Has anyone else seen this trailer recently? I think it looks (as in image) pretty crappy. Others have said the look doesn't bother them at all, but I just can't get around it. I loved the video look in Collateral from the Vipercam but watching this trailer really didn't do it for me.

Any comments?

Apple - Trailers - Public Enemies (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/publicenemies/)

You do really notice the format on this one, and any image - still or in motion - is partly what you bring to it. This looks like the kind of video footage you'd expect to see on TV, not a cinema screen. Which I guess is pretty snobby, but there you go.

I read a comment from a guy, and I quote:

"It looks like a really expensive History Channel re-enactment"

ZING!

I dont know... consistent w/ Collateral & Miami Vice, this preview looked just like I thought it would when I saw it behind Watchmen.

Оn cinematography site, it says, shot on F23, never heard about Ex1, looks like it though.
F23 should look better. 28 weeks looks better imo.

Heck....I think it looks great. There were some scenes that were sort of jarring with the wide depth of field....but that's because I was looking for it (this thread put it in my head already that this was video). But it looked very good to me.

But then....I think I have come to expect this type of look from Micharl Mann films.

Although I've become somewhat numb to trailers I watched this with interest first time - and subsequently forgot to analyse the image quality! Was this because I was drawn in to a movie based on a true story?

Maybe but forum members have reminded me from time to time that 'content is king.'

Cheers

Paul

Maybe but forum members have reminded me from time to time that 'content is king.'


Except on forums dedicated to technical discussion. Unless you're talking pixel content....

I think the look is awful and it makes me sad to see such excellent performances and "content" wasted with such a poor aesthetic choice. History channel indeed!

I would say that as far as the tech goes, it's pretty perfect. It looks not only like you're there in the story, but that there is more information (colorspace, resolution) in the image's field of view than what your brain could actually take in in real time.

And I think that's the problem.
It's like reading a reference manual about what happened. There is no room to re-imagine what's happening on a base, interior emotional level. It's all just there in front of you.

Some might prefer it that way and that's great. Just a matter of taste. I love many of Michael Mann's films and I'll be seeing this... but if the story is presented as "based on a true story" and is a fictional re-telling of what happened, I think it might have been better to use an aquisition format which is less "real" ala film or even 1440 or less HD res.

I think it looks great also. Yea, it doen't look like film, woop dee do. I can't imagine how sharp this film would look like on a digital projector.

Looks like first class filmmaking to me. Top to bottom no expense spared. This is really as good as things get. The gold standard.

I saw Public Enemies tonight and I have to say I was a little taken aback.

Firstly, the color correction was pretty bad. It goes from overly yellowish/orange to overly white. Some scenes the cars' headlights are a dull orange and other scenes they are blown out pure white. This is evident in other scenes, too. Looks like they rushed it.

Secondly, during the shootout scene at Little Bohemia, it looks like they used some varying frame rates, perhaps 30 fps or 60 fps, contributing to a very amateurish video look. That's just what it looks like. I can't confirm it frame rates, obviously.

Thirdly, there are some handheld clips that just plain look bad, like the camera operator was re-adjusting his position, or for some reason just couldn't keep steady. This goes beyond the shaky, handheld style - it becomes too apparent that a camera is being held.

Fourthly, the score is terrible. A few songs from the '20s and '30s mixed in with the typical, generic Hollywood crappy score. It was highly ineffective to the story. Someone, or some people, failed.

Fifthly, the movie just isn't that strong. The story is rushed and there is hardly any character development. I left the theater still wondering who these people were and what their real motivation and personalities were. Bad writing was the culprit. What else could it be?

Mann infuses his usual style, almost saving the film, but I can't rate it more than a 6.5 out of 10.

Sorry to all the Mann fanatics out there.

I was so disappointed with this - as Mann is a fine filmmaker usually.
I loved L.O.T.M., HEAT and Collateral.

Public Enemies has a look that isn't flattering. Documentary feeling.
The detail level was off the charts. One shot in particular, when Dillinger touches his girlfriends face- it was as if the wrinkles in his hand were the focal point.
Mann should have added a slight Gaussian blur to most of the film.
The nighttime footage unfortunately seemed like 30 FPS, maybe because the shutter speed was at 1/24th. And the speed changes, while good - didn't add any wow factor.

Agreed about the shifting hues and color tone. It was all over the place. Not sure what the sensor size is of the F23 but all the shots I remember were "deep focus". Not much in the way of controlling the viewers eye.

