So, what's wrong?

Greggl said:
Episode 1 was film with a handful of HD shots as tests... II and III were shot
with the Sony.
Click to expand...

True. I guess I couldn't detect which were the test CineAlta shots in Episode I. By II and III, I knew they were shot on HD, but nothing jumped out at me and screamed video. I guess the Star Wars trilogy are a bad example, for the difference between film and video, because there was so much CGI, it was hard to even compare images.
 
Has anyone seen November on DVD, instead of on the big screen? I have. And I've noticed it has a very video look to it; especially in the motion -- there is a lot of motion blur in the DVD version. However, a lot of people say that November seemed very filmic, but they have only seen it in theatres. Who here has seen it in both, and can comment on the differences? Perhaps seeing it in theatres; on a reel of film gives it more filmic qualities; and removes that motion blur; whereas the DVD version is taken directly from the digital source, and keeps that blur.
 
I saw November at a theater and on DVD. No, November did not look exactly like film on either. Yes, November looked great on both. The difference between the theater viewing and the DVD seemed comparable to any movie seen via these two methods. In other words, seeing it on a dvd player didn't seem to take any more away from it than does seeing a film movie on DVD.
 
Okay, I finally watched November last night and here's my take on the film:

First off, the DOF was very distracting. I couldn't help but watch some shots and think how much more impact they would have if the DOF was a little more shallow. The resturaunt scenes were perfect examples.

Another scene that bothered me was when the lightbulb was getting more intense and the light on Courtney Cox's face would get very blown out. I just didn't like the look it created. I think they could have made it a little less blown out, then pushed it in post and created a softer roll-off. The hard edges were just too much.

I liked the color schemes they used. Some scenes were better than others, but overall it looked pretty good. It did suprise me sometimes that it was a DVX, and they definately got a lot of mileage out of it. I'm curious to what post procedures they used...I'll have to check out the tech commentary tonight. Some of the scenes in the car were too green for me, and the scenes in her photo class were kind of off as well.

Overall, it was technically a good film. I wasn't too thrilled with Courtney Cox's performance, and some dialogue seem a bit contrived at times. I don't know if it warrants the Best Cinematography award, but I haven't seen the others at Sundance (or was it Cannes?) so I don't know if there was better. Congratulations to them for pulling off a good film though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top