Jump to content

Public Enemies


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
And this makes them worse than the people, even on this forum, who think shooting film will somehow bring back their long-lost childhoods how?

As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about.

How many people got to shoot film in their childhoods?

 

Are you going through male menopause or something?

Or are you so sour because Film Loader is about the only Cinematography-related profession that has no equivalent in the digital world....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know when you see the "making of" of a big movie, and see behind the scenes footage of an action scene, and it looks really fake and shitty from the video cameras, but then when you see it from the film camera perspective, and the same thing looks freakin' awesome?

 

For example:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSRqH9S2dwM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ueCSKlA420...feature=related

 

Public enemies looks like they used the fake and shitty behind the scenes video footage for the actual movie...

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going through male menopause or something?

Or are you so sour because Film Loader is about the only Cinematography-related profession that has no equivalent in the digital world....

 

Nice! Do you go right for the balls in real fights too, or just on the internet?

 

 

There are a lot of good reasons for shooting film. Then there are the reasons you seem to give, mainly "This is the way we have always done things." NOT a good reason.

 

Just FYI, since you are probably a computer programmer or some other worthless techie profession at your 9-5, DIT is practically the same thing as a film loader, or data wrangler, or hard-drive backer-uper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Nice! Do you go right for the balls in real fights too, or just on the internet?

Not really Don't know that there's too much scope for that wth most of the posters here... :lol:

 

Just FYI, since you are probably a computer programmer or some other worthless techie profession at your 9-5, DIT is practically the same thing as a film loader, or data wrangler, or hard-drive backer-uper.

Tsk Tsk, this from the man who called the RED project "Jim Jannard's Mid-Life Crisis"

Ah well, someone as comitted to getting their facts straight as you are, is bound to do well in the tough new digital environment, whenever it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Public enemies looks like they used the fake and shitty behind the scenes video footage for the actual movie...

 

R.

Oooh … harsh!

 

Why is it indeed that so many people seem to get raised to such an unseemly level of lubricity over extremely ordinary pictures, purely because they were shot with digital cameras.

 

Is it the same old phenomenon of the Worship of Mediocrity, where the wannabe lionizes the creator of über-sub-excellence, purely because he (or she) imagines (and almost certainly incorrectly) that they could do at least as well, given access to a cheap camera and a computer?

 

In other words, excellence is defined as: "that which I imagine I am also capable of", rather than: "that which is simply excellent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh … harsh!

 

Why is it indeed that so many people seem to get raised to such an unseemly level of lubricity over extremely ordinary pictures, purely because they were shot with digital cameras.

 

Is it the same old phenomenon of the Worship of Mediocrity, where the wannabe lionizes the creator of über-sub-excellence, purely because he (or she) imagines (and almost certainly incorrectly) that they could do at least as well, given access to a cheap camera and a computer?

 

In other words, excellence is defined as: "that which I imagine I am also capable of", rather than: "that which is simply excellent".

 

Its not purely because they were shot with digital cameras. It's because it does not look good, and Mann has demonstrated, with Heat, with the Insider, etc. etc that he is capable of creating amazing images. So it feels like a step sideways for him, in my opinion. There are high benchmarks for direct comparison, from the same filmmaker.

 

I have no idea where this stuff about worship of mediocrity comes from, if you are responding to my post, and by implication ascribing this position to me.

 

Best,

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Its not purely because they were shot with digital cameras. It's because it does not look good, and Mann has demonstrated, with Heat, with the Insider, etc. etc that he is capable of creating amazing images. So it feels like a step sideways for him, in my opinion. There are high benchmarks for direct comparison, from the same filmmaker.

 

I have no idea where this stuff about worship of mediocrity comes from, if you are responding to my post, and by implication ascribing this position to me.

 

Best,

R.

Sorry, none of my post was actually directed at you.

 

I haven't seen this film yet but I know what you mean about "Public enemies looks like they used the fake and shitty behind the scenes video footage for the actual movie..." That fairly well sums my opinion of most digitally shot movies I've seen, (there are exceptions) except in some cases it's more like they kept the video assist tape and threw away the negative....

 

BUT, it doesn't seem to matter how excrementally bad a movie is, (whether because of the general production itself, or the acquisition format), there is a certain mentality that immediately wants to leap up and heap praise on it, because it's ***DIGITAL***

 

And I can never understand what motivates this sort of activity. Is it because they've deluded themselves that if they can talk it up to being regarded as a cinematic triumph, that will effectively lower the bar of "Triumph-ness" to something they themselves imagine they could manage? That's what I meant about "Worship of Mediocrity" It doesn't just apply to film either.

