"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm pleased the early word on Avatar is so positive, May none of my reservations be justified when I see it next week

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'm pleased the early word on Avatar is so positive, May none of my reservations be justified when I see it next week

Early buzz from folks that saw a recent screening in the U.S. is that AVATAR may have a lock on the Academy Award for Achievement in Visual Effects, despite some healthy competition from 14 other semi-finalists just announced yesterday.
http://www.oscars.org/press/pressrel.../20091211.html

There is also some talk that overall, the movie is good enough to get a Best Picture nomination esp. now with that category being expanded this year.
Should be interesting to see how everything pans out in the end.

[Penton-Man]

New challenge for anyone with balls –
Today, I received this PM quoting a post somewhere on a technical thread in *science* (the exact thread of which I’m uncertain, as all I was sent was the quote itself) which is regarding the viewing of the Blu-ray Public Enemies.

Originally Posted by djoberg

I was aware that they kept switching between a HD Video cam and a 35mm camera. That accounts for some of the inconsistency seen throughout the movie....

^ Interesting authoritative sounding statement with little specifics offered.
Does anyone know what exact scene(s) in this motion picture were shot on film?
And even if you don’t know for certain, some guesses (with or without experience in the differences between the image capture) might prove interesting for those that feel they are at least somewhat confident in differentiating digital from film acquisition. Let's face it, based upon past posting history, alot of screenshot scientists seem able to easily tell the difference between 'grain' and 'noise' or dnr'ed images vs. soft cinematography, so, this little exercise shouldn't be that difficult. Right?

Also, now that I assume some of you have viewed the Blu-ray of Public Enemies, as it streeted on Blu-ray this past Tuesday, what say yee?
I kinda figure it will be one of those either love-it or hate-it movies in terms of the imagery.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And even if you don’t know for certain, some guesses (with or without experience in the differences between the image capture) might prove interesting for those that feel they are at least somewhat confident in differentiating digital from film acquisition. Let's face it, based upon past posting history, alot of screenshot scientists seem able to easily tell the difference between 'grain' and 'noise' or dnr'ed images vs. soft cinematography, so, this little exercise shouldn't be that difficult. Right?

Also, now that I assume some of you have viewed the Blu-ray of Public Enemies, as it streeted on Blu-ray this past Tuesday, what say yee?
I kinda figure it will be one of those either love-it or hate-it movies in terms of the imagery.

Penton,

I didn't read the AVS bs, honestly. I could take a couple of guesses though. I didn't know that Mann had used different cameras, but while watching, I thought some of it must have been filmed with HD video cameras and not film.
I still doubt that the inconsistencies had to do with media used and more to do with the look Michael Mann was trying to convey. Over all I didn't really enjoy the film because I had no emotional attachment to Dillinger. Even while watching the movie (and knowing how it was going to end) I didn't really care what happened to the main character. I did find the audio annoying, again it was probably a choice of the director.

I would say that all of the scenes at the beginning outside of the penitentiary, the scenes in the apple orchard and bank heists were shot with film.

The ending scene with the pan out from the movie theater was either heavily cgi'd or shot with digital.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Yeah, Oink actually had that stones to complain that the BD didn't look as good as the theatrical showings he attended 25 years ago. Alright...
A) I can't remember what something definitively looked like theatrically 25 DAYS ago. I might remember elements here or there (like I remember noticing that Talladega Nights had some pretty out of focus shots in it, something that surprised me considering the DP is Oliver Wood, who also shot the Bourne Trilogy, U571, and Die Hard 2), but I certainly couldn't recall the look of a film from shot to shot a quarter of a century after the fact.

and

B) there's actually a 35mm screening of Gremlins this Monday at the Arclight Hollywood, but I doubt any of the 'scientists' would actually go so far as to collect all of the available data out there to help form their hypothesis. For me, I just saw a theatrical screening of Gremlins back in May at the American Cinematheque and I'm more than happy with what Warner delivered.

As a side note, just saw a brand new 35mm print of Star Trek II on Saturday night and man does that Blu-ray look great!

I saw Gremlins in the theaters when I was 12, but I will not lie and pretend I remember how it looked. I will just say I watched the BD recently and it looked very film-like and had that certain 'look' of many 80s titles. I was quite pleased. Warner has really come far with their catalog titles IMO as excessive filtering doesn't seem to be nearly an issue anymore from what I've seen recently.

