The Public Enemies Look

[Peter Lundström]

He doesnt want it to look like film, for better or for worse. Thats really all there is to it.

[Jonathan Payne]

David,

I agree that it doesn't make sense to assume that someone shooting a feature with a digital cinema camera is trying to make it mimic film. Public Enemies seems to be a perfect example of that.

Part of me wishes there was a devision of camera and sensor design that follows this prinicpal: One that strives to resemble film and all of it's special characteristics (down to have a non-fixed pattern of photosites and a truly logarithmic response) that have still not been emulated and one that strives to act as a clear noiseless window to the world.

Part of me also realizes this would open a whole other can of unintended worms...

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Saw it few hours ago... In a Village Roadshow Theater...

The story was great... I don't know what happened, I'm probably too perfectionist, but I left in the middle... just after the prison break...

It was so bad... like the worst DigitalBeta video to film transfer I have ever seen... it was milky... flat... blacks clipped... skin tones 5bits... or less... edgy... bad... really bad.

If I have delivered a film looked so bad to a client, it would be a good reason not to pay me...

I went out and get in to another screening room, to see a play with Sandra Boolock "The Proposal"... milky like hell... twice as the previous... I check if the projectionist has left the light in the projection room on... he didn't... I couldn't stand seeing this crap... I don't know what copies they are bringing to Greece, but on the same theater the "Quantum of Solace" was beautiful as the "Curious case of Benjamin Button" was...

I don't know... I either have to change job and see movies or keep the job and don't see movies...

[David Mullen ASC]

I saw it digitally projected at the Landmark (using the Sony 4K projector) and it looked great, ignoring the obvious video artifacts in the photography.

The LA Weekly review has a perceptive take on the look:
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-07-02/f...tal-dillinger/

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

David I read the article...

"Mann embraces video precisely for the ways in which it is unlike film: for the hyper-real clarity of its images, for the way its lightweight cameras move through space, and for its ability to see sharper and more deeply into the darkness of the night."

No didn't had that clarity it was like mud... "deeply into the darkness of the night"...???!!! it was so milky that the heads, in the areas of hair, it was like gray holes...

Sorry, but seriously David, you Hollywood guys, you have to do something about the quality of the distribution...

[David Mullen ASC]

Legally, distribution and exhibition were separated by the Supreme Court in the late 1940's so it's pretty hard for a distributor to tell independent exhibitors how to show their movies and what technology they should use, etc.

It looked technically great where I saw it -- great, as in I could see clearly all the artifacts and flaws in the original photography. And it was hyper-sharp (for the most part) but over-sharpened. Now there are some technically "bad" shots throughout the movie.

You know that correct black level is something easily achieved for a D.I. out to a film print, the black level isn't inherent to the origination format, it's whatever they decided was black for the D.I. process and film-out, which is fairly standardized. So if the base black level was way off, it's either a bad release print or poor projection.

[Sanjin Jukic]

It's about gangster John Dillinger in "Public Enemies" such a different look throughout many TV generations that starting 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's... simply BULLSH***... or a great as you like it...

Also it's a pity that MM was "trapped and surrounded" with "Sony Boys" agents (informants) who recommend him "Sony Bloody Digital HD Technology" that can't compare with RED1 at ALL !!!

Who knows maybe HE (MM) in his next feature will do (finally) his own digital research... choose RED1 ... or he is (dead) as a good movie director anyway...

[David Mullen ASC]

So why did he shoot his previous two digital movies mostly on the Thomson Viper if he is surrounded by "Sony Boys"?

This is something that people don't seem to get about Mann -- he doesn't like to shoot LOG or RAW, he likes to shoot Rec 709 and color-correct on set for the final look using video monitor gamma. So odds are low that he would use the RED camera since the whole RAW approach isn't the way he likes to shoot video. He isn't interested in a film look, he wants to shoot "broadcast video" style. He didn't use the Viper's filmstream LOG feature and he didn't use Sony's S-Log format either, so he isn't necessarily going to be excited about Red's RAW system either. HE'S NOT INTERESTED IN MAKING A DIGITAL CAMERA BEHAVE LIKE A FILM CAMERA. HE'S NOT INTERESTED IN A FILM LOOK. HE'S NOT INTERESTED IN HIDING THE ELECTRONIC ORIGINATION OF THE IMAGE. HE'S NOT INTERESTED IN 35MM DEPTH OF FIELD. Get it? It's got nothing to do with being "duped" by Sony people. He knows what he wants and he knows how to get what he wants, nobody is forcing him to do anything. What friggin' evidence do you have that Sony "trapped and surrounded him"??? How do you know that? Why are you so sure he didn't choose this approach himself? Do you really think Mann is such a weak-willed person that he just follows the advice of others?

[jamesedwelland]

curiously un-engaging, and at times felt like a TV comedy spoof. Thought the night scenes particularly unconvincing most notably the 'moonlight' which were just theatrical and lacking subtlety and atmosphere. I was very disappointed. Saw the trailer for harry potter which lighting wise looked stunning, so projector was up to scratch...

[mike ogden]

So basically, he wants it to look like sxxt because he can and it's his ball and if you don't like it he's going home? Because I am sorry David, it was far from technically 'great' and for the life of me I cannot figure out what he's trying to say by using such a reductive shooting process. Just because he's Michael Mann and his DoP is Dante Spinotti isn't enough of an excuse. Interviews I've seen with them talking about their choice of shooting camera are laughable. Because it's 'sharp' - which is ironic as shots I saw were soft as old boots! Because you can see the picture instantly?

RUBBISH!

As another poster said, If I'd have turned in something looking that bad, I wouldn't expect to get paid...