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

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

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.

It's probably a Java thing with my player. Hopefully there will be an update soon. In the meantime it would be interesting knowing if MovieIQ works on other players. I am very interest about learning how this feature matures.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Gotta go walk the dog and then hit the sack.

I think I'm dyslexic, or just tired. I read that first as "hit the dog and walk the sack"

[mark antony]

Hi penton

I haven't seen Public Enemies in over a year (at the cinema) and so my memory of the film is hazy at best, but in terms of digital or film i'd say any of the night-time/low-lit scenes are almost all prob digital and if there's any ultra slow motion footage that's poss film.

(I've not read anywhere about how slow digital can get compared to film stocks that were used in SFX work for example).

I do think it's a shame that a man of Mann's talent has these bizarre creative choices in terms or "realistic" audio and digital capture...I shudder to think what some of these films are gonna look like in 20 years time. I'm just gratefull that his best work to date was all pre-digital.

M

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...
^ Interesting authoritative sounding statement with little specifics offered.
Does anyone know what exact scene(s) in this motion picture were shot on film? ...

Haven't seen PUBLIC ENEMIES yet, but don't they tend to use film for slow-motion shots? I know the slo-mo shots in ZODIAC were originated on film.

Vincent

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...

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.
...

Not neccessarily related to "shaky cam" but you just reminded me of a recent film whose look I love- THE WRESTLER. I think this is one of the best examples of hand-held done right to achieve a "documentary" effect (of course mixed with the use of grainy, contrasty Super-16 cropped to 'Scope dimensions). Often it seems that DPs or operators who utilize hand-held for a "documentary" effect tend to intentionally shake the camera while operating. In THE WRESTLER, it looked as if the DP was trying to hold the camera as steady as possible, which is in fact what a true documentary filmmaker would do. Obviously the image is still "shaky" by virtue of it being hand-held, but it doesn't have that distracting, fake, intentionally-shaky effect that so many other films fall victim to.

Vincent

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

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.

Some desperate housewives may hear you!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

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 no “official” notes on the audio, just personal observations……..with the caveat that my center channel speaker is extremely expensive and the audio system in the room which I watched/listened to the Blu-ray was calibrated by Tony –
http://msr-inc.com/about/anthony_grimani.html

Working out of here, in case anyone is interested in his services, he does tours down to SoCal -
http://www.pmiltd.com/

P.S.
To answer your question directly, with some scenes I think it would be safe to say that I would have appreciated it if some of the dialogue wasn’t so darn muffled.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 42041

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.....

It would not surprise me at all if they avoid the question (‘what was shot on film’ ???) on this or another other internet forum………like the plague.

However, with certainty, in several weeks or months we’ll all get the same voluntary enlightenment from the same *scientists* and *grain gurus* as to which speckles are grain and which are noise on the next feature film to arrive on Blu-ray that is characterized by a hybrid image acquisition.

You can count on that!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

I am very happy that I am making these extra purchases though...esp Julie and Julia (one of my favorite movies of the year).

It has already won what is the closest thing that the industry has to a "Digital Colorist Award".
I'll find you the exact link when I have more time.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mark antony

Hi penton

I haven't seen Public Enemies in over a year (at the cinema) and so my memory of the film is hazy at best, but in terms of digital or film i'd say any of the night-time/low-lit scenes are almost all prob digital and if there's any ultra slow motion footage that's poss film.

Hi Mark!
Good to see a Brit with balls take a foot on the pitch!

Hey, have you heard that the U.S. drew England for their first match of the World Cup in South Af-free-kuh?
I fear for our lads (U.S.) but, at least we drew an ‘easy” Group overall……..in my opinion.

Anyway thank you for your input. I shall note, just for the record, that a reviewer from HDDN would seem to differ with you, I quote………

"As mentioned above, there is an obvious inconsistency in first and foremost the film grain amount in scene-to-scene comparison because of the Super 35mm & Digital (HDCam) sources not blending totally well together at times (in some scenes) more-so than others. There is also a bit of interframe deformation at times in both Super 35mm and Digital (HDCam) source material. Also worth noting, there are lots of “dead pixels” in many of the scenes shot on the HDCam’s digitally. This can be rather bothersome, as well can be the semi-constant flickering at times on daytime exterior shots which you will see have the most problems with tree branches or hair. This does prove to be a tad bit bothersome but the amount of detail here in close-ups totally makes up for it as does the fact that all the darker scenes in dim-lit interior shots seem to have been filmed on the tradition Super 35mm cameras and look fine with only a tad bit of digital noise and film grain present."

