Public Enemies

Kyle Prohaska · March 16th, 2009, 08:42 AM

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

Nic MacDonald · March 16th, 2009, 11:49 AM

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.

Kyle Prohaska · March 16th, 2009, 07:23 PM

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

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

ZING!

William James Ryan · March 16th, 2009, 08:40 PM

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

Oleg Kalyan · March 17th, 2009, 02:16 AM

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.

Ian G. Thompson · March 17th, 2009, 05:54 AM

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.

Paul Miley · March 17th, 2009, 06:11 AM

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

Chad Terpstra · April 26th, 2009, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miley

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!

Dutch Rall · April 26th, 2009, 01:43 PM

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.

Luke Tingle · April 26th, 2009, 10:18 PM

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.

Brian Luce · April 27th, 2009, 10:22 PM

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

Gabe Spangler · July 6th, 2009, 01:51 AM

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.

Christopher Drews · July 6th, 2009, 02:09 AM

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

Tim Polster · July 6th, 2009, 11:21 PM

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.

Brian Drysdale · July 7th, 2009, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Drews

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.

March 16th, 2009, 08:42 AM	#1
Kyle Prohaska Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Ransomville NY Posts: 239	Public Enemies - F23 & EX1 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 __________________ Online Portfolio \| Feature Film on XHA1

March 16th, 2009, 07:23 PM	#3
Kyle Prohaska Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Ransomville NY Posts: 239	I read a comment from a guy, and I quote: "It looks like a really expensive History Channel re-enactment" ZING! __________________ Online Portfolio \| Feature Film on XHA1

April 26th, 2009, 01:43 PM	#9
Dutch Rall Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: LA, CA Posts: 50	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. __________________ http://www.dutchrall.com

July 6th, 2009, 02:09 AM	#13
Christopher Drews Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 628	Worst movie I've seen in a long time... 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

March 16th, 2009, 11:49 AM	#2
Nic MacDonald New Boot Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Essex, England Posts: 22	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.

March 16th, 2009, 08:40 PM	#4
William James Ryan Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 73	I dont know... consistent w/ Collateral & Miami Vice, this preview looked just like I thought it would when I saw it behind Watchmen.

March 17th, 2009, 02:16 AM	#5
Oleg Kalyan Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: MOSCOW Posts: 860	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.

March 17th, 2009, 05:54 AM	#6
Ian G. Thompson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Rockledge, Florida Posts: 351	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.

March 17th, 2009, 06:11 AM	#7
Paul Miley New Boot Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dorset UK Posts: 21	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

April 26th, 2009, 10:18 PM	#10
Luke Tingle Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 88	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.

April 27th, 2009, 10:22 PM	#11
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	Looks like first class filmmaking to me. Top to bottom no expense spared. This is really as good as things get. The gold standard.

July 6th, 2009, 01:51 AM	#12
Gabe Spangler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 69	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.

July 6th, 2009, 11:21 PM	#14
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	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.