As for the story - It's about as "surface" as you can get. Don't expect to garner anything more than by typing "Dillinger" in Wikipedia.

-C

Well with glowing reviews I don't know how I can not see this movie!

I would like to see it just to check out the attempt at the "future of cinema production" - film is dead! etc...

And to see the train wreck of a big time hollywood movie as reported.

Maybe a matinee...

When I watched Slumdog it seemed areas of the movie were a bit softer and had strained highlights. One would assume these were the SI2K bits.

All of the tech and film still captures something that is untouchable.

Sort of like acoustic intruments vs electric. Both can make great music but in the right space the acoustic instruments can touch you so much more.

Agreed about the shifting hues and color tone. It was all over the place. Not sure what the sensor size is of the F23 but all the shots I remember were "deep focus". Not much in the way of controlling the viewers eye.

-C

The F23 is 2/3".

You don't need shallow focus alone to control where the viewer should look, quite a few 35mm films use f5.6, especially outdoors.

The problems with Public Enemies had little to do with camera technology. The Sony F23 seemed to perform just fine – on wides and on shallow DOF close-ups. The problem is more with the editing, score and the story itself. It just isn't that strong. Perhaps they will fix the color issues for the DVD release. One can only hope.

I sometimes wonder where Sony gets off charging $150K and $250K for the F23 and the F35, respectively. They don't deserve such high price tags. And cameras of similar specs and performance can be had in the $20K to $80K range. They probably could have shot the movie entirely on the EX1 and gotten nearly identical results.

I sometimes wonder where Sony gets off charging $150K and $250K for the F23 and the F35, respectively. They don't deserve such high price tags. And cameras of similar specs and performance can be had in the $20K to $80K range.

Amortized cost of Research and Development.

If it costs you $10 million dollars to design and build "a better mouse trap" and sell ONE, it's a 10 million dollar mousetrap. If you sell 10 million, it's a one dollar mousetrap.

The install base on specialized cameras like the F23 an F35 is quite low compared to say the EX1. And this is before considering the cost of components and assembly AND aftermarket support.

Amortized cost of Research and Development.

If it costs you $10 million dollars to design and build "a better mouse trap" and sell ONE, it's a 10 million dollar mousetrap. If you sell 10 million, it's a one dollar mousetrap.

The install base on specialized cameras like the F23 an F35 is quite low compared to say the EX1. And this is before considering the cost of components and assembly AND aftermarket support.

There has been discussion in another thread about the higher cost of the optical block used in F23.

The lower cost cameras tend to used IT recording media, rather than the expensive to produce high spec VTRs, although as HDCAM SR does replace HDCAM the increased production runs should reduce the unit costs.

The F23 currently has the best dynamic range of any digital camera, so the performance isn't really the same as the cheaper cameras. Going for those extra percentage points of performance always adds hugely to the costs of anything.

...

I sometimes wonder where Sony gets off charging $150K and $250K for the F23 and the F35, respectively. They don't deserve such high price tags. And cameras of similar specs and performance can be had in the $20K to $80K range. They probably could have shot the movie entirely on the EX1 and gotten nearly identical results.

I'd also be suspect of those prices. The highest-end digital cameras are rarely sold to the end user (Red being the exception). They are rented, and in the case of Panavision, further modified for professional use.

So I don't think Sony really expects a cinematographer to plop down a quarter million on an F35. And what rental houses really pay for these cameras, IHNI, but I imagine it's less than list.

Mann achieved better results with the Viper FilmStream-produced "Miami Vice."

Plus, several models of professional, high-end 2/3" cameras can be had in the $8K to $20 range, fully outfitted for about $50K.

Plus, there is always the Red option, for about $50K-$80K with all the bells and whistles.

Unless you really have a need for pure, uncompressed footage for extensive color correction, the F23 and F35 are severe overkill. Light sensitivity with a 1/2" camera or above is more than enough to shoot any-budget feature film. If you can't make a 1/2" or a 2/3" camera work for you, then you simply don't know what you are doing.

I would gander that the severe cost associated with Sony products is their cost to advertise and market. They are more aggressive in this area than their competitors, and their customers pay the price.

Sorry for the rant. But a simple, 35mm sensor digital camera shouldn't cost that much. It's just that no one has attempted to put out a serious, no-frills 35mm digital camera yet.