At this point, I aint saying who is right or wrong.
Again, thanks for the input.

P.S.
To those soccer fans out there today.........Go U.Va. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Haven't seen PUBLIC ENEMIES yet, but don't they tend to use film for slow-motion shots? I know the slo-mo shots in ZODIAC were originated on film.

Everyone keeps bringing up Zodiac (I finally red all the postings on the Public Enemies thread over at HTF). Zodiac was shot with a Viper.
Do those people not realize that Zodiac is definitely not representative of the Viper camera, out of the box?
That whole motion picture went through an expensive, advanced noise reductive process (DNR ) at a local post house.
The Sony F23 (used on much of Public Enemies) has at least an extra stop of information at either end compared to the Viper (used on much of Zodiac) and the F23 image is unequivocally less noisy at night or with low-lit scenes.

Anyway, in regards to your question about slow-motion….which brings up the frame rate capability of a camera, it really all depends upon the workflow and logistics of the individual motion picture. There is a very well respected digital motion picture camera available that shoots up to 1000 fps at 1920 x 1080 and has been used on feature films, commercials, etc. when that type of thing has been needed by the filmmaker.

Hey, Vincent, invite your friend “oink” over for the Public Enemies challenge.
I’m feeling feisty.
I want some pig butt!
Maybe I should repost the Public Enemies challenge on this page for added exposure?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Not neccessarily related to "shaky cam" but you just reminded me of a recent film whose look I love- THE WRESTLER. I think this is one of the best examples of hand-held done right to achieve a "documentary" effect (of course mixed with the use of grainy, contrasty Super-16 cropped to 'Scope dimensions). Often it seems that DPs or operators who utilize hand-held for a "documentary" effect tend to intentionally shake the camera while operating. In THE WRESTLER, it looked as if the DP was trying to hold the camera as steady as possible, which is in fact what a true documentary filmmaker would do. Obviously the image is still "shaky" by virtue of it being hand-held, but it doesn't have that distracting, fake, intentionally-shaky effect that so many other films fall victim to.

Well, these days they don’t even have to handhold the dang cameras to get that *look*.
They can add the shaky motion ‘after the fact’ so to speak.

All the post guy has to do is get some reference footage that has the desired *shaky cam* look in terms of amount and frequency and track the motion of a known stationary point (a tree trunk, for example) in that shot. Then save the tracking data. Then load in the stable footage (acquired with a tripod or steadicam) into said tracking system and viola (< with an accent)………
*shaky cam* look made out of any raw footage that was more stable, initially.

Ever notice how some TV shows (which are notorious for the *shaky cam* look) are characterized by the same exact frequency of *shakiness* whenever it is utilized in scenes for the TV drama?

That aint no repetitive camera operator skills.
Nobody is that perfectly robotic every time.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Maybe I should repost the Public Enemies challenge on this page for added exposure?

Here, don't ever say I don't go the extra mile for those *folks*-.........
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...99#post2640599

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hi Mark!
Good to see a Brit with balls take a foot on the pitch!

Hey, have you heard that the U.S. drew England for their first match of the World Cup in South Af-free-kuh?
I fear for our lads (U.S.) but, at least we drew an ‘easy” Group overall……..in my opinion.

Anyway thank you for your input. I shall note, just for the record, that a reviewer from HDDN would seem to differ with you, I quote………

"As mentioned above, there is an obvious inconsistency in first and foremost the film grain amount in scene-to-scene comparison because of the Super 35mm & Digital (HDCam) sources not blending totally well together at times (in some scenes) more-so than others. There is also a bit of interframe deformation at times in both Super 35mm and Digital (HDCam) source material. Also worth noting, there are lots of “dead pixels” in many of the scenes shot on the HDCam’s digitally. This can be rather bothersome, as well can be the semi-constant flickering at times on daytime exterior shots which you will see have the most problems with tree branches or hair. This does prove to be a tad bit bothersome but the amount of detail here in close-ups totally makes up for it as does the fact that all the darker scenes in dim-lit interior shots seem to have been filmed on the tradition Super 35mm cameras and look fine with only a tad bit of digital noise and film grain present."

