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 :)

Mann's Public Enemies

Almost completely Sony F23....

Seeing the trailer a lot of it does feel alittle videoish.

The lighting and DP, I think did a great job, everything looks natrual.

I would compare this film to Knowing to see how the cameras can differ from each other.
 
It was shot F23 some EX1 as well as a few clips on 35mm. It was at 24p for the most part; however there were times at 30 and 60. We used Ziess Digi Primes for lenses.
 
Personally I think it lends to the style. It looks like a Noir/Gangster that they are trying to make seem more real and like it's happening now... which I think it did.

-Josh
 
It will be interesting to see both the Red and the F23 projected this year
 
looks really bad (not story.. just the look)

its all over the place.. i feel like im watching 3 different types of cameras/lenses.. different project rates.. and all kinds of grading issues...
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
looks really bad (not story.. just the look)

its all over the place.. i feel like im watching 3 different types of cameras/lenses.. different project rates.. and all kinds of grading issues...
Click to expand...

agreed, I saw the trailer today in front of Watchmen, and it was almost entirely 360deg shutter... eww...
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
looks really bad (not story.. just the look)

its all over the place.. i feel like im watching 3 different types of cameras/lenses.. different project rates.. and all kinds of grading issues...
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's as if they used several completely different styles/systems tuned for each segment of the story. One for the love story segment, another for the action, etc. But funny thing is... it'll still make more money than any one of us will probably see in our lifetime. :(

-Josh
 
Just saw the trailer on a very large screen at an AMC. To my surprise, it looked pretty damn good. Some sequences looked totally filmic and others do have a video quality.

But I must say, it looked many, many times better than what I viewed on line. I think part of it has to do with the magic of sitting in a darkened theater with that big, beautiful screen.

If the trailer is any indication, this movie is going to work with the tools Mann chose to make it with. I could also hear a positive buzz in reaction to the trailer ripple through the theater.

Would Mann's choice have been mine? Probably not. But damn, the trailer -- projected on a big screen -- was plenty compelling. It did its job. It made me want to see this movie.
Joel J. Feigenbaum
 
Woops... didn't see the other threads before posting.

Despite what we might think of the look (which I personally think is crap), it's interesting to see barriers broken within the conventional Hollywood system. As many have pointed out, we might be conditioned by the creamy 24fps/35 DOF-look which is why some of us react negatively to the moving images. If a feature of this scope is backed by the established studios, who knows where it might go from here.


Adrian T. said:
There's already two threads running about this... :meh:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27146
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27133
Click to expand...
 
f5films said:
Just saw the trailer on a very large screen at an AMC. To my surprise, it looked pretty damn good. Some sequences looked totally filmic and others do have a video quality.

But I must say, it looked many, many times better than what I viewed on line. I think part of it has to do with the magic of sitting in a darkened theater with that big, beautiful screen.

If the trailer is any indication, this movie is going to work with the tools Mann chose to make it with. I could also hear a positive buzz in reaction to the trailer ripple through the theater.

Would Mann's choice have been mine? Probably not. But damn, the trailer -- projected on a big screen -- was plenty compelling. It did its job. It made me want to see this movie.
Joel J. Feigenbaum
Click to expand...

Films shot digitally always look pretty good on the big screen, at least when it's a film print anyway.

But on the small screen it always seems to look like a medium budget TV show somehow.

Like star wars attack of the clones, on the big screen its a movie, on the small screen it looks like any other sci fi show.
 
Michael Mann could make any digital camera look terrible. Don't judge the F23 based on this film. Benjamin button apparently used it extensively with the Viper. That's a better example of someone who knows how to use a digital camera.
 
1080/24p in CineAlta, perhaps he's still using the VIPER filmstream cam, and it's really obvious that he's constantly using a 1/24 shutter speed.
 
Julio Quintana said:
Michael Mann could make any digital camera look terrible. Don't judge the F23 based on this film. Benjamin button apparently used it extensively with the Viper. That's a better example of someone who knows how to use a digital camera.
Click to expand...

I think it's more or less than Mann has a distinct style and is shooting for a very specific aesthetic. If you go back and watch his older films, you'll notice many sequences shot in similar manners to his newer digital works. Heck, he was even able to pull off very similar depths of field and close wide angles constantly in The Insider, and it worked very well.

I will admit that I was certainly underwhelmed by the trailer, but I have a hunch that some of the shots are a little unfinished and that the film will have more of an impact when seen. Or so I hope.
 
Jon Coy said:
I think it's more or less than Mann has a distinct style and is shooting for a very specific aesthetic. If you go back and watch his older films, you'll notice many sequences shot in similar manners to his newer digital works. Heck, he was even able to pull off very similar depths of field and close wide angles constantly in The Insider, and it worked very well.

I will admit that I was certainly underwhelmed by the trailer, but I have a hunch that some of the shots are a little unfinished and that the film will have more of an impact when seen. Or so I hope.
Click to expand...

the reaction to Michael Mann's digital stuff is just how many people have been conditioned to dislike very sharp contrast, video noise, and the gamma curves as portrayed by those.

Personally, I thought Miami Vice was the most gorgeous movie I saw the year it came out, because it really used that "videoness", lingering shots, to actively create a video aesthetic that is vastly different. I think Public Enemies will be on that vibe.

It's like saying Acryllic looks like shit, and only oil paintings look good. You can prefer one or the other, but Michael Mann is the only major director to really use the viper, the f900 etc, and create a style all their own with them.
 
I think Manns new visual style looks terrible. There is nothing more unrealistic looking than video-ish motion. The only realistic thing about it is that we associate it with documentaries....and since they are about real subjects, the "documentary look" has somehow over time been deemed realistic and life-like.
 
Armagnac said:
the reaction to Michael Mann's digital stuff is just how many people have been conditioned to dislike very sharp contrast, video noise, and the gamma curves as portrayed by those.

Personally, I thought Miami Vice was the most gorgeous movie I saw the year it came out, because it really used that "videoness", lingering shots, to actively create a video aesthetic that is vastly different. I think Public Enemies will be on that vibe.

It's like saying Acryllic looks like shit, and only oil paintings look good. You can prefer one or the other, but Michael Mann is the only major director to really use the viper, the f900 etc, and create a style all their own with them.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is reacting to "sharp contrast". Sin City is very high contrast and nobody complains about that. What most people hate is video blur that is created by using a 360 degree shutter.
 
The ultra wide closeups with the distant looking backgrounds, barrel distortion, and immense depth of field are what detract from the "fimlic" look for me. That sort of distorted wide look is only possible with smaller sensors using ultra wide short focal lengths.
But really, what is the "film" look anyways? Film is looking more digital, digital is looking more filmic. And this is somewhere in the middle. I would have prefered this shot more traditionally like Road to Perdition or something, but it IS a bank robbery movie and the video like, blurry, fast paced non orthadox may end up suiting the story. When visuals DETRACT from my emmersion in the story though, I feel detached. Hopefully that's not the case here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top