Here is what I want: A 35 mm sized image sensor (HD 1920 x 1080). Interchangeable lens setup. 24 frames per second progressive. Manual control of shutter speed and white balance. Dual XLR inputs. Tape or disc recording media (solid state is still stupid). About 10 or 12 bit compression (this is more than enough to serious color corrrection).

And that's all I want. I don't see why something like that, body only, should cost more than $5,000. But unfortunately it's still about 5-10 years away.

You don't need shallow focus alone to control where the viewer should look, quite a few 35mm films use f5.6, especially outdoors.

This is very true. I'm not sure where this whole shallow depth of field trend came from, but good storytelling is not and never will be dependent on it.

Here is what I want: A 35 mm sized image sensor (HD 1920 x 1080). Interchangeable lens setup. 24 frames per second progressive. Manual control of shutter speed and white balance. Dual XLR inputs. Tape or disc recording media (solid state is still stupid). About 10 or 12 bit compression (this is more than enough to serious color corrrection).

And that's all I want. I don't see why something like that, body only, should cost more than $5,000. But unfortunately it's still about 5-10 years away.

Uhh, you just described a Scarlet35, except that it will have more resolution but you don't have to use it. Body will be a bit more than that, but it's a small company with a LOT of R&D to recoup.

I am curious why you feel it needs to be tape or disc. I MUCH prefer solid state for tons of reasons, including cost, durability, size, etc.

A lot of people are debating over the use of video (elsewhere at least), as if a period movie needs to be shot with film, and well lit. It seems like common sense to me that a period movie should be under lit, just to be more realistic. But the use of new technology is no different than the concept behind "Chinatown". Back then it was a period film shot like a documentary ignoring any traditional approach. I see nothing wrong with this concept, I'm just not into his movies.

Perrone,

I still prefer tape or disc recording media. You can just pop in a new one and have the tape or disc for archive, instead of having to store everything on a hard drive. My experience with hard drive recorders is that they are a pain in the ass. Tape or disc has never given me a problem, and all my tapes sit on my shelf, not susceptible to hard drive failure.

As far as I know, no Red camera has sync sound, or recording to tape or disc (disc is preferred, like the Sonys).

So no, no camera like what I want exists.

Perrone,

I still prefer tape or disc recording media. You can just pop in a new one and have the tape or disc for archive, instead of having to store everything on a hard drive. My experience with hard drive recorders is that they are a pain in the ass. Tape or disc has never given me a problem, and all my tapes sit on my shelf, not susceptible to hard drive failure.

As far as I know, no Red camera has sync sound, or recording to tape or disc (disc is preferred, like the Sonys).

So no, no camera like what I want exists.


Gabe. when you say disc, are you meaning optical disc? When I said I prefer solid state, I didnt mean drives, I meant like Compact Flash or SDHC, which is what I record to. I archive to BluRay as I agree that Optical is the nice choice there. Tape is just too fragile to me. Humidity makes them sticky, high temps cause untold problems, magnetic fields cause dropout (which is a REAL problem given the number of TV monitors and other mag fields we work around), etc. Solid State media are impervious to this kind of thing.

As for the RED, you're behind the times. They've had sync sound for a while now. Nearly a year or so if I remember correctly. Four channels of it on the RED One. And they can record to Compact Flash which would be my preference. Recording 2k RAW for about the price of HDCamSR.

My Sony records to ExpressCard which I much prefer to the XDCamHD workflow. While there is some merit to recording directly to optical, I much prefer to reuse my recording media and write source, master, and other materials to optical for safe keeping. If I wanted to do that in a Disc Based workflow, I'd have 2 or more discs per project and I prefer NOT to do that.

Red One is $17,500 just for the brain.

Red One is $17,500 just for the brain.

Yes, that's true. However, the S35 Scarlet is due to be about half that.

You said you wanted:

1. 35mm sized image (yes)
2. Interchangable lens (yes)
3. 24p (yes)
4. Manual shutter and white balance (yes)
5. Dual XLR (yes)
6. Tape or disc recording (CF)
7. 10 or 12 bit compression (yes)
8. Body only (yes)
9. Price $5k ($7500)

The Scarlet hits nearly everything in your list, it costs a bit more, and delivery should be here MUCH sooner than 5 years. So there you go.

I'm no movie critic, but I do have a thing or two to say about the film...

