Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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

Thats a shame, Sanjin. Having had a quick look at Collateral again, it looks like a lot of the night exteriors on that were shot with a 360 shutter speed. I would say that is a good looking film with a great story. It is all about the storytelling, it is not about the camera format.... Sony, Red, Panasonic, Arri, Aaton, Panavision, whatever..... good looking film with a pile of steaming turd for a story is still going to be a pile of steaming turd.
 
I like it when a work of cinematography can stir people's passions and cause a ruckus now and then. It's good to have conventional aesthetic notions challenged, if only to be reaffirmed. Or altered ultimately.

I love a true work of beauty too, something like the photography of "Memoirs of a Geisha" for example, but most of all, I like diversity. We don't need a hundred movies a year shot in a Michael Bay style (and I'm someone who likes the lighting in his movies). On the other hand, we don't need a hundred of anything the same way.

It's a little like cuisine -- someone can say "burnt garlic is always a bad idea because it is bitter, etc." and then find a dish from another culture that uses burnt garlic. The Japanese have some food items that have no real taste, they are just eaten for the texture.

It's important to question certain cherished notions in art, to see if they really are still relevant or have fallen into the category of a cliche.

I remember these same arguments last year over "Slumdog Millionaire" and the notion that it didn't have a high enough technical quality to deserve an award for its cinematography.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
T
Also it's not surprise at all that there are many conformists on this forum talking about "artistic decisions" of Mann and Spinotti to choose Sony cameras in PE
Click to expand...

There are more RED cameras out there being used than Sony F23's, but that majority are anti-conformists and the minority are comformists??? So by this logic, you don't want RED to succeed because that would make everyone a conformist, everyone following each other.

Does the look of "Public Enemies" strike anyone as the product of conformity? The photography created by conformists would supposedly conform to conventional notions of what a period movie should look like.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
There are more RED cameras out there being used than Sony F23's, but that majority are anti-conformists and the minority are comformists??? So by this logic, you don't want RED to succeed because that would make everyone a conformist, everyone following each other.

Does the look of "Public Enemies" strike anyone as the product of conformity? The photography created by conformists would supposedly conform to conventional notions of what a period movie should look like.
Click to expand...

David,

as I wrote before I liked look of PE that I've got watching HD international trailer from Apple site.

Also I like MM movies and as I showed here at the forum I have his best movies in my collection.

MM is one of the most important H directors that recently shoot digital.

Then I asked myself why he didn't choose RED1 (!?).

After that I tried to get an answer...
 
Sanjin,

Maybe he has tested the Red and just doesn't like it. Director of the low budget feature film I recently shot was really annoyed and frustrated with the fact that the Red would crash, and that take would be lost. That doesn't happen when shooting with tape based hi def systems that MM uses. Happened to us at least 2 times each week of shooting. We were shooting long, hand held takes, and if you ever get a chance to direct/shoot anything more than just "quick and dirty lens tests" and actually work with actors, you will see how frustrating that quickly gets. He thinks that the Red is work in progress. Maybe MM thinks the same....

But there is one thing for certain, a director like MM, who most would put on the list of directors who are "film artists", will choose the camera he wants to work with for his own reasons. To suggest that he was forced by sony is just silly. End of story.
 
Steve G said:
To suggest that he was forced by sony is just silly. End of story.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that he was "forced" by Sony or..., I suggested to think about in direction that it "looked" more like a "deal"...

...something like: "I'll choose your equipment and then you'll give me something in exchange... to say as simply as possible...

then we make a story about our artistic decisions..."

... it just easy and very transparent if you ever been once "inside" of that sort of decision making...

at the PE case it was more budget thing about lighting in the case that MM decided to shoot on film...

... and then they MM+DS reached "certain guys", talk to them, got answers and then both made a deal...

... nothing special in that at all... same as it ever was... (Talking Heads)...

... it's not sort of conspiracy in military way, it's more in ordinary business way of doing things...
 
In that trailer, the muliticam type of bloking is awfull, the color correction/look is boring and the editing is made like a for a TV serie.

All that talent ($$$) for this result?

Good that there are other movies to be seen!

Pat.
 
Public Enemies is not going to be box office at its opening week.

Estimates box office mojo results are:

Wednesday, 1st opening day
$8,165,025

-- / $2,460
$8,165,025 / 1

Thursday, 2nd opening day
$6,675,000

-18.2% / $2,011
$14,840,000 / 2

After opening day the movie income is already climbing down.

Maybe it is connected with all that "bad movie look" that the most of people are talking about here.

It draws a conclusion that MM and DS "met wrong guys" who provide them technology to shoot that movie.

Maybe next time "duo" MM+DS should try to reach some of RED guys to make its new project that could look in theaters and at box office much better.

The PE budget was about 100 000 000 USD.

Just count the movie is already running for its money and in that case is a long way to get money back even with international and DVD sales.

But who knows maybe Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Marion Cotillard would help a little bit but who knows...???!!!
 
By reading the article I understood the problem...

If he wanted a S16 depth of field, the 2/3 is a good choice.

Its true that in S35 you need a lot more light to stop down and get the same depth of field...

As for sharp images and shadow details goes, yes with good camera like F23 or others (better with Viper, I thing, in CinemaScope mode) you can get it...

But you never shoot with totally open shutter or in REC709 or with detail cranked on in the camera...

If the aim was big DoF and sharpness...

Then he could do S-log recording use an onset LUT... get all the image information... go to the DI do whatever is right for his aims add by software detail, with no stupid video DSP edgy artifacts... and have a super clean beautiful image, perfect skin tones, sharp as hell, with DoF of 50 meters everywhere and shoot with available light...

