Grug
Veteran
I highly doubt that diffusion is added in post, it'll be Hardy adding it in front of (or behind) the lens. It looks very tastefully done to me.
F65: Testament of Youth
- Thread starter Grug
- Start date
I highly doubt that diffusion is added in post, it'll be Hardy adding it in front of (or behind) the lens. It looks very tastefully done to me.
DendriteStudios
Active member
^shows how subjective all this stuff is. Ex Machina was beautifully shot. Both the anamorphic look and the softness, same with the trailer here. In camera diffusion looks great in both of these cases.
Diffusion in this case seems to be in an attempt to recreate the look of old time photography, that was representative of that era. Of course, "War and Peace" was far less "dreamy". That's because that was the painting era and, if you drew a portrait of Napoleon, it better have been in focus. Or off with your head!
I would say not to judge it until watching it in theaters. I remember when Inside Llewyn Davis came out the trailer looked so diffused and weird I was not a fan. But watching it later, I realized the more the image was scaled down, the heavier the diffusion looked. At least it looked a lot better watching it scaled up opposed to the trailer.
I'm personally not seeing it. I don't find it particularly great looking or special. There are way better examples of F65 material in my opinion.
Actually, going only by the trailer, I think this is a misuse of the F65. It doesn't play to it's strengths. Why shoot with a F65 if what you want is an over soft look?
It's the same case with people who go through great lengths to emphasize the importance of 4k and insist in shooting everything in 4K, only to use Leica Rs, Contax and other softer lenses to "break the digital edge". I guess the final idea is, "if I need it sharper I can always use sharper lenses." But in many cases the soft older lenses seem to be all they own, which to me implies it's their default lens choice. So it's puzzling. This goes hand in hand with insisting in having raw in a camera and never really shooting raw. Comes across more like the interest behind is bragging rights. I mean, this is one of the critics you hear often about the F65 itself. That it only shoots raw (in 4K). People want raw, but just in case they ever need. People want to shoot with the sharpest camera, but use old lenses and filters to soften it up and then finish it in HD or 2K.
Personally, if I'm using a F65 or any camera for that matter, I would play to it's strengths. A movie which used the F65 well in my opinion was Tomorrowland. I think it served the story well and they used the F65 to it's full potential. The movie was extra sharp. The F65's clearly digital aesthetics fit the story line and style. They "amped" it up to an almost "cartoonish" level which fit this fantasy world they were creating. It's also a good example of the image quality the F65 is capable of producing. The look of the movie itself can be subjective I know.
Back to Testament of Youth, without having seen the actual film, it's looking like it has the same problems as Belle. But judging from a compressed trailer can be misleading. Even if the choice of aesthetics seem pretty clear.
Another point is that in my opinion period pieces rarely work on digital. Some projects pull it off. Like in Big Eye where I think they captured the atmosphere and felling of the period, combined with the art theme very well. Even shooting digitally. But often it doesn't work for me.
Actually, going only by the trailer, I think this is a misuse of the F65. It doesn't play to it's strengths. Why shoot with a F65 if what you want is an over soft look?
It's the same case with people who go through great lengths to emphasize the importance of 4k and insist in shooting everything in 4K, only to use Leica Rs, Contax and other softer lenses to "break the digital edge". I guess the final idea is, "if I need it sharper I can always use sharper lenses." But in many cases the soft older lenses seem to be all they own, which to me implies it's their default lens choice. So it's puzzling. This goes hand in hand with insisting in having raw in a camera and never really shooting raw. Comes across more like the interest behind is bragging rights. I mean, this is one of the critics you hear often about the F65 itself. That it only shoots raw (in 4K). People want raw, but just in case they ever need. People want to shoot with the sharpest camera, but use old lenses and filters to soften it up and then finish it in HD or 2K.
Personally, if I'm using a F65 or any camera for that matter, I would play to it's strengths. A movie which used the F65 well in my opinion was Tomorrowland. I think it served the story well and they used the F65 to it's full potential. The movie was extra sharp. The F65's clearly digital aesthetics fit the story line and style. They "amped" it up to an almost "cartoonish" level which fit this fantasy world they were creating. It's also a good example of the image quality the F65 is capable of producing. The look of the movie itself can be subjective I know.
Back to Testament of Youth, without having seen the actual film, it's looking like it has the same problems as Belle. But judging from a compressed trailer can be misleading. Even if the choice of aesthetics seem pretty clear.
Another point is that in my opinion period pieces rarely work on digital. Some projects pull it off. Like in Big Eye where I think they captured the atmosphere and felling of the period, combined with the art theme very well. Even shooting digitally. But often it doesn't work for me.
Surf it Mike
Well-known member
Agreed , I guess that was my point with these hi Rez cameras . We need new ways of looking at the world with them & not referencing a look that belongs to another era. Sure there's room for interpretation but the "knee jerk" reaction of let's make it look like film by filter diffusion is IMO simplistic .
After all none of the current academy nominees employ this technique and they all shot digital except "Carol" & "Hatefull 8" and they didn't use heavy filtering either.
After all none of the current academy nominees employ this technique and they all shot digital except "Carol" & "Hatefull 8" and they didn't use heavy filtering either.