David Beier Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 It sure looks like it from the trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted July 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 22, 2004 It was shot on both 35mm and HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Yeah the HD scenes are apparent. I venture that was the point. Why shoot on two different formats, if they don't look different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Wendell_Greene Posted July 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 22, 2004 Mann used the ViperCam, 35mm film and the Sony F-950. His cinematographers were Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 22, 2004 I believe it was an F900, not an F950. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted July 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 22, 2004 US Release date is August 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Michael Mann used the HD for specific purposes, to get a key look he wanted. By doing so, he spent more than if he had just gone 35mm I am guessing, due to the work necessary to coordinate the two formats together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Wendell_Greene Posted July 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 22, 2004 Yes, David, you're right, it was the 900, not the 950. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted July 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 24, 2004 Michael Mann used the HD for specific purposes, to get a key look he wanted. By doing so, he spent more than if he had just gone 35mm I am guessing, due to the work necessary to coordinate the two formats together. This shouldn't be a surprise since he did the same with "Ali." Michael Mann has always been on the cutting edge of things, technically and artistically. It's why he's one of my favorite filmmakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykvist_fan Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 I'm at a loss to recall where I read this, but I did read that Michael Bay is going to use HD exclusivly in the future. They're all standing in Lucas' shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 They're all standing in Lucas' shadow. Not Michael Mann. When he uses video in his movies, he doesn't seemed preoccupied with comparing it to 35mm or trying to make it look like 35mm. He uses it to add to his story telling abilities, without an over arching agenda. He let's HD be what it can be. Which is not the way of Lucas at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos M. Icaza Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Hello, I saw the trailer last night, and having read this post, I was frantically looking to see where HD was used vs Film. I could not discern as easy as you guys probably do. Could you point me in the scenes that did look like HD vs Film ? Was it the interior of the taxi with Jamie Foxx ? or at the night club ? What are the subleties that I should look for ? C.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 27, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 27, 2004 Yes, the night exteriors including the taxi cab scenes were shot on HD. You can tell because it looked like the shutter was turned off to gain speed, so fast moving objects smear somewhat in a way that does not look like 24 fps film. The noise in the image is more electronic than like film grain. The depth of field is deeper than possible with 35mm available light night photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos M. Icaza Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Ahhh. I have to train my eye for those little things. :lol: Oh, and by the way, speaking of low night photography, I saw the Bourne Supremacy,(that's where I saw the trailer for Collateral).... I am learning to discern different speed stock... I did like the movie as a story. Cinematography was ok for me but I bet it was quite a challenge with all the natural/practical lightign. A bit too much shakiness for me and parts that were just too dark... Cheers, C.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill Totolo Posted July 27, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 27, 2004 Speaking of the "Collateral" trailer does anyone feel the acting suffers from Video? We're all used to seeing Tom Cruise, Jamie Fox and Jada Pinckett-Smith act but somehow, judging from the trailer, the scenes shot on video just don't quite deliver. They feel fake and poorly acted like a cheap student film. I know I'm taking the movie out of context, judging it only by the trailer, but does anyone else feel like they can see through the acting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Quell Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 for some reason i see what your saying but ill have to judge for myself. maybe its just that the plot of the movie looks kinda dumb which makes the acting look kinda dumb which makes some of us conclude its because of....VIDEO. btw...you guys think Mann did some post work to get some of that fuzz and grain? to degrad it more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 btw...you guys think Mann did some post work to get some of that fuzz and grain? to degrad it more? Well if you shoot video at night, gain boosted, with little additional lighting, you will effectively get noise in the picture. Mann did this in "Ali" and as far as we can see did the same in "Collateral". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 "maybe its just that the plot of the movie looks kinda dumb which makes the acting look kinda dumb which makes some of us conclude its because of....VIDEO." One must use the slow shutter speed on HD vary carefully as it imparts a motion capture that (us professionals ) see as "video". An accurate description of the look is slow shutter look. If film could instantaneously pull down so a 1/24th sec shutter speed occurs then the portrayal of motion would look the same as is being captured on the ccd at 1/24th. It is too early to say how the audience (less attuned than we are) relates to slow shutter at 24fps. I use it for night wideshots where any blurring of movement is minor. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Kevin Zanit Posted August 5, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 5, 2004 I just saw a screening of the film (at the Arc Light). Frankly, the movie looked to me like your average HD originated film (the digital parts). I saw a TON of blue noise in the shadows on the interior scenes at night (these were clearly shot digitally). A very natural looking film, which comes as no shock. The look was, well . . . a look. A little flat, soft, and boring. The look did work for the film. The close ups held nicely, but not a lot of texture in the skin. The motion blur issues were very apparent, some very odd looking motion blur. I enjoyed the fact that I could see the ambiance in the sky, very neat. The movie itself was pretty good. Nice concept, very good execution. Good performances. I guess the best way to sum it up is what my friend said: Reminded him of an episode of 24. Kevin Zanit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted August 5, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 5, 2004 I guess the best way to sum it up is what my friend said: Reminded him of an episode of 24. The look of '24' is itself inspired by Michael Mann's work (especially 'The Insider'). :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos M. Icaza Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 The reviews are on their way today... C.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 In the interview with Mann in the L.A. Daily News, he said he used HD just because he wanted to film exterior L.A. using available light. He bitched about having to haul more equipment than he would have with film, having to move all the video gear around, etc., so I'm not so sure it was completely an artistic decision, to get a particular look, given that this particular look is not as good. For all you newbies thinking it's so much easier, cheaper, & you don't need as much equipment, than shooting film, (basically all the hype about digital over the last few years) here's a couple good quotes from the interview: "I got so frustrated with that stuff, halfway through the movie I was ready to kick it all off the truck and get a Bolex," grumbles tough-talking, transplanted Chicagoan Mann." "The equipment was cumbersome and there was a lot of it to move around," Mann explains. "Every time you wanted to move, we had to move what we called the video village, about the size of an armoire. It wasn't that portable." "I mean, we needed and wanted it, that's why it was there, because I can see into the night with digital and I could not with film. " Here's the URL if you want to read the entire article: http://u.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,211~...2315898,00.html So that kinda sums it up for me... and I'm no closer to giving up shooting film. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 The movie is awesome. I just saw it a few hours ago. And the filming is incredible. Must see for anybody! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Elhanan Matos Posted August 6, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 6, 2004 I guess the best way to sum it up is what my friend said: Reminded him of an episode of 24. It did remind me of an episode of 24, I was speaking about the lighting and the overall feeling of the movie. I don't really know what to say about the movie, i'm not a big fan of Michael Mann, and I did not enjoy the story too much. But as far as how the picture looked on the screen, I would say it looked good, not great, but good, the thing you have to remember is that they had about 12 db of gain on at times, and the noise is all intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Kevin Zanit Posted August 7, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2004 I still think a lot of the look was due to motion blur. The more I think about it, the more the look reminded me of what telecined TV looks like. I think it did hold up pretty well on the big screen, but I could still feel the lack of resolution in the format. The cameras did handle color very nicely though. Kevin Zanit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now