A turning point in the career of Public Enemies producer Bryan Carroll came when he worked as a film and visual-effects editor for James Cameron on Titanic. “That’s what sparked my interest into shooting movies digitally from script to screen,” he said. When he met Michael Mann, the director was thinking of shooting the night scenes in Ali digitally. “And that’s how I got involved with Michael, using what I had learned from many years in the digital realm,” he said. “I brought that in and building a bullet proof system, knowing we would end up on film.” He was first a co-producer on Robbery Homicide Division, the first hour-long drama shot digitally, then began Collateral working with the Thomson Viper. “This was the pinnacle of how you could really use HD in a feature film environment,” he said. “That was also the beginning of my relationship with Sony.”
Top: Michael Mann with the F23; photo by Peter Mountain
Login Required
If you have a username and password, please login:
StudioDaily stories are always free. In order to access stories from our training and tutorials archives, we require a one-time registration. Please click here to register.
Comments (21) for "Co-Producer Bryan Carroll on the Tech Behind Public Enemies"
1.
I saw this this evening and I have to say that I did not like the video in a lot of parts of this movie. Some of the parts seemed extremely "cheap" looking while other parts looked beautiful. It was very distracting when there would be an action scene and one shot would look like a home camcorder and the next shot would look like a real movie. This was pretty bad in the first half of the movie. The second half looked a lot better. I'm not a fan of HD to begin with and this has really pushed me the rest of the way towards thinking HD is going to kill the movie industry. There were parts that just seemed almost fake, like you were looking at a 2D painting because the depth of view was just too deep.
Posted by Chris on Friday, July 3, 2009 @ 01:15 AM
2.
I was wondering why the picture,in "Public Enemies" looked so dead and lifeless. I got the answer, it was shot in digital HD. There is something not quite right about the faux look of digitally shot motion pictures. I've felt that way since seeing Michael Mann's "Miami Vice". You never want to see a digital HD movie twice. Visually it seems unnatural to the human eye. It gave me a splitting headache, just like "soaps" use to, when I was a kid. I actuallly had to close my eyes and go to sleep half way though the movie.
It would have be sooo much better if it was shot on film. I think the director just likes that 2K playback. Can't they do that with a film camera?
Posted by Greg on Friday, July 3, 2009 @ 05:51 PM
3.
I agree with the above, while I think HD films are the way to go, unlike other films like Superman Returns, and other digital features, Mann's films, Collateral, Miami Vice, and Public Enemies look like video. I'm not sure exactly what he is doing wrong, but there are tons of HD features out there that look great and you can't tell if it was shot on film or not if you're not thinking about it. Whereas Mann;s films try and test the limitations of low light and HD video, and the results should stay in the test lab. Years later these films will really show their age. But Mann has earned the right to play after so many masterpieces. Its a shame he can't experiment on more commercials and not 100 million dollar features!
Posted by Erik on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 02:33 PM
4.
What's all this talk about 2K? If they shot to HDCAM-SR, the highest res laid down was 1080p. I couldnt imagine Mann taking in 1080p Uprez'd to 2K on the Nitris.
Posted by Tim on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 02:42 PM
5.
I saw this the other night, and I'd have to agree... it was clearly (to me) shot on video, and it looks to me like it was shot at 30i. Or certainly not at 24p. Some of the shots, especially during shootouts (not sure if this was intentional) looked like they were coming from a behind-the-scenes special, shot in 30i. Like it or not "film" look is that for a reason, and if using HD video is a better way to go for creativity and budget, then I think you should at least endeavor to make it look like film. Or at the very least be consistent!
Posted by Mike on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 02:44 PM
6.
The main footage with the Sony F23 is NOT the shaky "HD footage" in the film. That footage was made with a different camera.
I believe the F23 records 24fps in the same way a film camera does. So the idea that there is "some strange pulldown" going on in the motion is not accurate. This is not an XL2, here, people!
I also felt that perhaps the color correction was particularly cool and muted, but that has little to do with the camera.
Posted by Jesus Ali on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 02:52 PM
7.
It's got less to do with the fact that it's shot digitally than with how Mann decides to abuse the gear and shoot his "vision".
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (Robert Rodriguez) was shot digitally with a Cine Alta. No video look there.
The video parts don't have to look like video but apparently Mann likes that crap (see Miami Vice for example).
Posted by Tcrew on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 02:54 PM
8.
Saw it this weekend and with digital projection too. I can only assume that Mr. Mann wanted it to look like a reality series as it was blatantly video - along with the typical displays of motion sweep delays, edge rings and bloomed out light, weird skin tones etc etc. In addition the pointed quality of audio where the mix or perhaps at times off mix is also played out - at times the audio goes flat and one dimensional coming from the actual environment. I love Mann's work but I think this was a decision that didn't pan out and created a look that at times took you out of the film. Sometimes it felt like watching some folks getting together to "make a movie". We have seen much better use of digital cameras so I can only assume his decision to make it in video was to create the documentary - you are there - feel. Unfortunately it hurts the film along with a weak story and emotionally detached script.
Posted by Chris Laskey on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 04:07 PM
9.
Just saw the movie and I thought it was beautiful. The shoot-out scene at Little Bohemia Lodge is gorgeous and the editing is fantastic. Until reading this article, I did not know it was digital. I really got into the flow of the movie; my son felt that maybe there was too much hand-held movement in some parts. Overall, I thought it was a great looking movie and an exceptional period piece.
Posted by Robin on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 04:11 PM
10.
