For those who saw it,how is the cinematography ?

I think it's great, though a little different. The camera is rather static (during erotic scenes especially-they look like moving paintings). Tracking shots are rare and they appear mainly when the couple is walking and talking. Most longer shots have cuts in the middle (short, black screen) that skip time a little. Noe doesn't try to imitate long continuous shot anymore, but he uses light in a similar way he did in "Irreversible". Still, cinematography, editing and music are the best parts of this interesting but flawed film.

The cinematography here is very ellegant. No shaky cams at all (although they served a purpose in Irreversible).

Here in "Love" we get a lot of centered shots, symmetries and interesting compositions. It also features many plongées, specially in the sex scenes.

My only complaint is regarding the use 3D. Not only it does not work, and sounds more like a poor gimmick, but it also "darkens" the image a lot. "Love" is not a very bright film - many scenes takes place in interiors, places that are poorly iluminated - and the 3D makes them even more darker, the colors feel washed-out.

I found the cinematography lacking which is something I'd thought I'd never say about a Noe film. It just felt flat and kinda chintzy. It may have been the 3D but it looked darker and more washed out than usual.

I thought the cinematography was amazing and this is actually one film where nothing bothered me about the 3D. I think the 3D was subtly handled (there's a few obvious not at all subtle shots). One shot in a club in particular, where you get to see the characters dancing while seeing three different levels of depth with strobing light, bathed in red is just impressive. Noe mentions it as allowing him to make a film that appeared larger than it was...and I think it succeeded in that.