect ratio!? Unthinkable. Edited November 3, 2017 by Tristan Noelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Berger Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 Indeed, what sort of clown would even propose shooting in a 2:1 aspect ratio!? Unthinkable. Maybe you could get Mr. Storaro to explain how shooting 3-perf saves on film when shooting on digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tristan Noelle Posted November 3, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted November 3, 2017 Maybe you could get Mr. Storaro to explain how shooting 3-perf saves on film when shooting on digital. Storaro shot Cafe Society digitally on the Sony F65 in 2:1 because he prefers that aspect ratio. He proposed it for film, not because it would save film stock (although it would compared to 4perf), but because he preferred that aspect ratio. It was always primarily an artistic choice. My point is that 2:1 is a completely viable aesthetic choice the filmmakers made. It’s not without merit or precedence. Tristan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted November 3, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted November 3, 2017 I think house of cards is 2:1 as well. They wanna differentiate their programming from the 1.75:1 standard. 1.85:1 isn't big enough of a difference and 2.40:1 has too much black bar. So they appear to be using around 2:1 for some of their original programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Berger Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 I don't know, I can't argue right now, all my mental space is taken up by the fact that I just bought a massively expensive zoom that has scratches on it, that may or may not affect image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted November 3, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted November 3, 2017 I don't know, I can't argue right now, all my mental space is taken up by the fact that I just bought a massively expensive zoom that has scratches on it, that may or may not affect image quality. Ohh poop! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Berger Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 Ohh ****! :( http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=75679&do=findComment&comment=486674 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 Film or not (and yes, it would have looked better on film, bla bla, also, Scorsese is shooting on film for The Irishman), it looks absolutely fantastic, they switched to the Red Helium, and the extra resolution doesn't feel harsh, the added grain helps a lot as well, the combination with the Summilux is fantastic. Production values are off the charts (20 % budget increase on the sequel), the season/sequel is fantastic, crushes the excellent first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 They for sure mucked up shooting digitally. It's just, Netflix is anti-film, it's not even one of their "required" acquisition formats for internal production. Yeah, I was talking with the DP of ALIAS GRACE the other day, and when I told him that Netflix wouldn't let Dariusz shoot film for OKJA, it just about blew his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 (edited) Well, I guess Joon-Ho & Khondji don't have the necessary clout, Netflix is sure letting Scorsese shoot on film for The Irishman like I said (Kodak NY lab handling the dailies), so it's possible with the right people :D Edited November 4, 2017 by Manu Delpech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted November 4, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted November 4, 2017 Well, I guess Joon-Ho & Khondji don't have the necessary clout, Netflix is sure letting Scorsese shoot on film for The Irishman like I said (Kodak NY lab handling the dailies), so it's possible with the right people :D The Irishman will be their first "film" production and I've been told they are "allowing" film for future productions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Palmer Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 Indeed, what sort of clown would even propose shooting in a 2:1 aspect ratio!? Unthinkable. The 2 by 1 widescreen ratio to me doesn't look good 'artistically'. It's too symetrical if that's the word. A little less or more is better. 1.85:1 or 2.2:1 both look great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Palmer Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 Glad his Univisium didn't take off. I can't think of any more criticism of Storaro :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 Love the 2.00:1 AR, especially for ST, 1.78 reminds me too much of TV (duh), 1.85 same thing, strikes a nice balance btw 1.78, or 1.85 & 2.35. Tim Ives said they liked the feel with the slight letterbox, makes it feel more cinematic. Don't know why I find even slight letterboxing more appealing to the eye than something full frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 On my opening post I said 80's film references meaning nods to Spielberg and other movies of that era not about the look of this series although I do like the look of it even though it was shot on a Red camera . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Berger Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 (edited) Does anybody here work on "The Thundermans"? It has about the same look as Stranger Things season 2. Edit: Their cinematographer is Wayne Kennan, is he a member here? Edited November 4, 2017 by Samuel Berger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now