 

The relevance of all this to the subject of this thread, is that some people seem to think that these images are the best they've ever seen, (although it does come across as somewhat knee-jerk) while others (such as yourself) are totally underwhelmed.

 

And nobody seems to know whether film was used, and if so how much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about.

...

 

Are you going through male menopause or something?

Or are you so sour because Film Loader is about the only Cinematography-related profession that has no equivalent in the digital world....

 

Nice! Do you go right for the balls in real fights too, or just on the internet?

 

 

There are a lot of good reasons for shooting film. Then there are the reasons you seem to give, mainly "This is the way we have always done things." NOT a good reason.

 

Just FYI, since you are probably a computer programmer or some other worthless techie profession at your 9-5, DIT is practically the same thing as a film loader, or data wrangler, or hard-drive backer-uper.

 

I'm going to go right for the balls and suggest to those posting in this thread without having watched the film to go see it. Otherwise, this just becomes another film vs digital debate littered w/ personal attacks that don't have to do with either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tsk Tsk, this from the man who called the RED project "Jim Jannard's Mid-Life Crisis"

Ah well, someone as comitted to getting their facts straight as you are, is bound to do well in the tough new digital environment, whenever it happens.

 

What does a quote that you probably spent way too much time looking up, because I said it, what, two YEAERS ago, have ANYTHING to do with our current conversation?

 

 

What does anything you say have to do with facts, I don't know; it is all a bunch of grandstanding. Is this site an escape from a monotonous desk job for you? Is it a popularity contest, an attempt to have a friend? Or do you also mistakenly assume that, just because you are working with film, it isnt' still work?

 

So, I work with film almost every day. You still haven't said what YOU do for a living?

 

Are you in politics? Do you work for a yellow-rag newspaper writing opinion articles? Am I getting warmer?

 

 

Take *two* hits from the bottle before you write anything else here, my friend, because it has got to be good (not credible of course, just really really freakin' good) to elicit any sort of response from me anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously if a digital camera catches an image exactly as the human eyes sees it then somehow that camera is a piece of junk because it does not emulate the film look. So by that reason the human eye is a piece of junk because it produces cheesy video like images. And by that reason going in person to any live Broadway show is the same as seeing a cheesy soap opera because it was not captured on film first. Of course when you compare the behind the scenes video footage which you claim makes everything look phony this again is no different in how the human eye sees. So if the footage looks phony thats because the camera is doing too good of a job by not masking the image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously if a digital camera catches an image exactly as the human eyes sees it then somehow that camera is a piece of junk because it does not emulate the film look. So by that reason the human eye is a piece of junk because it produces cheesy video like images. And by that reason going in person to any live Broadway show is the same as seeing a cheesy soap opera because it was not captured on film first. Of course when you compare the behind the scenes video footage which you claim makes everything look phony this again is no different in how the human eye sees. So if the footage looks phony thats because the camera is doing too good of a job by not masking the image.

 

Funny, I don't think video looks anything like what the human eye thinks either.

 

If anything, film is more like human vision because they are both generating imagery through fundamentally chemical means.

 

Maybe my eyes are far wose than average, but I definitely have a lot of "dust" too. Look at a blue sky and you will see "floaters".

 

 

I do agree that Mann was going for the "live" look with this film, but that it has more to do with convention, in my opinion, than it does with actual human perception of the real world.

 

I have a book from the early '70s that describes how graininess and reversal stocks were considered more "real" by viewers than fine-grained 35mm imagery because that is what the video news was shot on, grainy 16mm. The 30FPS framerate probably helped too, but for the most part the human perception of reality is just as much influence by convention as it is what the human eye actually sees. Human vision is quite adaptable, after all.

 

I don't buy the argument that 24fps is better because it is more "cinematic". I think higher frame rates don't detract from the feel of a movie unless they better reveal what a cheesy set and bad actors are on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously if a digital camera catches an image exactly as the human eyes sees it then somehow that camera is a piece of junk because it does not emulate the film look. So by that reason the human eye is a piece of junk because it produces cheesy video like images. And by that reason going in person to any live Broadway show is the same as seeing a cheesy soap opera because it was not captured on film first. Of course when you compare the behind the scenes video footage which you claim makes everything look phony this again is no different in how the human eye sees. So if the footage looks phony thats because the camera is doing too good of a job by not masking the image.