I saw this movie projected digitally because I wanted to be as close to the intention of the director as possible. Great story! Very entertaining. Now, speaking to the issue of using the F23 on this film, I understand the design idea behind deep focus on this film, but I left the theater wanting to put the F23 through some tests of my own. Surely the strong edge artifacts and noise were a bi-product of the "look" the director and cinematographer were after rather than a centerpiece of that look. I remember thinking to myself, "Surely, the F23 is better than this."
To my eye, it almost appeared as if some edge enhancement had been employed to create additional "sharpness" in the prison break scene in the first act. The clouds in the sky had unsightly edge artifacts and noise that appeared to my eye as signature edge enhancement artifacts. I noticed the same contrast and edge enhancement in trees and brush in the daylight scenes.
I have been shooting digital for a long time, and I can help but thinking the F23 can produce better images than what we see in this film. Digital is not film, but digital can look much better than what I saw of this film projected digitally.
Posted by Dan on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 04:18 PM
11.
I don't know what the reason for shooting video is? If you want to save money, shoot on the ex1or ex3, cut the crew in half and you would get the same results as the f23. If I'm wrong please correct me!
Posted by Jason Chocianowski on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 04:47 PM
12.
F23 is extremely different to EX3. EX3 is a CMOS camera and suffers from rolling shutter. F23 also shoots 10-bit LOG. Public Enemies was shot 24p. The "video look" comes from selecting the open shutter option. This can be done with any HD camera. This makes progressive video look like video. The reason for doing this is to get an extra "stop" of light coming through the lens meaning you can shoot in extremely low light.
Posted by Marc Windon on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 07:47 PM
13.
Like most others that commented here I thought the film projected was a video ala soap opera. The print I saw looked so fake it wasn't easy on the eyes.
Make up looked flat and looked like make up. Hand held shots were very bad to look at and hard on the eyes to follow. Shots were polsterized. the color shift in this movie were the worst I had ever seen. And to boot most of the shot were in close up just like a soap opera. Come on Michael, didn't you learn your lesson with Miami Vice. Grain, grain, grain. you even said yourself Michael about M V you should have shot film after shooting 8 millions in tests.
Posted by Raffaele Marraffa on Monday, July 6, 2009 @ 09:44 PM
14.
I saw the movie last night and was impressed with the digital look. Now filmmakers are going to have to learn that shooting video they have to get away from hand-held cameras. The extreme closeups with the handheld cameras drove me crazy. if you're going to show video, put the camera on a tripod, dolly or steadicam and leave it there.
Posted by Bill Miller on Tuesday, July 7, 2009 @ 09:10 AM
15.
The entire look of Public Enemies was uneven and weak. Hard lighting, really flat. The closing scene was abysmal, it looked like it was shot with the ex1 intercut with F23. Really took away from the story.
Posted by Jim Chu on Tuesday, July 7, 2009 @ 10:40 AM
16.
I haven't seen PE yet, but watched Miami Vice again last night... and while I agree, for the most part that film still has a quality and a feeling to it that is difficult to reproduce with HD - I don't think Michael Mann is trying to make HD look like Film, he's using it as it's own medium. There's a quality to HD that you can't replicate with Film (and visa versa), it's a very raw and harsh image compared to Film, and the vision for HD on both Miami Vice and PE is all about giving it that 'reality' look. People have come to associate HD or video with 'reality,' and Film as something that's polished and Hollywood. The bottom line is - if the movie is good, the acting is good, and the story is good - the format the film is shot on is just a vehicle to tell a story.
Posted by Mike L on Tuesday, July 7, 2009 @ 10:50 AM
17.
Agree with the general consensus above. I was surprised at how distracting the mix of looks were. Skin tone all over the place, nasty shaky camera work and all that blown out DV look! It even looked like some shots were scaled up dramatically.
I loved the period so was disappointed it was represented for me in a reality TV way. My interpretation that cheap, video look reminds me of home videos from the 90's, not dark and brooding depression era America.
Odd audio mix too, almost sounded unfinished?
May have been something I could/should overlook but I also felt the script didn't engage me enough. Depp's a hero though.. and I enjoy spending time in his screen presence alone!
Interesting! Not my cup of tea but I support there being alternatives to the standard Hollywood fare.
Posted by Lucy N on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 @ 12:38 PM
18.
The movie was badly flawed when it came to cars. Depp as Dillinger in scenes with a 1935 Plymouth, and worse yet, a 1936 Chevrolet. How can they do such a good job with some period objects and mess up on the cars? Dillinger was dead before those cars were built.
Posted by chuck on Saturday, August 1, 2009 @ 01:07 AM
19.
The digital picture looked so fake that it ruined the whole movie experience. Looked like some kid had recorded it with a handycam. The "movielook" was totally gone.
Posted by Shibaja on Saturday, October 24, 2009 @ 07:00 PM
20.
Having just watched it on DVD (up-rezed to HD by the player), I can say all the remarks here about the quality and consistency of the look do not apply. I never suspected it was shot on video until I watched the bonus, noticed the weird camera, which got me to this website. They certainly have massaged the footage for DVD release, and they have done a superb job.
Posted by Christian on Sunday, December 27, 2009 @ 12:44 AM
21.
Just saw it on dvd last night. Now I have the most direct answer when I am asked why I insist to shoot with my Arri SR1 super 16mm.
Posted by rudy on Monday, December 28, 2009 @ 11:58 AM
Post your comments below
