Why Does Public Enemies look like it was Shot on DSLR?

H

Homunculus

Carbonite Member
What is it about Public Enemies that has that 'video' look to it? I know it was shot on digital but so is any movie shot on Red, F900, etc, etc and none of them look as bad and videoy as Public Enemies. Its color rendition was pretty bad, dynamic range too, and it honestly just looked like it was shot at 30fps instead of 24.

What camera was Public Enemies by Michael Mann shot on does anyone know?
 
As it happens I'm working with the Art Director who did Public Enemies and (as he recollects) they shot on Red. Although the Sony F23 was used for at least some of the shoot...probably most of it, actually. Somehow I suspect that they used Red for pickups; it's tough to believe the shot the whole project - or even most - on it.
 
It was shot with some f23, some f900 I believe, but more of the "worse" shots were actually shot on the EX1 all at 360 degree shutter angle which gives it the horrible "video" look, and couple that with bad framing, horrible lighting and needing to pump up the Gain, which introduces noise... you have a crappy, horrible looking film
 
ah thanks I just looked it up it does seem to confirm Sony F23. I just don't understand why it looks so videoy though almost like it's not 24fps but 30, did they intentionally do something like shoot in 30fps or some other different mode to make it look so videoy deliberately? I know many shots did look fine and filmic and what I'm more used to seeing on the Red One so perhaps those were the Red pickups, but the majority of it had this very strange home video Super Hi-8 feel.
 
Zacatac said:
It was shot with some f23, some f900 I believe, but more of the "worse" shots were actually shot on the EX1 all at 360 degree shutter angle which gives it the horrible "video" look, and couple that with bad framing, horrible lighting and needing to pump up the Gain, which introduces noise... you have a crappy, horrible looking film
Click to expand...
I'm glad at least someone agrees with me. I actually expected to get flamed because I figured people considered this an art masterpiece or very courageous of Michael Mann to do etc. Which I guess it was courageous. But to me the film just looked so bad, there are tons of films here by DVXUSERS shot on DSLR that look MUCH better than this hokey mess.
You're right the camera angles and lighting was often very amateurish as well. Humph..I wonder why it's just strange.
That seems to make sense then that bad shots were on Ex1 but out of curiosity why? Why did they use that and why have I seen EX1 footage shot by guys here that looks much better? And what is 360 degrees shutter?
 
answered my own question via google:


"About 95 percent of the movie was shot with the F23, while the Sony PMW-EX1 camcorder handled shots that required a more mobile tool. For example, the compact EX1 camcorder was used to lens the interior of planes and cars during high-speed chases."
 
Look at any of Mann's stuff, especially collateral and miami vice... he loves the video look, and has freely admitted it in interviews. as you know, shooting 24fps, you want to have a shutter speed of 1/48th to make the filmic look, I can't quite remember what he ended up having in 1/ths but 1/48th is 180 degree shutter angle, and he shot at 360degree... is that 1/96th?
 
Zacatac said:
Look at any of Mann's stuff, especially collateral and miami vice... he loves the video look, and has freely admitted it in interviews. as you know, shooting 24fps, you want to have a shutter speed of 1/48th to make the filmic look, I can't quite remember what he ended up having in 1/ths but 1/48th is 180 degree shutter angle, and he shot at 360degree... is that 1/96th?
Click to expand...
Yes the problem is I loved Collateral and despite the video look I thought the cinematography was awesome in that movie and fit the style and camera well.

But I just saw Public Enemies for the first time and some parts of it were good but some were so outrageously amateurish I can't imagine how it left the cutting room floor.
 
by the way apparently The Viper camera was used on Collateral and Miami Vice. Those films looked much better to me. I guess Thomson Viper is just much better than Sony F23? What's everyone's opinions as I don't know anything on these cameras. How does Thomson Viper compare to Red 1 or Red 1mx?
 
For example, the compact EX1 camcorder was used to lens the interior of planes and cars during high-speed chases
Click to expand...
Gods, I hate the use of lens in place of shoot, film, record, or acquire. I have yet to hear anyone who actually knows one end of a camera from the other use this awful Daily-Variety-speak crap.

'To lens' is not an f'ing verb. Learn to write in the language or don't write at all.
 
Zacatac said:
as you know, shooting 24fps, you want to have a shutter speed of 1/48th to make the filmic look, I can't quite remember what he ended up having in 1/ths but 1/48th is 180 degree shutter angle, and he shot at 360degree... is that 1/96th?
Click to expand...

No, that is 1/24th of a second, assuming they were shooting at 24fps. At 360 degrees the shutter is open for the entire duration of the frame; at 180 degrees, it is open for half the duration of the frame, or 1/48th of a second if shooting at 24fps.
 
It was mostly shot on F23 and Sony EX-3's for some scenes. It looks the way it does because Mann likes it that way.
 
Sad Max said:
Gods, I hate the use of lens in place of shoot, film, record, or acquire. I have yet to hear anyone who actually knows one end of a camera from the other use this awful Daily-Variety-speak crap.

'To lens' is not an f'ing verb. Learn to write in the language or don't write at all.
Click to expand...

hahahaha. thanks for clarifying that as I was actually completely dumbfounded not having ever heard the term 'to lens' before so I wasn't sure exactly what they meant. Now you've confirmed it simply means to shoot...lol thanks
 
It doesn't *really* mean anything except that the author is probably a trying-to-sound-all-insider-cool know-nothing.
 
kwoff said:
No, that is 1/24th of a second, assuming they were shooting at 24fps. At 360 degrees the shutter is open for the entire duration of the frame; at 180 degrees, it is open for half the duration of the frame, or 1/48th of a second if shooting at 24fps.
Click to expand...

gotcha, I knew it was one way or the other... I just picked the wrong way
 
Zacatac said:
Look at any of Mann's stuff, especially collateral and miami vice... he loves the video look, and has freely admitted it in interviews. as you know, shooting 24fps, you want to have a shutter speed of 1/48th to make the filmic look, I can't quite remember what he ended up having in 1/ths but 1/48th is 180 degree shutter angle, and he shot at 360degree... is that 1/96th?
Click to expand...

I can go on record and say I like it too for those night scenes. I love his visuals in "Collateral".

-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top