Was Collateral shot on video?

[Sam Wells]

the thing you have to remember is that they had about 12 db of gain on at times, and the noise is all intentional.

I think +9 with the Viper, according to the AC article.

 

I say, why not, it works in a movie like this.

 

-Sam

[Greg Gross]

For Bill T., As to film/video look: I viewed Collateral yesterday at 12 noon

and then viewed The Bourne Supremacy at 4pm. What a difference I must

say. Mr. Cruise looked very different compared to the film look we are used

to seeing. I would like to hear his comments considering the film/video look.

I thought his acting was excellent as usual but I could not get used to the

video look. The depth of field was quite obvious and I for one liked it in the

the night type scene. One thing which helped me accept the video look was

that Mr. Cruise did such an excellent job portraying the character that I would

get in to the character and forget about the look. Having been a professional

photographer (now turning cinematographer/videographer) its hard to except

the look as I'm so used to looking at film. I heard on the radio today that the

film grossed 24 million this weekend. Imagine my re-introduction into reality

when I viewed The Bourne Supremacy at 4 pm. Matt Damon and Julia Stiles

(please forgive all if I spelled name wrong). She for one photographed so

well on film(I love her cheeks and whole facial look on film and she photo-

graphed so well) and of course Matt Damon was the Matt I'm used to seeing

at the cinema. To make matters worse I watched Truffaut's-Day For Night

at home the same evening. Then on Sunday I watched North Fork,the light

in this film is awesome its just simply so beautiful(my god I could feel it!).

I don't know Bill, are we ready for the viper look at the cinema?

[Sam Wells]

The close ups held nicely, but not a lot of texture in the skin.

I thought so too, in that respect, not quite there yet.

 

Texture & color in the sheet metal was quite good...

 

Which says the HD cameras still favor their cousins, other machines ;)

 

It worked for me, though.

 

-Sam

[singer]

I saw Collateral the other night and I have to say it was a pretty weak movie. The cinematogrphy was perfectly fine to me but the story could have used some work. It wasnt the fact that the movie was shot on video that bothered me, it was the fact that they had choosen to shoot it on video. I felt as if the people who put together this film? video?, came in expecting it to be as weak as it was. If people go the the theater to pay the ridiculous prices to see a weak movie I think the film makers should have the decency to shoot it on film. I feel that with the birth of the video age film makers are allowing themselves to produce weaker movies while still making enormous profits. DOES anyone agree????

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Jim Cameron said once "I think we should just bite the bullet and double ticket prices to ensure

that the quality evolves", thereby giving himself carte blanche to produce his next $400

million movie, maybe..

 

I disagree. You work within the contsraints the business offers. Adapt, evolve, or get out.

 

The film and music industry have been such sheltered cash cows for so many years, they

get really pissed when the status quo is upset. Let's not forget that the whole reason

people download music in the first place is that it costs a fortune to get an album that cost

nothing to produce. Now, 10 years down the line when internet has eroded the

record companies bizniz (mind you, they can life off the cash they ripped from your

parents for decades still), albums have STILL not become any cheaper. And they keep on

whining and bitching.

 

Today a movie on DVD that has 2 hours of entertainment and costs a fortune to make

often costs less than $10 to buy. The CD costs a fraction of that to produce and make,

yet still is more expensive. Man, they had it coming. You can fool some people sometimes,

but you can't fool all the people all the times.

 

Same goes for films. Would it kill them to differentiate ticket prices? I think a small DV

feature with no name actors should be cheaper than the Bruckheimer elefantiasis summer

buster. There will always be people who are willing to pay to see Will Smith and Martin

Lawrence flash guns (me, I'd pay big money to never have to see Martin Lawrence again

on the screen ever). Let the audience decide.

 

I find myself having a very hard time paying upwards $20 (yes that's what it costs to go to the movies in London) to see a film. Which is such a pity because I love going to the movies. So quite often you fall into the old blockbuster trap: Since the prices are the same for the small and the big movies, I more often than not see only the big-ish movies 'cause at least then I get to see someone spend a fortune on the screen. It's such a pity, because that's not the kind of cinemagoer I want to be. I want to be varied in my diet.

[Bob Hayes]

?Collateral? is sure generating a varied response. Here?s my two cents based on a digital 2k projection. It was Murky, Milky, Smeary, Blurry and Dull. Not only did the night scenes look like video they looked like poorly exposed video. There is all this talk of how great HD performs in low light. I don?t think so. But I?ve shot enough Kodak 5218 to know it excels in that kind of environment. There are documentaries shot on Mini DV that capture a more seductive night world. Don?t get me wrong I like HD. There is great HD product out there. I especially enjoyed ?Once Upon a Time in Mexico?. Also this isn?t the kind of look that you need to drop $10 at the cinema to see. I bet, by the time this gets to DVD the HD footage will all be ?fixed?. Better black levels and all.

