Jump to content


Photo

Stranger Things 2


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:25 AM

What a great series this was so many 80's films references plus looked fantastic .


  • 1

#2 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:50 AM

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

#3 Alex Lindblom

Alex Lindblom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:20 AM

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/...iew-1202141889/

 

They shot Red Dragon on the first, Red Helium on the second.


  • 1

#4 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:22 AM

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?


  • 0

#5 Paulo Arellano

Paulo Arellano
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Director

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:23 PM

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.


  • 0

#6 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:28 PM

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 by fatih yıkar, 03 November 2017 - 12:29 PM.

  • 0

#7 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3639 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:49 PM

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.
  • 0

#8 Tristan Noelle

Tristan Noelle
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • North Hollywood, CA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:02 PM

Indeed, what sort of clown would even propose shooting in a 2:1 aspect ratio!? Unthinkable.

STORARO.png

Edited by Tristan Noelle, 03 November 2017 - 03:05 PM.

  • 0

#9 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:14 PM

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.


  • 0

#10 Tristan Noelle

Tristan Noelle
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • North Hollywood, CA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:34 PM

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
  • 0

#11 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3639 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:43 PM

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. 


  • 0

#12 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:56 PM

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.


  • 0

#13 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3639 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:02 PM

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 shit! :(


  • 0

#14 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:09 PM

 

Ohh ****! :(

http://www.cinematog...679#entry486674


  • 0

#15 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Director

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:19 PM

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. 


  • 0

#16 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:20 PM

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.


  • 0

#17 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Director

Posted 04 November 2017 - 03:15 AM

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 by Manu Delpech, 04 November 2017 - 03:15 AM.

  • 0

#18 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3639 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 November 2017 - 04:15 AM

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.
  • 0

#19 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 04 November 2017 - 04:19 AM

Indeed, what sort of clown would even propose shooting in a 2:1 aspect ratio!? Unthinkable.

STORARO.png

 

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.


  • 0

#20 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 04 November 2017 - 04:45 AM

Glad his Univisium didn't take off. I can't think of any more criticism of Storaro :)


  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Opal

CineLab

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Ritter Battery