I just saw the trailer - on YouTube and on apple.com. I have to agree with the opinions of a couple of posters who say the colour grading looks a little off, and that the image looks more like video than film.

I can't help but wonder if we're seeing a situation of overstretch here - directors and producers being attracted to the relatively low cost and speedy workflow offered by HD, but forgetting the medium's limitations.

HD is great but precisely because it offers so much definition, it can be unforgiving of mistakes in lighting, editing, composition and editing.

They might have done better if they had transferred the resulting HD video to film, rather than going straight to digital. By comparison, Knowing, the movie that was shot using RED cameras looked great precisely because the resulting digital footage was printed on film.

Or it could be the case that I'm an old fart who is just too used to the look of film. :)

I think film is still far superior in it's dynamic range, specifically color and contrast, so I can see where lighting mistakes might have been laid bare by digital imaging sensors more than film. That doesn't excuse the sloppy camera work and poor editing. You can't tell me that using a wide angle lens on a close-up shot looks bad because it was shot in HD instead of on film. I think HD and film are both equally unforgiving of poor technical execution and rushed workflow. The 'look' of the movie doesn't bother me at all, but the way it looks does.

Why do you want a 35mm sensor when you believe 1/2" "is more than enough to shoot any-budget feature film?" You say the F23 is overkill, and yet you want a $5,000 camera with specs that EXCEED the F23?

"If you can't make a 1/2" or a 2/3" camera work for you, then you simply don't know what you are doing." Why not just take your own advice and buy or rent a Sony EX?

Peter,

The 1/2" or 2/3" is light sensitive enough for filmmaking. That is what I meant. But if you want shallow depth of field like a film camera, you need a 35mm sensor. 1/2" or 2/3" is serviceable, but 35mm is the ideal. That being said, I use a 1/3" inch sensor camera. Now, I could get a 35mm adapter (lenses, rails, etc.) for about $3,000, but I have worked with a few and I found them to be unreliable, goofy and give poor results. They haven't perfected those things yet.

But at the current moment, I don't have the need for anything more than my 1/3" HDV camera.

Gabe,

I think then you see that expecting a professional production to use a an off the rack 1/2" camera is pretty unrealistic (1/3 and 1/2" chips have been used, but they are clearly the exception not the rule). And in PE there were more than a few shallow focus and rack of focus shots that 1/2" could not have done.

You also have to look at the extreme rigors a production puts a camera through, all while million dollar talent stand around and the clock ticks on a union cast and crew. A professional camera is made to withstand stresses that consumer camera isn't expected to aptly deal with.

But it's not just capturing the image, there is recording at such a high bandwidth. The HDCAM-SR deck alone is worth many times more than the five grand you suppose the whole kit should cost.

Cameras like the F23 are so high in cost b/c not a lot are made. Conversely, DVD players are fifty bucks b/c millions are sold. F35's cost a quarter million bucks b/c a few thousand will be sold during the entire lifetime of the camera.

Exactly, Peter. I'm not disputing any of that. But the fact still remains that a barebones camera as I describe at $5K is still a ways off, perhaps will never happen, because the trend is to pack cameras full of options instead of trim the fat. Which is why people are buying cheap HDV cameras and attaching DOF adapters to the front of them. They want HD resolution, manual control, 24p, 35mm depth of field and nothing else. Solid state is fine, but tape or disc works just as well. But no manufacturer has answered the call yet, except for Red, but they are still trying to be chock full of options as well (multiple frame rates, multiple resolutions, blah blah blah...).

I think a camera as I describe should be available in the future. It certainly isn't right now. The indie filmmaker scene is screaming for it. I guess Red probably will take over. No one else seems to be making an attempt.

And Gabe, from what I've seen on these forums, even if your $5k camera comes along, SOMEONE (or MANY "someones") will complain that it is TOO EXPENSIVE because they can go and buy a single 1/8" chip camera stamp that doesn't record audio as a grey market import and buy a second system audio kit, homemade "Steadi" stabilizer and 35mm adaptor for less.

There will always be those people.

I don't think you can blame the F23 for the look of the film, I've seen plenty of footage from the camera before that looked beautiful and filmic. It looks to me like creative decisions like opting for a 360 degree shutter and upping the gain rather than using additional lighting, are the reasons for the "cheap" video look.

There's also a serious matter of context, in a film like Collateral (with a gritty, contemporary, inner-city setting) digital artifacts don't do anything to detract from story (because you accept "digital" as contemporary technology, it's not inappropriate for a modern story), however with a period piece - any hint of modern, digital artifacts in the imagery sticks out like a sore thumb (they shouldn't exist within the 1920s world we're seeing on screen, so they become very obvious).

I think the matter is very simple. You have a director and a DP who have tons of talent. They *chose* a look for the film, rented gear to give them the look THEY WANTED, and shot the film.

I do not believe for ONE SECOND that the director and DP were unaware of the color corrections, detail levels, or anything else. Just because some may not like the look they chose doesn't mean they made a mistake in their process. And just because PE looks like video, doesn't mean the F23 is incapable of delivering very filmic images. Countless productions prove the exact opposite.

Public Enemies
 

i believe all the intentional stuff that they did to in my opinion ruin the image but as I said on Reduser. No one EVER tries to have such rampant Chromatic Aberration in their shots. And it is rampant.

just to let everyone know why collateral and public enemies looks like the way they do, and why you think it looks crappy is a fault that is in the process of shooting. There is this 24p ghosting thats going on. It was throughout collateral and it seems the same here in public...

It happens when you shoot at either 23.98 and then drop into a 24p film timeline, or take a 24p and drop it into a 23.98 timeline. The slight difference adds this ghosting effect that in my opinion screams horrible video look. I did this by accident once, I had shot 23.98 HD and I had my timeline setup for a true 24p.. when I rendered the output for an actual 24p NOT 23.98, I got this collateral ghosting that looked horrible, once I noticed my mistake I quickly changed my output settings to the same as the video, and boom ghosting gone and it looked perfect.

I dont know if its the Editor that they are using that keeps doing this "wrong" setup, if they are actually doing this as their own look, but it looks horrible and cheap. If it actually is by mistake that is a huge and horrible mistake done 2 times already in these films. The motion looks horrible and reads completely as a video transfer. There are plenty of films shot in 23.98 HD, 2k, and then transferred to film, and is perfectly fine with no ghosting.

I say its a bad move in the post production settings. I'm sure I'd like the movie, but the visuals will kill me while watching it, being a DP for features myself, I would never want to see this happen in my post work-flow.