 

Bob

[Marc_Abernathy]

simply put,

 

we are all used to film. it only makes sense that the 'old headz' have issues with shooting on video. i am not picking anyone out so no one please take offense.

 

just think if we all started out on video THEN someone figured out shooting on cellulose gives the images shot on it a warm feeling. imagine the responses to seeing the first movie shot totally on (the new kid on the block) film rather than the tried and true video format.

 

what would thew arguments be?

 

hmm, i notice the depth of focus was much narrower for this scene than on video.

 

hmm, i need more light to shoot this scene then i did on video.

 

geesh these magazines than hold the film don't give me much shooting time.

 

all I'm saying is film has its advantages over video and vice versa. just pick any "vinyl recordings sound better than CD" debate and the same arguments apply here as well.

 

i think Mann did a good job and it was nice seeing the night in a different "look" and i have enjoyed reading the many responses from the veteran cinematographers. ;)

[Bob Hayes]

Marc

 

I?m glad someone picked up the gauntlet. And, I?m sure you weren?t referring to me as an old head.

 

Bob

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

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?

For some reason I have been thinking the same thing, I found some of the deep focus shots in the train scene was kind of distracting, kind of like watching train 48 (Canadian TV series). But its nice seeing something different for a change and I really like the story, but its not 24. I am going to see it again this weekend as the first time I was under the impression that it was shot entirely on HD.

[Bill Totolo]

Well I finally got to see this movie (its been a busy summer).

 

Re: Acting on video. After seeing the movie and not just the trailer I don't feel the performances were hindered by the format. I thought Jada Pinkett-Smith and Jamie Foxx were excellent. The audience I saw this movie with laughed out loud at Tom Cruise's performance in three areas that I don't believe were intended to be funny. This is the second movie in a row where the audience has laughed at Tom's acting choices. There was a lot of laughter at Tom's performance in "The Last Samurai".

 

Re: The look, I agree with Mr. Bob Hayes. It was milky. In a story that takes place at night wouldn't you place emphasis on strong black levels? It looked cheap and hurried like they didn't give enough importance to lighting.

 

Also, in my observation the skin tones looked VERY ashen on the caucasian and African American actors.

 

Regarding Audio: There were a lot of inconsistencies with the dialogue mix. Sometimes it sounded tinny and hollow, sometimes it sounded too ambient as if the mic wasn't close enough. They probably could have done a lot more ADR on this movie. Maybe all of post-production was hurried.

 

Over-all I would say this was not Michael Mann's best film.

 

[/i]

[Andy O'Neil]

"The audience I saw ["Collateral"] with laughed out loud at Tom Cruise's performance in three areas that I don't believe were intended to be funny." - Bill T.

 

I recall laughing at several scenes, which I believe were intentionally funny. The scenes provided interesting, sympathy inducing dynamics for the antagonist.

[Bill DiPietra]

I for one LOVED "Collateral." In simple terms, it is vintage Michael Mann.

 

I thought Cruise was excellent as a very determined assasin. I found his portrayal quite convincing. Definitely a new kind of role for him. Jamie Foxx has come a long way with his acting ability and it really shows in this film. I'd have to say he outshined Cruise a bit.

 

As for the photography, I thought it was great. As usual, Michael Mann captured the L.A. night better than any other filmmaker out there. I liked the combination of cool and warm tones as well. Perhaps my eye is not as trained as it once was, but I found it hard to tell the HD images apart from the 35mm images until I saw some video motion blur. The picture looked extremely sharp, too. "Collateral" definitely falls into the "Thief"/"Heat" section of Michael Mann's resume, but I felt that this film had a stronger story than "Heat."

 

Excellent work by Michael Mann and his cast and crew.

[Marc_Abernathy]

bill, i dont think you have lost your eye or your mind... i agree with your post. i am of course not as experienced as you are but i know what i like and i like mikes work and i thought this movie was a refreshing break from all of the other big budget movies of the season that have all the glitzly eye dazzling lighting and CG efx...

[Alex Opdam]

I didn't think this film was anywhere near the same league as heat. Heat had several great heist and action scenes, some gritty violence and cutting dialogue. Basically i felt like it gave me an insight into an actual heist crew. Tom Cruise was about as believable as a hitman in my mind as he would be as a basketball player.

 

I thought they got away with the video look in the closeups and fairly static shots, but when i say 'got away' i mean it was not _that_ much worse than film. The wide shots of action, most notably from memory when Cruise jumps through the office glass and onto the chair, and when Foxx and Pinkett run out of the elevator and towards the escalator, i thought looked... well like video.

