Public Enemies

[Matt]

I have yet to see the film, so can't add my own opinion. But this line you have said so many times before. You always seem to 'know' people that have an opinion that agrees with yours, yet no evidence to back it up.

Do I now? Sorry for not meeting your high standards of investigative references and appendices. When I say "know people", it's because, I KNOW people and have had a discussion with them about whatever it is we're discussing.

In this case, I did not use the word "know". I said "encountered". A wildly different word. Where have I had this discussion about the film? With friends and people who are helping me on my film. People interested only in an entertaining film, and professional / semi-professional people who actually know WTF they're talking about.

Do I really need to quote precisly, "Yeah, Big Al at the pub said...." to validate myself? You want a sworn statement? Maybe I should record all my conversations just in case you want "evidence".

Seriously, what a stupid thing to say - I need no evidence to back up conversations I've had with people, and nor do I have to supply any to appease you. If you don't agree with my opinion, fine, but do not question my integrity.

I have a lot of interest in the opinion of this film with the professional cinematographers out there. Being a film maker myself, I do speak with others about these issues. HD is the buy-in for a lot of the indie guys, and it's important how HD evolves. So speaking with similarly minded people, I have not ENCOUNTERED anyone with anything good to say. Other than Mike here. And apparently you, who hasn't seen the film but wants to "bet" you won't see any motion problems - yeah, ok, open mind and all that

Want a more professional opinion than mine? Try maybe Red User, where they're discussing the issues and how they were caused, rather than blindly defending a film they've not seen. A new level of fanboyism maybe?

Don't pay Empire any attention, in this case, I think they're wrong - good film, but the HD kicks you in the face. Maybe if you saw it first you'd understand where this argument comes from.

Then you go on and quote the film makers who are justifying their choice of HD formats - well of course they're not going to turn round and say, "We ****ed up!". Think about it - you're arguing about something you've not seen, using as your own "evidence" something you've copied and pasted from an interview. That's not the basis for an opinion.

And you quite easily ignore a major point I made; that the F23 footage looks mostly fine, it's the EX1 footage that looks poor. Why does some of the F23 footage also look bad? I think it's because Mann wanted natural light so used a 270 or 360 shutter to get more light in.

It's nothing to do with "a hand held look". It's the motion, either of the camera or people in front of the camera. The EX1 looks like HD camcorder footage.

If you're going to call me out on something, at least make it over a film you've actually SEEN! And it would be handy if you understood the issues, in this case motion in films a bit more as well. There's a world of difference between photography and cinematography.

As should be clear by now, I'm looking in to the RED camera, hopefully for a shoot next year. You use Che as an example - shot with a couple of REDs.

I don't buy into the argument HD isn't meant to look like film. The end aim is to get an HD camera that shoots footage that looks the same as film. It's a way off - HD has about half the dynamic range of film for example. Films look like Films, we've all grown up accustomed to a certain look; I'd argue this look has everything to do with how film is moved through the camera, exposed, and projected back, it's not all about resolution. 2k resolution is fine really. Lighting helps, we accept film with a hyper-reality look due to the lighting. It adds depth to the scene. Something PE, despite the deep focus, lacks.

24fps is one of the things we're used to, 180 degree shutter is another; they go hand in hand. You can do these with HD cameras, Mann choose a 270, sometimes a 360 shutter - this is a "smooth" motion look we associate with camcorders.

Like it or not, many people see it and subconsciously think it looks "cheap".

[dvdmike]

Your points are all valid, but call me when you make films that would stand up to any Mann film on any format.
Saying what he wants to do is wrong is BS, he wants the video look and gets great results with it.
And since Dante Spinotti is highly respected and highly awarded I say he knows what he is doing

[Matt]

LOL. By your argument, no-one on this forum can criticise a film unless they're making films that well themselves. Or games. Which is a bit ridiculous is it not?

We're all entitled to our opinion. Mann can do whatever he wants, and I can feel anyway I like about his choices. That's not bull****, that's a difference of opinion.

Spinotti did what was asked off Mann. He got the results Mann wanted. After that, it's a matter of opinion - is the look good, or is it not. I say, "Not". They may know what they're doing, but that's not to say what they're doing is the best thing for the film. If this was shot like Heat, for example, I think it would look much better, and make more money - I firmly believe the "look" is that bad it will put people off the film.

