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

Plundstr said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are many "poor" guys HERE that would think like you.

2/3 look is a big joke anyway and somebody wh think to use for theater release is just a MF!

BTW, also there are many other 2/3" camera available than Sony!!!

But that's a such BS story, because with R1 you could achieve almost all "look" you wanted and maybe

except with film acquisition (just a certain situations) and also in that case you would get even something beyond that...

here it's not story about "look", etc,... it's more about power and money to sell cameras...

hopefuly you would get it finally (one day) but anyway it would be too late for you... :Yawn::seeya::auto::smilielol5:
 
Hey Sanjin, have a look at this:

RED ONE 4K / Mar 20–22 1 $24,604,751 - 3,332 - $7,384 $24,604,751 1
SONY BAD F23 BAD 2/3 / Jul 3–5 3 $25,271,675 - 3,334 - $7,580 $40,141,080 1

I'll leave it to you to decipher what that means :)

Let me give you a hint:

THE CAMERA DOES NOT MATTER
 
I just watched the trailer and stopped it a few times in the middle. This is awful. The noise is just unreal and the sharpening looks terrible. Why would someone shoot an F23 anymore when there are so many other good options including Red and film? Sure the story matters but why shoot a major league star and a big budget with a 2/3" pee shooter? They should have set aside some of the budget for NR. I think this movie just made an F23 obsolete and the value of my R1 just went up.
 
This has nothing to do with the F23!

The F23 can produce beautiful results. This is Mann intentionally degrading the capabilities of his cameras. The F23 is a very capable and impressive camera. How on earth is it a "pea-shooter"? This is like a $200,000 camera.

Mann said he wanted 2/3 for added DOF. Don't blame the camera.
 
And the film is color graded by one of the finest graders out there!

In my opinion, whatever you guys seem to be critiquing, was all intentional. Taking into consideration the credit list of this film, I think they know very well what they were doing and what they were trying to achieve.
 
Stelios Koukouvitakis said:
Co-Producer Bryan Carroll on the Tech Behind Public Enemies
HD's Implications for the Camera team, the Art Department, and Post


http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/Co-Producer-Bryan-Carroll-on-the-Tech-Behind-Public-Enemies_11048.html
Click to expand...

Thanks Stelios,

that's exactly what I'm talking about here:

How "Viper Guy" became "Sony Boy">>>blah, blah, blah>>>

"A turning point in the career of Public Enemies producer Bryan Carroll came when he worked as a film and
visual-effects editor for James Cameron on Titanic. “That’s what sparked my interest into shooting movies
digitally from script to screen,” he said. When he met Michael Mann, the director was thinking of shooting
the night scenes in Ali digitally. “And that’s how I got involved with Michael, using what I had learned from
many years in the digital realm,” he said. “I brought that in and building a bullet proof system, knowing we
would end up on film.” He was first a co-producer on Robbery Homicide Division, the first hour-long drama
shot digitally, then began Collateral working with the Thomson Viper. “This was the pinnacle of how you could
really use HD in a feature film environment,” he said. “That was also the beginning of my relationship with Sony.

Then, Sony brought him the prototype of the Sony F23, which was 5 years in the making. “We [Mann and I] shot a Nike
commercial and Sony showed up with the prototype F23, so we gave them feedback and started working on using this for
a feature film,” Carroll said. “Choosing the right camera [for Public Enemies] always comes from the creative side.
If we were shooting in film, we’d always choose the right stock. We approached it the same way here, doing multiple tests.” ”


More>>>

Keep in mind that Soderbergh "left" Sony HDW-F900 because he "met somebody" (RED1), and now he lost one job from Sony (Moneyball).

Also don't forget that camera makers are in constant war and you as a user (any of those cameras) are part of that war.

All other stories about creative decisions to use a certain tool are pure stories just for you as a potential user.
 
Phil Jordan said:
I just watched the trailer and stopped it a few times in the middle. This is awful. The noise is just unreal and the sharpening looks terrible. ...
Click to expand...

Okay the trailer looks terrible on your computer screen.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
...

For example, that shot of Depp in the woods trying to reload as the G-man approaches in the background, both more or less almost in focus -- I found that shot to be both dramatically interesting and yet disturbing for its visual flaws. It conjured up an odd mood...
Click to expand...

This very much reminded me of the scene where Warren Beatty is being chased in the snow through the woods at the end "McCabe & Mrs. Miller."
 
beating a dead horse.

beating a dead horse.

can someone please tell me why they didn't fix the super obvious CA issues? how can so many things be completely intentional but one thing is left and not for artistic reasons I'm just saying that it calls into question the validity of the whole thing.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
There are many "poor" guys HERE that would think like you.

2/3 look is a big joke anyway and somebody wh think to use for theater release is just a MF!

BTW, also there are many other 2/3" camera available than Sony!!!

But that's a such BS story, because with R1 you could achieve almost all "look" you wanted and maybe

except with film acquisition (just a certain situations) and also in that case you would get even something beyond that...

here it's not story about "look", etc,... it's more about power and money to sell cameras...

hopefuly you would get it finally (one day) but anyway it would be too late for you... :Yawn::seeya::auto::smilielol5:
Click to expand...