I shoot better footage than what I paid $7.50 for with my HD100. No offense intended to Mr. Mann, I actually like most of his movies very much. But echoing what others have reported, Public Enemies was a disappointment. Not only was the color correction way off in parts, but the camera work was IMO awful. There were shots where the position of the camera made for a very unflattering image, and a different lens should have been used. There were zooms that looked stuttery, as if someone were zooming using multiple moves of their fingers. There were very few shots that were steady at all. I understand the whole handheld style, but I definitely think it was overdone in this film. It's kinda like listening to a Mariah Carey song: you're so busy listening to her constant trilling of notes that you get pulled away from the lyrics. That's why I don't listen to Mariah Carey.

The editing didn't help the camera work either. There were very quick shots of random people in random locations that had absolutely nothing to do with the story, and were very distracting. The nighttime shots would have been okay if there was some mix of steady camera work to help you re-establish who you were following and what they were doing. Also, there were times when the audio was just awkward and off. Some of that could probably be attributed to the very quick cuts in several scenes, but sometimes the audio levels would shift noticeably between cuts even in quieter scenes. I guess it could have been the speakers in the theater... [/rant]

Sounds good, Perrone. I gets that's the next step for me, if I ever have the need or a bunch of cash on my hands. If only I could win the lottery.

Sounds good, Perrone. I gets that's the next step for me, if I ever have the need or a bunch of cash on my hands. If only I could win the lottery.

Or, you could do what a lot of the Red One guys did to help pay for the camera... do as many paid shoots as you can, and rent the camera out to others as often as possible.

I just saw the trailer - on YouTube and on apple.com. I have to agree with the opinions of a couple of posters who say the colour grading looks a little off, and that the image looks more like video than film.

I can't help but wonder if we're seeing a situation of overstretch here - directors and producers being attracted to the relatively low cost and speedy workflow offered by HD, but forgetting the medium's limitations.

HD is great but precisely because it offers so much definition, it can be unforgiving of mistakes in lighting, editing, composition and editing.

They might have done better if they had transferred the resulting HD video to film, rather than going straight to digital. By comparison, Knowing, the movie that was shot using RED cameras looked great precisely because the resulting digital footage was printed on film.

Or it could be the case that I'm an old fart who is just too used to the look of film. :)

I think film is still far superior in it's dynamic range, specifically color and contrast, so I can see where lighting mistakes might have been laid bare by digital imaging sensors more than film. That doesn't excuse the sloppy camera work and poor editing. You can't tell me that using a wide angle lens on a close-up shot looks bad because it was shot in HD instead of on film. I think HD and film are both equally unforgiving of poor technical execution and rushed workflow. The 'look' of the movie doesn't bother me at all, but the way it looks does.

...Unless you really have a need for pure, uncompressed footage for extensive color correction, the F23 and F35 are severe overkill. Light sensitivity with a 1/2" camera or above is more than enough to shoot any-budget feature film. If you can't make a 1/2" or a 2/3" camera work for you, then you simply don't know what you are doing.

...

Here is what I want: A 35 mm sized image sensor (HD 1920 x 1080). Interchangeable lens setup. 24 frames per second progressive. Manual control of shutter speed and white balance. Dual XLR inputs. Tape or disc recording media (solid state is still stupid). About 10 or 12 bit compression (this is more than enough to serious color corrrection).

And that's all I want. I don't see why something like that, body only, should cost more than $5,000. But unfortunately it's still about 5-10 years away.

Why do you want a 35mm sensor when you believe 1/2" "is more than enough to shoot any-budget feature film?" You say the F23 is overkill, and yet you want a $5,000 camera with specs that EXCEED the F23?

"If you can't make a 1/2" or a 2/3" camera work for you, then you simply don't know what you are doing." Why not just take your own advice and buy or rent a Sony EX?

Peter,

The 1/2" or 2/3" is light sensitive enough for filmmaking. That is what I meant. But if you want shallow depth of field like a film camera, you need a 35mm sensor. 1/2" or 2/3" is serviceable, but 35mm is the ideal. That being said, I use a 1/3" inch sensor camera. Now, I could get a 35mm adapter (lenses, rails, etc.) for about $3,000, but I have worked with a few and I found them to be unreliable, goofy and give poor results. They haven't perfected those things yet.

But at the current moment, I don't have the need for anything more than my 1/3" HDV camera.

Gabe,

I think then you see that expecting a professional production to use a an off the rack 1/2" camera is pretty unrealistic (1/3 and 1/2" chips have been used, but they are clearly the exception not the rule). And in PE there were more than a few shallow focus and rack of focus shots that 1/2" could not have done.