But then people all have different opinions, and yours is no less valid mine. I simply pointed out you are the only person I've seen applauding the "look" of the film.

[dvdmike]

Your saying the decesions a lauded director made are wrong. not, not to your taste

[EvilBoris]

It's nothing to do with "a hand held look". It's the motion, either of the camera or people in front of the camera. The EX1 looks like HD camcorder footage.

24fps is one of the things we're used to, 180 degree shutter is another; they go hand in hand. You can do these with HD cameras, Mann choose a 270, sometimes a 360 shutter - this is a "smooth" motion look we associate with camcorders.

Like it or not, many people see it and subconsciously think it looks "cheap".

That sounds very annoying, like the horrible weird cheapo kiddy Doctor Who look or like when you see TV sets with bad motion interpolation '100hz' that makes an episode of lost look like a holiday program,

[Matt]

Some of the motion shots do literally look like a camcorder job - it may be Depp in front of the camera, he may be in snazzy clothing with the era perfectly recreated behind him, but it could pass for a bad TV show at times. Actually, I'd say at times (and this are usually inserts, not long shots) it's like those Shot On Set documentaries you get in the DVD extras that were filmed by a guy with a camcorder

Despite all that, I liked the film. Those shots did take me out of the film though.

Even the 16mm sections of Blair Witch looked more like "cinema"

[Matt]

Your saying the decesions a lauded director made are wrong. not, not to your taste

Am I? OK yes, I think he made a mistake shooting it that way. But it was his decision to make.

Being "lauded" has no bearing on it. Regardless of how highly regarded a person is, they can still **** up. He tried something, imo it didn't work. As I say, with the exception of yourself (and apparently Empire), I have yet to see anyone else praise the decisions he took.

[dvdmike]

He has been shooting digitally since Ali, so if he thinks it messed things up the first time, in the intervening years he might had stopped, not ramped things up

[Matt]

He's not using the same camera or the same techniques in each film.

Think I'll give up this debate

[averybluemonkey]

Tried to watch this at the local cinema and could only stand the first ten minutes. It was all blurry like the projector was out of focus or the film damaged. The guy there tried to fob us off saying it was supposed to look like that to make it appear old. Gave my girlfriend a migraine so we had to leave. I'm assuming he was talking out his backside, is that the case?

[Matt]

It does look "blurry" in some shots, but not as bad as that!

[dvdmike]

It was sharp and focused when I saw it

[abigsmurf]

I have to admit, the first 10-15 minutes did give me a bit of a headache. He does tone down the camera movement a bit after that though.

There was a thing on Mark Kermode's podcast (strongly recommend it, his Transformers 2 rant is brilliant) where they briefly talked about the digital cameras not being as good as film for fast panning. It might be that the shaky cam was painful here because the fast panning didn't make it look natural and the brain doesn't deal with it as well.

I am by no means a videophile (that the term?) though.

[Malc]

I apologise Chain for my rant a few days ago. It's just hard when I read such positive reviews of a film I genuinely can't wait to see, only to have it hammered down when I come on to here. Rllmuk is even worse for that kind of thing though.

Like I said first off, I wasn't putting my own opinion over, so I wasn't making myself seem like a crazed hardcore fanboy of Michael Mann. I just wanted to show you others peoples opinions, those from two well regarded film magazines praising his camera work.

When I see it next week I will give my own opinion. Which will more than likely agree with you in the end.

[averybluemonkey]

Cheers for the help.

I have to admit, the first 10-15 minutes did give me a bit of a headache. He does tone down the camera movement a bit after that though.

There was a thing on Mark Kermode's podcast (strongly recommend it, his Transformers 2 rant is brilliant) where they briefly talked about the digital cameras not being as good as film for fast panning. It might be that the shaky cam was painful here because the fast panning didn't make it look natural and the brain doesn't deal with it as well.

I am by no means a videophile (that the term?) though.

This was in still shots, that's the problem. The blacks were also out of whack too, so some shadows were appearing purple and green like on old TVs. Time to try a different cinema I think.