Are you being serious...? Do you have some personal vendetta against Sony or what is it? 2/3" sensors are crap for moviemaking? Yes, try telling that to George Lucas, David Fincher and all the other who have used to Cinealta cameras to great effect. Being a RED user forum I can see why you think he should have chosen the RED but please dont call the F23 a bad camera.
 
I saw a clean film print of the movie this past weekend and thought it worked quite well. The extra depth of field of 2/3" was quite evident, but I liked the way that was used. Very similar to ultra depth of field compositions that still photographers are doing these days. The only scene I remember being obvious for blown highlights was the police station when Depp wandered throught the Dillinger task force room. There it seemed like an obvious creative choice. I have seen old black and white film noir use similar blown highlights for some scenes.
The producer's interview commented on the bullet proof reliability of the Sony cams under extreme conditions during the production, an area where RED could stand some improvements.
 
I saw this movie last week (not knowing it was shot digitally) and didn't care too much for the look. There were lots of beautiful shots, but I thought just as many horrific ones. I was especially disturbed by the purple fringing on high contrast edges; most noticeably seen on the interior automobile shots with the fringing at the edge of the windows. I also found the mixing of footage from different camera distracting, as the video in interior scenes seemed very flat and soft. This was only accentuated by the beautiful, sharp outdoor images.

While this might work for modern settings (Miami Vice, Collateral), I think it is a poor choice for a 1930's period film. Video artifacts, digital noise, chromatic aberration, etc are modern day elements, so it is natural to find them in films set in modern times. The problem is that they don't fit the 1930's period at all because these video elements did not exist back then. I know that Mann made a conscious artistic choice to introduce the modern video look into a period film (it wasn't laziness or incompetence), but I find it just as ill-fitting as it would have been to have a Ferrari Enzo as a getaway car in the movie.

So I have no problem with video looking like video, but I think that it has its place where it works and where it doesn't. In period films, I find it distracting and think Mann made a poor choice. Of course, he's the successful, professional one working in Hollywood and I'm the one wishing I was there, so he must be doing something right.:biggrin:
 
I agree wholeheartedly.

Kyle Wright said:
I saw this movie last week (not knowing it was shot digitally) and didn't care too much for the look. There were lots of beautiful shots, but I thought just as many horrific ones. I was especially disturbed by the purple fringing on high contrast edges; most noticeably seen on the interior automobile shots with the fringing at the edge of the windows. I also found the mixing of footage from different camera distracting, as the video in interior scenes seemed very flat and soft. This was only accentuated by the beautiful, sharp outdoor images.

While this might work for modern settings (Miami Vice, Collateral), I think it is a poor choice for a 1930's period film. Video artifacts, digital noise, chromatic aberration, etc are modern day elements, so it is natural to find them in films set in modern times. The problem is that they don't fit the 1930's period at all because these video elements did not exist back then. I know that Mann made a conscious artistic choice to introduce the modern video look into a period film (it wasn't laziness or incompetence), but I find it just as ill-fitting as it would have been to have a Ferrari Enzo as a getaway car in the movie.

So I have no problem with video looking like video, but I think that it has its place where it works and where it doesn't. In period films, I find it distracting and think Mann made a poor choice. Of course, he's the successful, professional one working in Hollywood and I'm the one wishing I was there, so he must be doing something right.:biggrin:
Click to expand...
 
Plundstr said:
Are you being serious...? Do you have some personal vendetta against Sony or what is it? 2/3" sensors are crap for moviemaking? Yes, try telling that to George Lucas, David Fincher and all the other who have used to Cinealta cameras to great effect. Being a RED user forum I can see why you think he should have chosen the RED but please dont call the F23 a bad camera.
Click to expand...

I didn't say directly that 2/3 cameras are BAD I said that if MM wanted to experiment with digital that R1 is one of the best choices because you could put so many lenses with a certain universal mount that you can't imagine.

I was more talking about Sony Boys connection and possible "deals" towards funding the movie... and after that comes the creative side...
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
I didn't say directly that 2/3 cameras are BAD I said that if MM wanted to experiment with digital that R1 is one of the best choices because you could put so many lenses with a certain universal mount that you can't imagine.

I was more talking about Sony Boys connection and possible "deals" towards funding the movie... and after that comes the creative side...
Click to expand...

Okey, yes I agree that RED would have worked well for him for most shots in this case but I can also see why he wanted to use the more "reliable" Cinealta series cameras. If someone asked me to shoot a documentary on the amazon jungle I would probably pick Sonys XDCAM HD format. Not because the image quality is better than RED (quite the opposite) but I know its as robust as I need it to be for such eviroments.

Of course some cottage in the woods set in 1930 isnt exactly the amazon jungle, but...:biggrin:
 
Interestingly enough for Sony.... I've already heard from some producers who are less experienced with digital cameras/formats - "What ever camera shot Public Enemies... I DON'T want to shoot on it!"
 
I loved Public Enemies; the story, the superb acting, costumes, production design, editing, etc.

I thought the cinematography was stunning, but the picture quality was just plain awful. Terrible. Limited dynamic range, distracting "video" looking clip in what few highlights there were.

I really don't understand it. Very talented picture makers working with a camera capable of making beautiful images.

Is this the way they wanted it to look? Surely there was no shortage of technical competence on such a project.

Tastes vary.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top