Public Enemies - F23 & EX1 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > High Definition Video Acquisition > HD and UHD ( 2K+ ) Digital Cinema

HD and UHD ( 2K+ ) Digital Cinema
Various topics: HD, UHD (2K / 4K) Digital Cinema acquisition to distribution.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 16th, 2009, 09:42 AM   #1
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
Kyle Prohaska is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2009, 12:49 PM   #2
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.
Nic MacDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2009, 08:23 PM   #3
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
Kyle Prohaska is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2009, 09:40 PM   #4
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.
William James Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2009, 03:16 AM   #5
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.
Oleg Kalyan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2009, 06:54 AM   #6
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.
Ian G. Thompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2009, 07:11 AM   #7
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
Paul Miley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2009, 02:16 AM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Miley View Post
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!
__________________
Chad Terpstra
www.CineVeraPictures.com
Chad Terpstra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2009, 02:43 PM   #9
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
Dutch Rall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2009, 11:18 PM   #10
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.
Luke Tingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2009, 11:22 PM   #11
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.
Brian Luce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2009, 02:51 AM   #12
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.
Gabe Spangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2009, 03:09 AM   #13
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
Christopher Drews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2009, 12:21 AM   #14
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 2,230
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.
Tim Polster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2009, 09:17 AM   #15
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Drews View Post

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.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > High Definition Video Acquisition > HD and UHD ( 2K+ ) Digital Cinema

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:35 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network