It's like a Quiet Riot concert up in this biotch!!! The power of Michael Mann knows no bounds...
That said, Youtube's a whole different beast; while there is some interesting stuff up on there, the same questions I asked before need to be asked of work that goes up on Youtube. Basically, this: can the problematic video look be explained by the filmmaker being inept? My guess is that in 99% of cases of this sort of video posted on Youtube, the answer is a very safe yes. Also, most of the people posting on Youtube don't have access to 35mm, 16mm, RED, Sony F23's or otherwise, so while they may be intentional about shooting video, it's usually more often than not the only thing they had available.
Of course, it would be a mistake to think that one couldn't glean some valuable artistic knowledge from Youtube videos (often, though not always, of the negative variety, as in a huge list of things NOT to do), but there admittedly is a pretty low signal to noise ratio in that respect.
It should be said, though it probably doesn't need to be, that just because something looks "bad," that doesn't make it good art. Ditto just because something looks "good," though it's safe to say that, at least speaking for the cinematography, that usually this implies a higher level of care taken in the craft.
Have a great 4th weekend, everyone. I might post some more after I've actually seen Public Enemies, no doubt to say that the crappy video cinematography wrecked the movie or somesuch.
you say whatever you want but I'll give you a bit more info about what I said concerning "Sony Boys Influence".
Even dough I still didn't see the movie in theatre, I just saw the trailer, must say that I like the look and I would like
to repeat again that the movie could be done on RED1 but it is not just because...
Also I'm not Dillinger that robbed the banks, I'm more Dillinger that robbed the information.
So give you now some fresh (stolen) info from brand new issue of American Cinematographer July 2009
about Public Enemies from the article "Big Guns" by Jay Holben, pages 26-35.
After reading this excerpts you should then conclude yourself what ever you want BUT still keep in mind what I said about "Sony Boys"....
About Sony cameras 1:
About Sony cameras 2:
I like very much use of handheld in Michael Mann movies (also could be done on RED1 because I'm a fan of experimenting RED handheld):
And the end of the article is the best part of the text:
One more thing:
I'm famous here because of my "extreme" pushing RED on this forum and according that there is one nice article about using RED1:
"Shooting Puppy Love With the Red One" by Iain Stasukevich where is described how
cinematographer Jendra Jarnagin, a member of this forum, explains her shooting experience with RED1 (pages 12-14)
The full texts find here>>>
Hey Jason I was just giving you a hard time. I really dig a lot of things about Public Enemies, I especially appreciate the fact that he left out Flava Flav's character... sorry that's Public Enemy with a "y"-
Seriously it was a really good movie in a lot of aspects. BUT there are a lot of really good, enjoyable and even brilliant low budget/no budget movies that look like crap because the money and/or experience and/or skill level isn't there... this is not supposed to be one of them. The hyper-realistic, sharp look that he supposedly went for to, I imagine, immerse the audience in a new and exciting way to experience a period piece? DUDE it didn't work out that way for me and obviously a lot of people. And there are plenty of people on this forum that UNDERSTAND the medium and realize what he attempted and are dissapointed with the outcome. Are we not allowed to have feelings and reactions about MM movies unless it's completely and apoligetically positive. I personally am trying to figure out HOW THE F--- do you take something shot with a F23 or even an EX1 and make it look like it came out of a VX2100 or XL1 (on SOME shots, there's obviously good looking stuff in there as well). Some of those shots look like 28 Days Later. I havn't seen 28 Days is a long while and maybe it's not that close at all but the sheer fact that visually that's the only movie that comes to mind from my memory as a frame of reference...
After reading this excerpts you should then conclude yourself what ever you want BUT still keep in mind what I said about "Sony Boys".... Sanjin Jukic
Read the articles and still not sure what you meant by your original inflammatory statements...
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... Sanjin Jukic
As David said, Michael Mann shot his last 2 digital films mostly with the Viper. Hardly a man quaking in his boots at the feet of "Sony Boys" ?
We have all these great tools at our hands made by Sony, Panasonic, Red, Arri, Aaton, Panavision etc which we make choices to use, from both creative and financial perspectives.
Saw it last night, projected on film. Loved the story, but didn't really like the look much. At the end of the movie, my wife asked me "Why did it look so bad?"
I JUST HAD AN EPIPHANY!!!
And sorry if some one else has already had this revelation and made this observation but I feel compelled to share it.
Michael Mann IS the EXACT OPPOSITE of Michael Bay.... WHOA I think I just blew my own mind!
(btw I almost typed "I think I just blew my self" LOL)
I wonder if other artists pooh-poohed Van Gogh for using water colors for a specific project, rather than oils.
You know, because water colors have lest contrast ratio, a more subdued pallette, can have uneven coverage, may be less saturated, etc...
Oh. Wait. Maybe that's exactly what Van Gogh had in mind for a specific subject.
Never mind, stupid question.
Saying that a director will suffer for not shooting with the Red is unbelievably ridiculous. Takes Red fanboy behaviour to a new and extreme level. Red is just a tool, a camera, with quirks and issues like all of them out there.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... Sanjin Jukic
terribly sorry but you are still not GETTING the point!!!!
First: Of course that I know well that he shot the last two movies before PE on Viper.
My DVD collection of MM movies
Second: MM is well known guy who is always "digging" different looks in his movies and the last happened to be shot DIGITAL.
Third: And SUDDENLY his last film shot partly digital and that happened all by SONY digital cameras.
Four: Nothing happens and nothing is thinkable without a cause.
Five: It's about to think that CAUSE now (to choose SONY cameras instead of any other)
Six: Quote>>>"Just prior to
Public Enemies, Spinotti and Mann
shot a commercial on HD using
Sony’s CineAlta F23, a 2⁄3" 3-CCD
1920x1080 camera that records 4:4:4
RGB or 4:2:2 Y/Cb/Cr to HDCam-
SR tape. (The camera has a 2⁄3" bayonet
lens mount, and the SRW-1 deck
can be mounted directly to the
camera, like a film magazine.)
“Michael likes images to be sharp,
and he likes shooting with smaller
chips because he likes the deep depth
of field, so we became fans of the F23
on that commercial,” says Spinotti.
American Cinematographer 0709, page 25"
This sounds like a big joke at the time when RED shoots on CF cards, HDD RAID, etc,... @ 4K, 3K, 2K, can be resized in any HD format and can get any of 2/3" lens via B4 mount, etc,...
Seven: Sony Boys won. Why? Don't ask that stupid question any more!!!!
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|