I do have one question in regards to the Star Trek II viewing you saw. Did it too have more of a cooler or bluish tint like the BD? Previous (but, of course, not necessarily correct) incarnations I saw always looked more reddish if you know what I mean. Just curious.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

New challenge for anyone with balls –
.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a perfect example that a viewer can be fooled (in a good way) if the film maker so intends. I would not even attempt to guess, as it would be futile (for me).

[coolmilo]

Penton,

I tried the MovieIQ feature again (benefit of the doubt thing) with Julie and Julia (great movie by the way) and it would not work at all. One time I received an error and the next time the screen made a connection but then locked up.

I am technical and I made sure that my Oppo was connected to the internet and so forth. I cleared the persistent storage and retested the internet connection just to make sure the Oppo was not the problem. My player's firmware is current too.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

Penton,

I tried the MovieIQ feature again (benefit of the doubt thing) with Julie and Julia (great movie by the way) and it would not work at all. One time I received an error and the next time the screen made a connection but then locked up.

I am technical and I made sure that my Oppo was connected to the internet and so forth. I cleared the persistent storage and retested the internet connection just to make sure the Oppo was not the problem. My player's firmware is current too.

That’s not good!
Is there anyone else out there having the same problem with a different machine like a PS3?
Check it out and get back to me.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a perfect example that a viewer can be fooled (in a good way) if the film maker so intends. I would not even attempt to guess, as it would be futile (for me).

Regarding The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, what makes that a more complex issue is that it was both dnr’ed and sharpened in post......as the *purists* run for the exits with this knowledge.

There was far, far less digital tweaking in post for Public Enemies as much of the look was accomplished in-camera.

[Bobby Henderson]

I haven't seen Public Enemies yet, but the video look was pretty obvious in the trailers.

Some electronically shot movies mimic the film look very well. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button did so far better than the Best Cinematography Oscar winner, Slumdog Millionaire. I thought Sin City looked great as well, much better than Robert Rodriquez' other "digital" efforts.

None of Michael Mann's "digital" movies have mimicked the film look very well at all. I kind of wish Collateral had its full, pure video look left intact rather than having the wide RGB gamma range stomped on with film look curves in post.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by phansson

Penton,

I didn't read the AVS bs, honestly. I could take a couple of guesses though. I didn't know that Mann had used different cameras, but while watching, I thought some of it must have been filmed with HD video cameras and not film.
I still doubt that the inconsistencies had to do with media used and more to do with the look Michael Mann was trying to convey. Over all I didn't really enjoy the film because I had no emotional attachment to Dillinger. Even while watching the movie (and knowing how it was going to end) I didn't really care what happened to the main character. I did find the audio annoying, again it was probably a choice of the director.

I would say that all of the scenes at the beginning outside of the penitentiary, the scenes in the apple orchard and bank heists were shot with film.

The ending scene with the pan out from the movie theater was either heavily cgi'd or shot with digital.

A BIG tip of the hat to you phansson.

It’s nice to see someone laying it on the line when they are directly challenged.
I won’t reveal what was shot on film until we give time for more respondents……..with balls.
Like I said on my previous post on the last page, this exercise should be a piece of cake for screenshot scientists and grain gurus who have expressed that imagery expertise in multiple postings in the past regarding other movies.
I would put out an Open Call for submissions to this challenge on the other internet forums but, I know darn well they read this thread anyway so, I don’t feel it’s necessary.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I haven't seen Public Enemies yet, but the video look was pretty obvious in the trailers.

Some electronically shot movies mimic the film look very well.....

Sure, I think that’s pretty much a given now…….when the filmmaker intends it so and doesn’t push the limits of the camera (i.e. shoot with a wide open shutter, etc.)

For instance, I think that more than one experienced D.P. will tell you that the color science of the Genesis (Panavision) chip closely mimics Kodak 5218 and just this past week at a presentation at the Linwood Dunn Theater, Curtis Clark, ASC (who is chair of the ASC Technology Committee) stated…

“I’ve spent time with The Sony F-35 and S-Log and it has a true 12-stop dynamic range that’s extremely usable........you have to combine that with a color gamut reproduction color space that the F-35 does with its S-Gamut. Those two things together provide the pedigree for the camera to be worthy to be called a digital motion picture camera. These are my personal comments.”
Anyway, Bobby, you do realize that Michael M. expressly chose to shoot this motion picture not to mimic a period piece as shot with conventional film cameras……….right?

