Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Public Enemies Look

Hmm... I saw it last night on a 1080 46" LCDTV and it looked better than what I saw in theaters. There were only maybe 2 or 3 shots that screamed video, the rest of it was rather nice. Of course this was a 30sec spot and not a preview trailer.
 
I would say the trailer ranges in look from "cinematic", to "mom was there with a handycam".

That said, there was a lot of sharpening on the web trailer which presumably (hopefully) will not be there on the big screen. Sharpening is, in my opinion, far and away the most objectionable part of the "video look", and just screams Hi-8 to me.
 
Charles Angus said:
I would say the trailer ranges in look from "cinematic", to "mom was there with a handycam".
Click to expand...

HOW DARE YOU SIR!! You think you're a better shooter than my mom? :angry::angry:

J/K my mom is terrible, your reel is waaay better than hers LOL
 
BandPro Digital has a newsletter on their site quoting Dante Spinotti on their approach to using the F23 and DigiPrimes....

“Michael Mann always brings the cinematic language a little step forward – and others watch and follow. So, it wasn’t a surprise that he decided to shoot Public Enemies in High Definition,” says cinematographer Dante Spinotti, ASC, of his fifth pairing with Mann.

“His idea was to create a hyper- reality, to bring a very realistic and beautiful look – not in terms of cosmetic Hollywood, but in terms of a direct approach to the number of locations and realistic settings,” Spinotti explains. “We’d done a number of com- mercials together using the Sony F23 cameras and decided to test the Sony against film. Once we got through the whole process – digital to film and film to film – the final film-out sold us. The shots with the F23 camera were sharper and gave us the hyper-realism we wanted.”

The depth-of-field of the F23 combined with the ability to go into the camera and do modifications as they were shooting rather than recording to raw signal and doing cor- rections later in the D.I. process were also a plus for the team. “To me, digital gives you creative freedom,” says Spinotti. “No matter what the situation, you can go in without any predetermined rules. In film, you walk into a location and say ‘this is what I have to do – I have to raise the exposure.’ The toe is slow in film, while in digital it is linear, so the capabilities of the F23 cameras give me more freedom.

“When combining the F23 with either the ZEISS 6-24mm, 17-112mm DigiZooms or the DigiPrime lenses, we could get anything we desired,” Spinotti adds. “The lenses are sharp. They gave us the hyper-sharpness Michael wanted for this picture. And their rendering of the chromatic was amazing.

“At times, when Michael wanted an extra shot, acrobatic moves, or to get into small spaces, we used the Sony EX1. I recently saw all the footage cut together,” he adds, “and I was amazed. The footage cuts together seamlessly. “Public Enemies featured a vast variety of challenges, including extreme darkness, extreme cold, and hard to reach locations. No matter where we went or how hard we rode the cameras and lenses – the images were spectacular. Sony and Zeiss really came through for us on this picture.”

Dante Spinotti, ASC
 
My initial reaction was disgust. After several viewing frame by frame to make up my mind I realized I love the F23 shots but some of the EX3 is hit or miss. It seems like they weren't very strategic on shooting plans or formulas as far as camera set ups and tests. But when productions roll down hill it becomes harder to pre-imagine the issues you will face through the shoot.

I love that Mann is one of the few Directors pushing digital but sometimes I have second thoughts if he's going about it the right way. I've read a few boards discussing this same topic and people aren't pleased. Will this movie give Digital a bad rep? Not sure.

I mean they couldn't throw in a bounce board in the low light dinning scene with Marion and Depp, that's where it gets smudgy. Does Mann understand digital as well as Soderbergh?

Regardless I still want to see this flick but the most pleasing results has been on a Sony 4K projector. It's actually not as bad, but the film scans are a bit weak.

Another thing to keep in mind, as far as post goes I feel like this footage didn't go through some heavy correction. Most of the budget could have gone to Depp, Bale and Mann, but they did get $80 Million. I always wonder how he gets these budgets, $135 Million for Miami Vice?
 