 

 

Maybe your eyes work differently to mine, but through my eyes, highlights do not clip. and skintones generally look pretty natural (unless there is terrible umpa lumpa makeup involved)

 

Also a problem with the video look, is that the refresh of the camera is not synched to the refresh of your eyes, so that video smear look when a camera moves fast is completely exaggerated compared to the way you see it with your eyes, as it is not in lockstep with your head movement - so you notice it much more.

 

So saying the video look is closer to how your eyes see, is kinda bunk. In some ways yeah, in some ways not so much.

 

Imax at 60fps is closer to how your eyes see. Because you don't see as many artifacts of the process (grain/smeary motion/noise/clipping etc) so there is less of a veil between you and the image. You don't have to try to focus THROUGH it.

 

In

 

My

 

Humble

 

Opinion.

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In

 

My

 

Humble

 

Opinion.

 

R.

 

Ruairi said it much better, but I share all of his sentiments.

 

24fps is the only undesirable film artifact that I see.

 

 

This is from Ebert back in 2003, I think, but he pointed out that, for marginal increase in cost (easily offset through ticket sales) and roughly a $300 projector modification, every projector could be converted to "Maxivision", 48 fps instead of 24.

 

You'd lose a stop of light having to shoot at a higher frame rate but, other than that, all equipment would still work and you'd gain double the resolution, essentially.

 

60fps might be pushing it. Even 48 might be too much. I'd have trouble seeing any improved quality past 36.

 

 

One other small nit-pick Ruairi: Not in terms of latitude, but resolution, I'd say that IMAX is actually *better* resolution than the human eye, so maybe that is a drawback for Thomas too? ;-)

 

 

Really, I'd like to see IMAX do something to bring back either 5-perf. 70mm or 8-perf. 35mm. Either of these two formats would be more than enough resolution to satisfy even the most picky viewers.

 

IMAX, at least as far as I am concerned, is real over-kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
This is from Ebert back in 2003, I think, but he pointed out that, for marginal increase in cost (easily offset through ticket sales) and roughly a $300 projector modification, every projector could be converted to "Maxivision", 48 fps instead of 24.

 

Long movies can't fit on existing platter systems at 48 fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
What does a quote that you probably spent way too much time looking up, because I said it, what, two YEAERS ago, have ANYTHING to do with our current conversation?

 

Last November actually.

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?s=...st&p=261038

The fact that you turned out to be right doesn't change anything of course :D

(The RED folder has never really recovered from certain recent announcements...)

 

What does anything you say have to do with facts, I don't know; it is all a bunch of grandstanding. Is this site an escape from a monotonous desk job for you? Is it a popularity contest, an attempt to have a friend? Or do you also mistakenly assume that, just because you are working with film, it isnt' still work?

 

So, I work with film almost every day. You still haven't said what YOU do for a living?

 

Are you in politics? Do you work for a yellow-rag newspaper writing opinion articles? Am I getting warmer?

 

Take *two* hits from the bottle before you write anything else here, my friend, because it has got to be good (not credible of course, just really really freakin' good) to elicit any sort of response from me anymore.

 

Sadly, I tend to agree with just about everything you say on these forums, that's the part I don't understand.

OK there are a few things here and there where you really don't know what you're waffling about, because you don't have my technical background, but then most of the "respected" posters here have that problem from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long movies can't fit on existing platter systems at 48 fps.

 

And movies up to 120 minutes can :rolleyes:

 

Or they can make a bigger **(obscenity removed)**ing platter. Any point, other to prove you are right and I am wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[. . .] because you don't have my technical background, but then most of the "respected" posters here have that problem from time to time.

 

So, what do you do for a living?

 

Bet it's not cinematography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruairi said it much better, but I share all of his sentiments.

 

24fps is the only undesirable film artifact that I see.

 

 

This is from Ebert back in 2003, I think, but he pointed out that, for marginal increase in cost (easily offset through ticket sales) and roughly a $300 projector modification, every projector could be converted to "Maxivision", 48 fps instead of 24.

 

You'd lose a stop of light having to shoot at a higher frame rate but, other than that, all equipment would still work and you'd gain double the resolution, essentially.

 

60fps might be pushing it. Even 48 might be too much. I'd have trouble seeing any improved quality past 36.