[Penton-Man]

Bobby, I was just PM’ed this link, it’s RAH’s review of Public Enemies –
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...ies-in-blu-ray

Is that you in that thread?
I just skimmed the posts and I think that’s a pretty fair assessment of how I thought people would respond to the imagery of Public Enemies, meaning either love-it or hate-it.
There’s nothing wrong with that.

Personally, the thing that takes me out of the movie (or any other for that matter) is the darn skakey cam effect whether a Director uses it with film or digital acquisition……I still find it very distracting.
Anyway, I also note on that thread, nobody answered Peter Neski’s question at the end of his post either (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...y#post_3637118 )…………
“what was shot on Film”?

Where are all the screenshot scientists with their answers?
Xylon, kram sacul, eric exec, Art Sonneborn, etc. – you fellas are co-members of that forum also, aren’t you?
What scenes in Public Enemies were shot on film?
Grain gurus (sharkcohen, foxymulder, etc.)……..imdb even reveals the darn film stock for you, i.e Vision3 500T 5219.
What scenes in Public Enemies were shot on film?

I wouldn’t bother reading the ASC magazine article (which Vincent P. alludes to) because I doubt it’s mentioned in there either and internet searches will be a waste of time.

P.S,.
phansson, at this rate, we all may have to go out and buy you a wheel barrel.
B.T.W., this challenge is closed to anyone from the respective post house involved.

[42041]

while this thread is on the HD/35mm topic... I don't know if the technical details of network TV are within the realm of expertise of anyone here, but I got season 5 of "Lost" in the mail yesterday and while its look is superficially film-like, there's something to the way it looks that had me scratching my head yesterday. Judging by the discontinued film stock, IMDB's tech specs are out of date, are they still shooting 35mm or are they throwing in some digital footage on the sly?

[Penton-Man]

I know of no changes involving image acquisition for dramatic TV shows since this list I posted last Sept. -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...st#post2325097

What you are most likely seeing is differences in *looks* (all shot on film) between the flashbacks and flashforwards or the nuances between the two different D.P.’s that are employed, 2 cinematographers being not an uncommon occurrence for one hour TV dramas, if only for logistical reasons.

Hey 42041, you’re a co-member of blu-ray.com and AVS, right?
Tell them I await with baited breath (i.e. the Public Enemies challenge).
For them, it shouldn't even really be a challenge, given their past posting history candidly implying expertise with film vs. video capture and grain vs. noise as experienced during their movie watching.

P.S.
I don’t know what imdb lists but, Season 5 was shot with 5205 (250D), 5219 (500T), and 5212 (100T).

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Anyway, Bobby, you do realize that Michael M. expressly chose to shoot this motion picture not to mimic a period piece as shot with conventional film cameras……….right?

I have seen that mentioned previously. BTW, yes, I've been participating in a thread over at HTF on this topic. Another poster at HTF also said Mann originally wanted to shoot all of Public Enemies on film, but DP Dante Spinotti talked Mann into shooting digital instead.

Nevertheless, the results just look distracting to me. If Mann really intended for the video look to be obvious on this movie about a long dead, historical character what was the artistic point? I don't get it.

Isn't the main goal of a movie to get the audience focused on the characters and immersed in the story? Wouldn't it be a bad thing to drag them out of that "bubble" with technology shouting "this was shot in digital"? It's almost like knocking down the "fourth wall."

If anachronism was the real goal, why not push it farther? Make Dillinger a character living in modern day America. Or maybe have 1930s gangsters walking around with cellular phones and notebook computers. Lots of strange things have been done with the plays of William Shakespeare in porting them to totally different places and times. Maybe if Mann had run with the idea I might be able to run along with it. A Knight's Tale was a pretty fun movie for the daring way modern rock music was used. We get the joke, even if it falls flat with some viewers. As far as Public Enemies goes, it's a movie based in the 1930s that looks like most of it was shot on video.

“I’ve spent time with The Sony F-35 and S-Log and it has a true 12-stop dynamic range that’s extremely usable........you have to combine that with a color gamut reproduction color space that the F-35 does with its S-Gamut. Those two things together provide the pedigree for the camera to be worthy to be called a digital motion picture camera. These are my personal comments.”