At this point, I aint saying who is right or wrong.
Again, thanks for the input.

P.S.
To those soccer fans out there today.........Go U.Va. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's hope we don't embaress ourselves this time!

That's intriguing that a 2K Hi Def Cam can go up to 1000fps, but it's possible that as P.E. was shot in 4K, (to the best of my memory) that may not have been high enough res, despite the digital tom-foolery used!

I shall watch it again soon, but I remember leaving the cinema thinking it could have been so much more...I look forward to seeing Milius's Dillinger arrive on Blu Ray at some point.

M

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mark antony

Let's hope we don't embaress ourselves this time!

That's intriguing that a 2K Hi Def Cam can go up to 1000fps, but it's possible that as P.E. was shot in 4K, (to the best of my memory) that may not have been high enough res, despite the digital tom-foolery used!

I shall watch it again soon, but I remember leaving the cinema thinking it could have been so much more...I look forward to seeing Milius's Dillinger arrive on Blu Ray at some point.

M

I think that England just has to pretend (during the World Cup), that they are playing another team in the Premier League (rather than someone like ‘Brasil’, etc.) and if they can do that (mentally) they can beat anybody!
Note: P.E. was not shot in digital 4k nor did it get a 4k DI.

As an aside, District 9 (Sony Pictures) is also coming out on Blu-ray this month, and greater than half of that was acquired with a 4k camera capturing on 8 gig CF cards which (Bobby Henderson will just love this)…………………

gave the cinematographer a whopping 4 ½ min.(roughly) of shooting time. But that’s a story for another time……..around Christmas.

[Bobby Henderson]

That darned 4GB file size limit! That's gotta be some really extreme video compression to fit 4K d-cinema data on 8GB flash cards.

What's the matter with these guys? They can't do a Dual HD-SDI link to a RAID server?


There's some speculation that Canon's next "HDSLR" camera, their top of the line EOS 1Ds series, will feature HD-SDI output to free the camera body from merely recording everything in MPEG-4 AVC format.

[neo_reloaded]

I think the shaky-cam stuff can be great, but only when well done.

Things like Cloverfield go over the top to try to simulate an "amateur" filmmaker recording the "found footage" and that isn't really too pleasant for me - important things are purposefully jumped past and dramatic moments are not well-captured on purpose because the whole concept hinges on the filmmaker being poor. While I accept that as a constraint of the found-footage genre, I don't think I'll ever rank those films highly in terms of cinematography.

However, Bourne Ultimatum and Quantum of Solace were extremely well done in my opinion. Ultimatum's fight scenes are incredible, mostly due to the camerawork and how well the scenes flow. You frequently see the fight almost as Bourne would, and the camera ducks and dodges with the flow of the fight. The scene on the rooftops of the little village followed by the fight inside one of the buildings after Bourne smashes through the window is brutal and intense - and I don't think a steadicam shot would have had the same result. QoS is kind of a different animal - the camera doesn't flow with the fights so much as there are constant, quick cuts back and forth to the important elements of the fight. This is a large departure for the Bond series but I took it as a reflection of Bourne's state of mind. This is the one film where he is on an absolute tirade of revenge, and he's not thinking straight. He's lashing out as quickly as possible, at whatever target he can find, with no real thought as to the consequences. This lack of discipline and control was reflected in the editing, and helps involve the audience in his react-react-react mindset.

It took me some time to appreciate camerawork like this - for a frame of reference, The Matrix was my favorite film from an action / cinematography perspective for many years. All I was looking for for awhile was slow, steady, long shots with the action clearly framed in a dramatic fashion, and anything else I kind of dismissed as inferior. But films like Ultimatum and QoS convinced me that there is merit in more haphazard shooting and editing styles - there are certain things that can be captured that steadicam shots cannot. I'm still hesitant when I hear about movies using the style as it can be poorly done extremely easily, but I no longer discount it off-hand.

That's my take at least.

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

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.

I can say that the Blu-ray release is very representative of the new 35mm print I just saw. I will also say that I've always been somewhat puzzled by the complaints about Trek II being 'too blue' on BD. I've found it to have a very natural looking color palette.

