Public Enemies
 

Anybody excited about seeing EX1 footage on the big screen? i hope i get to see a film-out and not a 2/4K projection. either way, i'm kinda excited. ok, maybe just curious.

How much of this is EX footage?

i'm not sure exactly, but there's some articles/talks of it either on this forum or the "other forum". mostly used in small spaces and for critical hand-held work.

great new for L.A. viewers. The Landmark Theatres in West LA are showing the film on 2 screens. 4K Sony digital projector and film. i'm gonna see it on film first since its a fresh print and digital projection next time. enjoy!!!!

Landmark - Los Angeles

Sony 4K Digital Cinema
 

Theaters with Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projectors:

Sony | Market - Digital Cinema

It's notable that these days where there's a new found obsession with shallow depth of field, one reason these cameras are being chosen for major features is because of their deep depth of field. The complete opposite result the lens adapter crowd is after.

I wouldn't be so dismissive about what the "crowd is after" - the adapters give us the choice, and that's what matters.

"EX1 camcorder was used to lens the interior of planes and cars during high-speed chases."

- PR Newswire

What sounded like dismissive was just my tiring of everybody doing the same thing. My motto is whatever floats your boat.

So far from the spots I've seen I don't care for the look at all. It screams video. Then again my opinion of the first of the new Star Wars movies wasn't that popular. Episode 3 Revenge of Sith, the movie that propelled the F900 into the stratosphere and opened up digital for features. I thought it looked like crap. But I'll give this a chance with a 4k Sony projector. Very interested in how the EX shots look.

The only digital feature I've seen so far worthy of rivaling film has been Knowing (Nick Cage) shot on RED 4k. If Mann wanted a hyper-real look I think the best application of that I've seen has been Sony's Motionflow 120Hz technology on their LCDs. If there was a way to apply that to 35mm origination. It gives the live look of video to film without making it look like video.

Frankly if I'm noticing the difference between HD and film then the story tellers aren't doing their job.

I don't care about the way film handles highlights compared to video etc etc etc. All I want is a damn good story edited to perfection.

Amen. Stories rule; aesthetics drool.

Also to note, EX chip is the same size as a 16mm film cam. Nobody used 35mm adapters when using 16mm. The movie watcher in me finds the adapter look has become way overused and overdone but that's just my personal opinion. A lot of times my brain is thinking "look, shallow DOF" over the story. Often as if a heavy blur vignette is overlaid around the subject blurring everything else in the picture to kingdom come.

For something really different, watch the Blu-Ray release of How the West Was Won sometime. It was shot with the 3-strip Cinerama process and they only had one set of lenses for those cameras - 27mm. For a full body shot the camera was only a few feet from the actors, and everything out to infinity was in sharp focus.

If you've never seen this film before (or never seen it in HD), the amount of detail in the frame is startling - and spectacular.

There is no questioning that shallow DOF is a useful tool, but has to be used appropriately. Good for separating the subject from the background when that can't be done with lighting and for focusing attention when that can't be done by composition. Quite often shallow DOF draws attention to itself because other important things in shot are too soft. Such as a two shot, where only one actor is in focus and I want to see their expression. I'd agree with Max that it has become a fashion, the "holy grail" for those seeking that cinema look. But in other times the film fashion was deep DOF, utilising split diopter lenses, high f/stops and wide angle lenses.
3D productions need deep DOF, so the fashion might change soon.

Funny - just heard the review of Public Enemies on BBC Radio 4. They were extolling the virtues of the HD look.

Cut to beard stroking moment: Not the video look. Not the film look, but what they called the HD look. Real. Visceral. Live. Hmmm. Very interesting.

On the other end of the scale, I've sat through Shrek 2 at both a cinema and at home on DVD, and there's a scene of 'Cops Video Footage' that is very video like, but it's still 24fps CGI. If I could bear it, I'd look at it carefully to see if it was a combination of gamma, (simulated) short shutter speed, (simulated) lens focal length to objective size and (simulated) camera shake. But it works.

But then again, watched 'It's All Gone Pete Tong' last night. A cinematic film that looks like a TV documentary in places - a 35mm film looking like a TV show - is it the interview lighting style? Is it the lack of DoF? It flips between filmic and TV nicely, anyhoo.

And then there's Peter's Friends - a full on Cinema film that looks like a 16mm TV show. A film that begged a video look if ever there was one.

All this reminds me of the Journeyman phase of doing colour grading (or curry cooking for that matter): build up your look then wind it back 50%. The DoF can be overcooked too.