For me, is bad consulting from the DIT of the movie... or digital ignorance...

So this wasn't art... it was an unfortunate mistake...
 
Sanjin, you should write a script -- a thriller called "Sony Boys" about a famed director who must fight to save his own film from the treacherous "Sony Boys" trying to destroy it with "amazing" cameras. :)
 
Loving this thread, guys...

I contributed a few preliminary thoughts based on the trailer, back before the film was released. Some may consider me a conventionalist based on those thoughts/opinions based on the aesthetics I saw in the trailer. Going to see the movie very soon, for a number of reasons, not just to see how it holds up in the theater. Michael Mann has long been one of my favorite directors...love his visual style (well, almost always...certainly with earlier films, particularly Heat and The Insider). At this point, I'm really interested to see what he's done with a story like this, and whether those choices work (IMO) for the benefit of the story.

One thought, which may be a bit premature since I haven't seen it yet, but something I'll try to keep in mind for that time and down the road...just wondering what PE will do for me upon the first viewing, and what I'll think of it in years to come. Sure, many will think the look is bad for this reason or that, and that may come to affect how well they receive the story...just wondering how I'll feel about it after the storytelling styles and aesthetics of filmmaking continue to change and evolve over the years.

Respectfully,
Clint

PS: Sanjin...you're missing Last of the Mohicans! Don't have access to a Region 2/pal dvd, otherwise would send a copy along for your birthday.
 
Tom said:
Sanjin, you should write a script -- a thriller called "Sony Boys" about a famed director who must fight to save his own film from the treacherous "Sony Boys" trying to destroy it with "amazing" cameras. :)
Click to expand...

Tom,

you are right.

That story would based on "DEATH OF VIDEO LOOK" to the mainstream world cinemas because people

would not go to theater to watch any bloody derivate of TV technology because of that they are daily exposed with that mostly in their REAL lives

from their living rooms to cafes, bar drinking, dancing, shopping, eating, fitness, transport, etc,... diverse display panel TV LCD

rooms and public places...

Now I'll ask more people to join me with that:smilielol5: brilliant idea...:emote_head_explode:

LET US GO BACK TO MAGIC OF THEATER ROOM EVEN WITH A "FAKE 3D" BUT I PREFER MORE AN OLD 2D 24FPS A BIT GRAINY LOOK & FEEL...

AND ALL DIGITAL ACQUISITION WITH "CHEAP" RED1 4K/5K/6K/8K (with future sensor updates) CAMERA THAT INCLUDES UNIVERSAL MOUNT THAT I HAVE GOT!!!

IT'S JUST A DREAM....OR A FUTURE...

GO BACK TO THE FOUNDATION CINEMA OR MAGIC OF MOVING IMAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Saw the movie

Saw the movie

Verdict: UGLY. It was so distractingly ugly, even my friend thought it was weird. He is not in the film biz. It looked like those "motion flow" TVA that no one asked for that instead of just dividing 120hz into 24, recreate an extra 96 frames. It is ugly. Ugly. Ugly. And use a TRIPOD! I have zero talent compared to these guys, but what's the use if they make pictures like this. And I was so looking forward to this film.
 
Saw the film for a matinee yesterday with digital projection. I thought the movie was really pretty good although it was incredibly similar in terms of story to Heat. My only gripe with the cinematography is that I don't think the ex-1 footage cut in quite as nice as the director and cinematographer would have you believe. I also didn't think they would shoot wide open as much as they did but after about ten minutes you kind of forget about that. Good movie that deserves a good audience.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
MM is one of the most important H directors that recently shoot digital.

Then I asked myself why he didn't choose RED1 (!?).

After that I tried to get an answer...
Click to expand...

Well for one thing they wanted a camera with a 2/3" sensor, and its apparent that they wanted it to look like video and not like 35mm film.

And the F23 is not a bad camera by any means so asking why a director would use it is... well kind of strange actually.
 
my little rant.

my little rant.

I was very distracted and went in very much wanting to like it. I think it was enough to be noticeable but not enough to be stylish in most places. to me it should've been more marked like in a variety of other films like natural born killers to be more than just a distraction. Also, it makes me think that more sharpness is a bad thing in many ways for the future of cinema. More resolution can be good but the sharpness was unfailingly distracting for my 20/15 eyes. I'm not sure if I always want to see every pore on Johnny Depp's face. on a side note I didn't like a lot of the framing but that's up to them and is completely format agnostic.

THE ONE THING I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN ARGUE IS THIS. There were more Chromatic Aberration issues in this movie than any movie I have ever seen in a theater. Can anyone explain to me in any way whatsoever how huge purple and green bars on the screen are conducive to 'hyper reality', 'engrossing storytelling', 'the feeling of being there' or whatever other term might be applied to the visual language of this film. CA or fringing or whatever you can call it has NEVER been heralded or applauded in any circle anywhere and it was rampant on this film. PLEASE argue that one into a stylistic choice debate. I wanted to say, 'Hey Michael give me a day in after effects and I will fix it for the entire movie. Just a few hours and I will at least be happier next time I have to talk about this movie.'

and when the director and dp try to convince me that the different cameras cut together 'very very well' I just want to laugh. were they watching the final cut of the movie on a laptop in a jeep in broad daylight while drunk. Say they don't match and I would be much happier. Say they were stylistic choices but don't lie to me because you and I both know that the differing formats were INSTANTLY noticeable in most occasions. nice try though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top