You also have to look at the extreme rigors a production puts a camera through, all while million dollar talent stand around and the clock ticks on a union cast and crew. A professional camera is made to withstand stresses that consumer camera isn't expected to aptly deal with.

But it's not just capturing the image, there is recording at such a high bandwidth. The HDCAM-SR deck alone is worth many times more than the five grand you suppose the whole kit should cost.

Cameras like the F23 are so high in cost b/c not a lot are made. Conversely, DVD players are fifty bucks b/c millions are sold. F35's cost a quarter million bucks b/c a few thousand will be sold during the entire lifetime of the camera.

Exactly, Peter. I'm not disputing any of that. But the fact still remains that a barebones camera as I describe at $5K is still a ways off, perhaps will never happen, because the trend is to pack cameras full of options instead of trim the fat. Which is why people are buying cheap HDV cameras and attaching DOF adapters to the front of them. They want HD resolution, manual control, 24p, 35mm depth of field and nothing else. Solid state is fine, but tape or disc works just as well. But no manufacturer has answered the call yet, except for Red, but they are still trying to be chock full of options as well (multiple frame rates, multiple resolutions, blah blah blah...).

I think a camera as I describe should be available in the future. It certainly isn't right now. The indie filmmaker scene is screaming for it. I guess Red probably will take over. No one else seems to be making an attempt.

But the fact still remains that a barebones camera as I describe at $5K is still a ways off,

And Gabe, from what I've seen on these forums, even if your $5k camera comes along, SOMEONE (or MANY "someones") will complain that it is TOO EXPENSIVE because they can go and buy a single 1/8" chip camera stamp that doesn't record audio as a grey market import and buy a second system audio kit, homemade "Steadi" stabilizer and 35mm adaptor for less.

There will always be those people.

I don't think you can blame the F23 for the look of the film, I've seen plenty of footage from the camera before that looked beautiful and filmic. It looks to me like creative decisions like opting for a 360 degree shutter and upping the gain rather than using additional lighting, are the reasons for the "cheap" video look.

There's also a serious matter of context, in a film like Collateral (with a gritty, contemporary, inner-city setting) digital artifacts don't do anything to detract from story (because you accept "digital" as contemporary technology, it's not inappropriate for a modern story), however with a period piece - any hint of modern, digital artifacts in the imagery sticks out like a sore thumb (they shouldn't exist within the 1920s world we're seeing on screen, so they become very obvious).

I think the matter is very simple. You have a director and a DP who have tons of talent. They *chose* a look for the film, rented gear to give them the look THEY WANTED, and shot the film.

I do not believe for ONE SECOND that the director and DP were unaware of the color corrections, detail levels, or anything else. Just because some may not like the look they chose doesn't mean they made a mistake in their process. And just because PE looks like video, doesn't mean the F23 is incapable of delivering very filmic images. Countless productions prove the exact opposite.

i believe all the intentional stuff that they did to in my opinion ruin the image but as I said on Reduser. No one EVER tries to have such rampant Chromatic Aberration in their shots. And it is rampant.

just to let everyone know why collateral and public enemies looks like the way they do, and why you think it looks crappy is a fault that is in the process of shooting. There is this 24p ghosting thats going on. It was throughout collateral and it seems the same here in public...

It happens when you shoot at either 23.98 and then drop into a 24p film timeline, or take a 24p and drop it into a 23.98 timeline. The slight difference adds this ghosting effect that in my opinion screams horrible video look. I did this by accident once, I had shot 23.98 HD and I had my timeline setup for a true 24p.. when I rendered the output for an actual 24p NOT 23.98, I got this collateral ghosting that looked horrible, once I noticed my mistake I quickly changed my output settings to the same as the video, and boom ghosting gone and it looked perfect.

I dont know if its the Editor that they are using that keeps doing this "wrong" setup, if they are actually doing this as their own look, but it looks horrible and cheap. If it actually is by mistake that is a huge and horrible mistake done 2 times already in these films. The motion looks horrible and reads completely as a video transfer. There are plenty of films shot in 23.98 HD, 2k, and then transferred to film, and is perfectly fine with no ghosting.

I say its a bad move in the post production settings. I'm sure I'd like the movie, but the visuals will kill me while watching it, being a DP for features myself, I would never want to see this happen in my post work-flow.