One thing to always keep mentally on hand (and don't mention this to the mad scientists, because it would definitely place a speed bump in their fun) is that often these comparisons from one version of a film to the other are the exact opposite from how they are considered and treated. When people compare the older HD version of Trek II to the new BD, they are essentially comparing a transfer done about a decade ago and with now somewhat antiquated equipment and usually little to no filmmaker participation to a brand new transfer done on state of the art machinery and with evermore participation from the director and/or DP. Yet, because people are more familiar with the older transfer, that one is oddly considered the 'correct' version. It's simply not true most of the time. Some the transfers out there making the rounds on cable and satellite are 10 or 15 years old (Sony made a big deal about archiving their films in HD as far back as 1994- Anyone else remember the high def mastering promo that would appear at the end of their laserdiscs, like Wolf and The Professional?). Now in most cases the transfers being used for Blu-ray are of a much more recent vintage (a lot are specifically done for new Blu-rays), but whenever these things are compared to older transfers, any change in detail or color balance in the new version is endlessly (and shockingly authoritatively) scrutinized as a departure from the original look. BASS ACKWARDS!

And by the way, HOME entertainment (where playback conditions and environments can be wildly uncontrolled) is the only place where that sort of criticism seems to considered normal and expected. Nobody would walk out of a 35mm screening and say, "that print had a slightly greener tint than the one I saw 25 years ago" or "I'm not going to see that movie at Grauman's Chinese Theater... it's only presented in lossy Dolby Digital?" How many people have you all seen ***** and whine about a DVD or Blu-ray being 1.78 instead of 1.85 while they have no comprehension of the hodgepodge of ratios and cropping at their local multiplex? It's the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law and most of the forums out there now have all migrated towards the letter. Unfortunately, art (and movies are certainly art) is usually designed by the people who make it for the spirit.

I'll also add this since I'm a bit stream of consciousness right now...
I also challenged the scientards to explain the path they follow from acquisition/capture to screenshot (basically, to show their work). My argument was that comparing a freeze frame from a 1080i60 video source to a 1080p24 source has specific problems that must be considered. Interlaced video is stored in fields while progressive video is stored in frames. This could potentially create a situation where a still frame from an interlaced source could create false detail by containing information from two different frames when the fields are combined. A 23.98 progressive frame will only contain that frame and no remnants from either side. I asked what the capture and display methodology was to confirm if this was potentially a problem. Were they capturing via a dedicated capture card, such as the Blackmagic or Aja and were they viewing the original 1080i frames on a capable CRT monitor (since most LCD screens will blend the fields together, so you'd potentially never know there was a problem). How many of the experts were willing/able to respond to these questions?
None.

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

I think the shaky-cam stuff can be great, but only when well done.

However, Bourne Ultimatum and Quantum of Solace were extremely well done in my opinion.

Ugh, we'll certainly have to agree to disagree. Sitting in the Cinerama Dome opening night for Ultimatum, I wanted to kick Paul Greengrass in the teeth! Shaky for fights and action is one thing. Shaky when someone is just on the phone or two people are just talking at a conference table makes me want to kill myself. I literally watched half that movie with one eye closed... that's not an exaggeration.

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think that England just has to pretend (during the World Cup), that they are playing another team in the Premier League (rather than someone like ‘Brasil’, etc.) and if they can do that (mentally) they can beat anybody!
Note: P.E. was not shot in digital 4k nor did it get a 4k DI.

As an aside, District 9 (Sony Pictures) is also coming out on Blu-ray this month, and greater than half of that was acquired with a 4k camera capturing on 8 gig CF cards which (Bobby Henderson will just love this)…………………

gave the cinematographer a whopping 4 ½ min.(roughly) of shooting time. But that’s a story for another time……..around Christmas.

Penton I'm stunned, I was sure P.E. was 4K, as Mann always tended to go for the statest of state of the art...

When it comes to sound he clearly goes for an Altman-esque live feel a la m*a*s*h and mccabe &..., he's gotta have some pretty amazing sound guys working for him as all those horrific gun shots from Heat were live recorded on the set and not overdubbed...he also released Thief with a then unheard of 4 channel Mag Track for optimum fidelity. Quite why he also thinks audiences appreciate muffled, inaudible dialogue i'll never know!

i'm equally amazed that any of the great D9 was shot in 4K (I just remember it not being a pretty film on any level so i assumed it was all amateur Camcorder/16mm/35mm/2K Digital interspersed with those amazing effects....I guess that show's how much I really know!

M