I don’t know how many of you saw Michael Mann’s most recent film, Public Enemies, but if you did I’m sure you know where I’m going with this. I was excited about the movie, being a Johnny Depp fan and being fascinated by the story of John Dillinger. However, the film was terrible, I could hardly watch it due to the visual quality being so horrible. It had the worst cinematography of any film I’ve ever seen. As TIME magazine put it, “It looked like parts of the film were shot on an iphone.” The lighting was terrible and the overall camera movement and utilization, etc was abominable. Dante Spinotti, the cinematographer is an experienced professional and it seems the only thing different about Public Enemies was that is was shot on digital whereas most of his previous projects were film. You have to light for the medium, you light some film stocks differently depending on their ratings and you should run tests on the digital camera you’re using so you can light for it accordingly. This film’s aesthetic failure was a big win for film, film’s dynamic range is more forgiving than that of digital’s ccd’s. I’m not suggesting that the film would have won an oscar for cinematography, but I am sure that film would have been more forgiving of the blunders in lighting and such. Some of the film’s problems can also be blamed on the post supervisors, they clearly screwed up as well with how the digital was prepped for transfer, etc.
Another big problem I have with people like Mann shooting film’s such as PE on digital is this. If you’re shooting a period piece and it is supposed to look old, why not shoot it on the medium that existed back then and give it a genuine vintage look. I think people should exploit the positives in both digital and film, use your brain. If money is no object for your film, choose the medium that is going to do the most for your movie. For instance, shoot your outer space futuristic movie on DIGITAL, and your civil war film on FILM. Just a thought.
So if film had been used instead, but the crappy lighting had remained, would that then make a case for digital?
I agree when you say that one ought to choose the medium that will do the most for the movie. However the time period of the movie should not be a deciding factor in choosing said medium. What if you’re shooting a caveman flick? What if 2001: A Space Odyssey had been shot today? Should the first act be shot on film and the rest digital? And to take this line of logic even further, wouldn’t a series of cavepaintings be a more appropriate medium, seeing as how neither film nor digital was available at that time?
Shooting on film with crappy lighting would not have produced a great looking film; however, film usually has a greater tolerance for a wide range of luminance.
As far as the medium goes, I agree that it isn’t always practical to use the medium of the time depicted, but if the medium is readily available and actually still in use (like 35mm film), it seems like it would have been a wiser decision.
Not to mention, some of the effects Mann utilized in his film would have been more pleasing on film. For instance, it is quite hard to get a nice looking lens flare on digital (because brights blow out faster on a sensor than on film), and noise on a digital sensor vs. grain on a piece of film have vastly different appearances, even though many people try to compare them.
Also, I should have noted that I’m being a little harsher on Spinotti’s cinematography because in a recent interview with him, he praised the f-23 camera and talks unabashedly about how great it made Public Enemies look and that the results prompted him to choose it for the shooting of the newest Chronicles of Narnia movie. If its performance was so great, I’m pretty sure the audiences saw something different than him.
I feel like people are being sold a lower quality product these days by people like Mann and Spinotti, just for the sake of a higher profit margin for their films.
the issue is not film vs video. the issue is that PE was shot very very badly.
we have all seen great looking movies shot on video, and some of them we dont even notice… (which is great) but this one was completely awful.
havent heard anyone saying anything regarding the extreme wide angle close-ups (completely unlighted) which offended me the most, but i guess the poor lighting on this one made it look like it did.
too bad though, im greatly influenced by mr spinotti and mr mann, but this is a great example of what shouldnt be done in video.