Should be called the "Open Shutter Look"

Should be called the "Open Shutter Look"

Guys, guys, guys, why is this such a confounding issue to everyone? I don't claim to be experienced or a professional camera person but I understand enough to make the following assumption from this trailer and past footage:

-This is a factual and legitimate observation. The trailer clearly has the open shutter look and Michael Mann has used it on every single one of his HD shows (Collateral, Miami Vice, Robbery: Homicide Division and now Public Enemies).

-It is clear that he either likes the look personally and/or he finds the extra light it affords to be worth the trade off from the cinematic 180 degree 'normal' look. Everyone knows he is technically versed, hands on and in control of what he is doing. He also has the money and the crew to add more lights even if he tried it out once as an experiment.

-I feel that this outcry to defend Mann's choice to use the open shutter (1/24) look is being handled poorly. Michael Mann does know what he's doing but the real argument is whether or not we personally as up and coming filmmakers, or viewers, or critics personally like his decision. This is no different than disagreeing about his decision to cast a particular actor. We all know it's not due to a lack of technical knowledge. Mann is so hands on that he has had mixers set up at his film premieres in the past so that he can mix the film live for the audience. He's not going choose this look on accident and so what detractors have to live with (myself included) is that Mann is making the decision to use the open shutter consciously...

-...So this discussion should be about why he knowingly likes to use this look from time to time. I think the answers are in the Spinotti interview as others have pointed out. He's doing it because he wants it to have a 'happening right now/real/reality show' feeling. We should be arguing why we think this is or isn't a satisfying creative choice, not whether this look was understood by Michael Mann.

-I get frusterated when people defend the trailer but saying they don't see what we're talking about or by saying something to the effect of 'when you become successful then you can criticize.' That argument seems to confirm a lack of awareness about this particular technical aspect of Mann's films.
 
Jonathan Payne said:
Guys, guys, guys, why is this such a confounding issue to everyone? I don't claim to be experienced or a professional camera person but I understand enough to make the following assumption from this trailer and past footage:

-This is a factual and legitimate observation. The trailer clearly has the open shutter look and Michael Mann has used it on every single one of his HD shows (Collateral, Miami Vice, Robbery: Homicide Division and now Public Enemies).

-It is clear that he either likes the look personally and/or he finds the extra light it affords to be worth the trade off from the cinematic 180 degree 'normal' look. Everyone knows he is technically versed, hands on and in control of what he is doing. He also has the money and the crew to add more lights even if he tried it out once as an experiment.

-I feel that this outcry to defend Mann's choice to use the open shutter (1/24) look is being handled poorly. Michael Mann does know what he's doing but the real argument is whether or not we personally as up and coming filmmakers, or viewers, or critics personally like his decision. This is no different than disagreeing about his decision to cast a particular actor. We all know it's not due to a lack of technical knowledge. Mann is so hands on that he has had mixers set up at his film premieres in the past so that he can mix the film live for the audience. He's not going choose this look on accident and so what detractors have to live with (myself included) is that Mann is making the decision to use the open shutter consciously...

-...So this discussion should be about why he knowingly likes to use this look from time to time. I think the answers are in the Spinotti interview as others have pointed out. He's doing it because he wants it to have a 'happening right now/real/reality show' feeling. We should be arguing why we think this is or isn't a satisfying creative choice, not whether this look was understood by Michael Mann.

-I get frusterated when people defend the trailer but saying they don't see what we're talking about or by saying something to the effect of 'when you become successful then you can criticize.' That argument seems to confirm a lack of awareness about this particular technical aspect of Mann's films.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's your particular criticism that's the problem since you recognize that it's a stylistic choice made by technically competent people who are also artists. It's just that most of the critical posts don't recognize this -- they infer a lack of skill or competence or taste rather than a difference in opinion. They are making assumptions that the goal of using digital cameras is always to get as close to a film look as possible... and then judging movies as to whether they accomplish that goal or not.
 
He doesnt want it to look like film, for better or for worse. Thats really all there is to it.
 
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...
 
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 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...
 
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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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...
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top