Do motion picture cameras have smaller F-stop increments than still cameras? I ask that because I have seen it mentioned numerous times that still cameras see no more than about 5 stops worth of dynamic range from light to dark and that human eye sight is sensitive to about an 8-stop dynamic range. I've been paying attention to this sort of thing lately after plunking down $2700 on a new D-SLR camera body and another $2000 for a high end tripod setup in order to shoot high dynamic range (HDR) still camera images and HDR panoramas.

[Jeff Kleist]

while this thread is on the HD/35mm topic... I don't know if the technical details of network TV are within the realm of expertise of anyone here, but I got season 5 of "Lost" in the mail yesterday and while its look is superficially film-like, there's something to the way it looks that had me scratching my head yesterday. Judging by the discontinued film stock, IMDB's tech specs are out of date, are they still shooting 35mm or are they throwing in some digital footage on the sly?

Looked to me more like they're doing some post-production plastic surgery on the actors to keep them looking their best. 6 years is a long time in TV, especially when it's only supposed to be 3 You're seeing it in feature films as well, many stars scraping or over 40 have it in their contracts that they get softened up. Benjamin Button certainly did it to help make Brad Pitt look younger for example.

This of course is not being applied willy-nilly by flicking a dial, but deliberately and surgically (no pun intended) to the target areas.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Nevertheless, the results just look distracting to me. If Mann really intended for the video look to be obvious on this movie about a long dead, historical character what was the artistic point? I don't get it.

Isn't the main goal of a movie to get the audience focused on the characters and immersed in the story? Wouldn't it be a bad thing to drag them out of that "bubble" with technology shouting "this was shot in digital"?

He shot it that way to facilitate audiences feeling that they were not ‘watching’ a motion picture per se but, like they were actually present back then and ‘witnessing’ the story firsthand. You can argue as to whether or not he accomplished or failed with his goal.

Have a listen to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lclqx#synopsis (click on Listen Now).
His intent was never to show-off or bring attention to the digital cameras themselves. Also, the differences in the imagery between the scenes themselves is to portray different emotions during the course of the story.

Gotta go walk the dog and then hit the sack.

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I know of no changes involving image acquisition for dramatic TV shows since this list I posted last Sept. -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...st#post2325097

What you are most likely seeing is differences in *looks* (all shot on film) between the flashbacks and flashforwards or the nuances between the two different D.P.’s that are employed, 2 cinematographers being not an uncommon occurrence for one hour TV dramas, if only for logistical reasons.

Hey 42041, you’re a co-member of blu-ray.com and AVS, right?
Tell them I await with baited breath (i.e. the Public Enemies challenge).
For them, it shouldn't even really be a challenge, given their past posting history candidly implying expertise with film vs. video capture and grain vs. noise as experienced during their movie watching.

P.S.
I don’t know what imdb lists but, Season 5 was shot with 5205 (250D), 5219 (500T), and 5212 (100T).

Do you have any notes with respect to the sound mix? At times it seemed as if there were problems with the mix, especially at the beginning of the movie. Sometimes the dialog was too soft, other times the dialog seemed to have loud bursts. I read on another thread that this is the director’s style but I am not sure.

I have been on a bit of a buying spree with these deals and taking chances on buying Blu-ray movies that were not on my list. Public Enemies and Julie and Julie are two examples of BD's that weren’t on my list. I am very happy that I am making these extra purchases though...esp Julie and Julia (one of my favorite movies of the year).

[42041]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hey 42041, you’re a co-member of blu-ray.com and AVS, right?
Tell them I await with baited breath (i.e. the Public Enemies challenge).
For them, it shouldn't even really be a challenge, given their past posting history candidly implying expertise with film vs. video capture and grain vs. noise as experienced during their movie watching.

Thanks for the info regarding Lost, guess I must be subconsciously associating the TV-show style visuals with digital after going through 3 seasons of Dexter.
I think there's more of a stir at AVS regarding the stylistic choices of Harry Potter 6 than Public Enemies right now. The words "upscaled DVD" have been thrown out... I think I need to upgrade my DVD player to whatever these guys are using

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

If anachronism was the real goal, why not push it farther?

The ASC article about Public Enemies goes into the reasons they chose to shoot HD video in some depth. http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynam...mies/page1.php
I certainly enjoy a traditionally "good-looking" movie, but I think cinema would be a bit less interesting if everyone simply followed the conventions of the medium, even if experiments don't always work.