 

I understand that he got a lot of shots that he couldn't have gotten had he shot on film, but i ask was it worth it for that amount of blue noise? Whether it is conditioning or inbuilt, i can put up with a bit of film grain but digital noise really kills the mood for me.

 

If anything, this film gives me inspiration - if these fine actors can look amateur on top of the line HD, surely I can get some half-decent actors to look believable on film.

[Guest fstop]

I finally saw this movie, and first off, what an appalling climax! The last twenty minutes was a mainstream, crowd pleasing insult- think felow shark-jumping auteur Scorsese's no brainer finale to his Cape Fear remake. I cannot believe the imagination behind THIEF, MANHUNTER and THE KEEP has stooped to being so safe, bland, predictable and BORING. :(

 

As for the photography- The LIGHTING I thought was consistently excellent, was great to see so much hard light in this movie, all of which had the chic signature of Dion Beebe. This guy is one of the best out there right now, and what a phenomenal eye he has for colour!

 

I really wish they'd shot either all HD or all 35mm- the mix media thing was jarring and unlike Bill I DO feel the direction especially of the performances varied from the over the shoulder, pretend-guerilla nature of the HD to the slick and traditional 35mm stuff- one's inherently get up and go, the other contrived. Major stylistic CLASH that takes time to adapt to cutting from medium to medium. I don't think an audience will ever accept this unless it's stylistically justifed (i.e. a greater narrative justification than "I want to see night sky more on exteriors"). Maybe Mann should have just hired Robert Richardson?

 

I enjoyed the rollercoaster of a first hour, I thought the pace and the direction during this time was spot on- laughed out loud at the Cruise's mugging gun-down and the wonderful scene with Foxx's mother- prefered Tommy Rothrock's music to James Newton Howard's...

 

Overall I LOVED the look of the video, even if they used every trick in the book to draw attention to the fact that they shot on an electronic format. I'm suprised Mann didn't go full out and super-impose a red light with a "record" graphic into the bottom left hand side of his frame throughout the movie...

 

I have to admit, at it's worst I felt this movie played like THE WORST kind of bad student film- the climax particularly. Many here have used the word "laughable", as mentioned I laughed out loud at two brilliant intentional gags during the first forty minutes, but during the final twenty I was cringing with disappointment and even worse, disbelief. I also couldn't believe for the relatively tiny scale of the production that big names like John Sullivan and Tommy Fisher handled the effects work- I'm sure anyone who has visited a guerilla filmmaking forum's FAQ on squibmaking could have pulled off the latters job with great ease (lets face it, there weren't any special effects in the movie other than bullet hits)! Then there was the grading, which like 28 Days Later seemed to be where all the money went. No HD revolution for the poor people yet! ;)

 

Great work from Beebe, would have LOVED to have seen everyone's hero Paul Cameron shoot the whole thing too- but coming straight after ALI and now onto MIAMI VICE starring Colin Farrell, I can't help but feel someone has lost their bite for good. :(

[Brad Grimmett]

I also couldn't believe for the relatively tiny scale of the production that big names like John Sullivan and Tommy Fisher handled the effects work-

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe they had about 65 million. Do you call that tiny? I know it's not 200 million, but it's pretty big.

[Guest fstop]

That wasn't my point: Tommy Fisher is a BIG BIIIIGGGGGG name in SFX- think Rambo, Titanic, True Lies, Batman 3 etc. Seeing his name on a film that had a few hardly envelope pushing squibs and an oardinary car stunt just seemed like casting Olivier as "man on bus #2". I guess everyone has to pay the bills. Same with John Sullivan- just goes to show how many digital gags are actually in the picture that fly passed our eyes unnoticed!

[Guest Kai.w]

I thought they got away with the video look in the closeups and fairly static shots, but when i say 'got away' i mean it was not _that_ much worse than film. The wide shots of action, most notably from memory when Cruise jumps through the office glass and onto the chair, and when Foxx and Pinkett run out of the elevator and towards the escalator, i thought looked... well like video.

 

I understand that he got a lot of shots that he couldn't have gotten had he shot on film, but i ask was it worth it for that amount of blue noise? Whether it is conditioning or inbuilt, i can put up with a bit of film grain but digital noise really kills the mood for me.

 

If anything, this film gives me inspiration - if these fine actors can look amateur on top of the line HD, surely I can get some half-decent actors to look believable on film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd really like to understand how "video" might have made Tom Cruise >performance< look less believable than film...

I think you are also wrong about the noise thing. Strong film grain we are used to accept as a nostalgic layer sort of like "those were the times" , etc. and that I'm sure is not want Mann wanted. I believe he wanted todays, urban, ugly dirt more like the stuff that comes out of the exhaust(?) of your car... so, in this sense film grain would have killed the mood intended, whereas the video noise worked perfectly...

 

-k