 

 

One other small nit-pick Ruairi: Not in terms of latitude, but resolution, I'd say that IMAX is actually *better* resolution than the human eye, so maybe that is a drawback for Thomas too? ;-)

 

 

Really, I'd like to see IMAX do something to bring back either 5-perf. 70mm or 8-perf. 35mm. Either of these two formats would be more than enough resolution to satisfy even the most picky viewers.

 

IMAX, at least as far as I am concerned, is real over-kill.

 

 

Nobody in the industry is realistically looking to Maxivision as the format of the future. The problem is, regardless of the cost of projector upgrades, the stock is twice the cost. But not twice as good. Kinda hard to sell that to producer who cant tell the difference anyway (try explaining why anamorphic looks *subjectively* better, if you want to see comical glazed over expressions) And no major filmmaker I am aware of has publicly supported the format. So it's going nowhere. Done. Kaputt. Didn't you get the memo? The future is digital, man.

 

In fact, the only person still banging on about this format publicly seems to be Roger Ebert.

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other small nit-pick Ruairi: Not in terms of latitude, but resolution, I'd say that IMAX is actually *better* resolution than the human eye, so maybe that is a drawback for Thomas too? ;-)

 

 

Only a small spot on your retina (fovea) has a high density of photoreceptors. But unless you clamp your eyeballs in place with needles, your eyes can look at any part of an imax screen at any time, so every single part of the screen has to equal or higher to the resolution of of your foveal vision, in order for an imax image to be perceptually equal to your vision. Make sense? So for Imax to be "equal" to the resolution of your eyes, it kinda has to be way, way, way higher.

 

Also, depends how close you sit to the screen :)

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So, what do you do for a living?

 

Bet it's not cinematography.

 

Why don't you ask Jim Jannard; he seems to have all the information.

But for the purposes of this discussion, why not just pull something out of your arse like you always do.

 

Maybe, just maybe, you should try reading through a few threads instead of just skimming over the bits you don't agree with or more likely simply don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Only a small spot on your retina (fovea) has a high density of photoreceptors. But unless you clamp your eyeballs in place with needles, your eyes can look at any part of an imax screen at any time, so every single part of the screen has to equal or higher to the resolution of of your foveal vision, in order for an imax image to be perceptually equal to your vision. Make sense? So for Imax to be "equal" to the resolution of your eyes, it kinda has to be way, way, way higher.

 

Also, depends how close you sit to the screen :)

 

R.

Also, people maybe need to first go to the best IMAX screening they can find, then go to live play, opera or even a football game....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you ask Jim Jannard; he seems to have all the information.

But for the purposes of this discussion, why not just pull something out of your arse like you always do.

 

Maybe, just maybe, you should try reading through a few threads instead of just skimming over the bits you don't agree with or more likely simply don't understand.

 

Aww you guys. Group hug!

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Aww you guys. Group hug!

 

R.

Santa Monica?

That's in California, right?

Thought so ... Group Hug ... ugh.

 

I've never really been interested in going to California.

Apart from being a cesspool of unnecessary and generally uncalled-for originality, the weather is too much like Australia. And San Francisco is overrun with Poofs and people who wear black clothes and appear to have their body parts held together with safety pins, just like Sydney.

 

No wonder Jannard wants to move to Arizona...

 

Actually I've always wanted to go to New York, just to find out if the colored girls really do go:

"Doo De-doo, De-doo-de-doo..."

But I fear I never shall now.

 

But where was I?

Oh yes:

Does ANYBODY know which f*cking bits of Public Enemies were shot on film, and why?

I'll be here the rest of the evening....

Edited by Keith Walters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the millimeter article. (you may have to sign up to see it.)

 

"and then we used a film camera for one slow-motion sequence.” That sequence comes in the movie’s climax: the shooting death of Dillinger at the hands of FBI agents outside the Biograph Theatre in Chicago. The scene was shot at the exact site of the real Dillinger shooting, and Mann wanted to greatly ramp speeds to stylize Dillinger’s fall. After testing various digital slo-mo options, he and Spinotti opted to shoot film for the sequence.

 

“We tested [the Phantom camera from Vision Research], but for as much slow-motion as we wanted to do, at 160fps, we decided it made more sense to use film,” Carroll says. “You have to keep in mind how Michael Mann wants to work. We must have done 50 to 60 takes from multiple different angles [of Dillinger’s death] during the shoot, and the workflow of those other cameras, to download from the cache, takes many minutes, and asking Michael to repeatedly wait just wasn’t the best way to work.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...