Parts of Collateral shot with Viper and 900

[Landon D. Parks]

I am thinking of heading over to the theater today and sit through collateral just to see how the video parts looked.

 

To tell the truth, I have never seen an HD film in the theaters.

 

And I was wondering if anyone knew what parts where shot on HD? So that I know what the parts where, as I dont know if i'll be able to tell the difference.

 

Any help, very quick would be a godsend!

 

Thanks guys!

[Mike Panczenko]

Night scenes were shot on HD. Day exteriors were shot on film. I believe day interiors were shot on HD. Hope this helps.

[David Mullen ASC]

Interior night scenes were shot on film if there was enough light level -- low light level interiors used HD. The jazz club scene was shot on film. The shootout in the second night club was shot on all the cameras, 35mm, F900 HDCAM, Viper.

[Landon D. Parks]

Thanks everyone!!!

 

 

So, I take it HD *does better* than film when the light levels are low?

[John Pytlak RIP]

So, I take it HD *does better* than film when the light levels are low?

 

It's a matter of creative choice and taste. Some can argue that 5218 might have been a better choice.

 

"Available Darkness" usually requires accepting increased film grain or electronic noise --- take your choice.

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

there was film used? on imdb under technical specs it just lists the HD no film

[Landon D. Parks]

Yes, the did use film.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Better" is the wrong word -- "different". HD, because of the 2/3" imager, has more depth of field, so even when shooting a wide apertures there's more depth of field than with 35mm. So less of the night time landscape is out of focus.

 

HD tends to clip (burn out) faster in bright areas like neon signs but film tends to fall off faster in the dimmest areas like the glow on the horizon.

 

But in terms of true sensitivity, HD and film are equal more or less. HD at 0db with a 1/48th of a second shutter is around 320 to 400 ASA on the F900.

 

But in "Collateral" they turned the HD camera's shutter to 1/32nd or 1/24th (off) at 24P to gain more exposure, something you can't do with a film camera running at 24 fps. But as a result they also get some video-ish "smear" to fast motion. There's one awful shot of Tom Cruise leaping through a glass window in the nightclub and stumbling on a chair that looks particularly bad for smearing motion.

 

For the shootout in the night club, they push-processed the film to match how they were gain-boosting the HD cameras and thus were able to shoot in the same light levels.

 

So I think where the HD cameras were useful was in keeping a deeper focus look for night exteriors and seeing into the "murk" into the distance better, not so much for overall exposure. Also, as you underexpose and push-process film, you get more contrast whereas when you underexpose HD and gain-boost, the contrast really doesn't get higher hence why there might be more low-end detail (but also sometimes it looks like a lack of contrast...)

[John Pytlak RIP]

there was film used? on imdb under technical specs it just lists the HD no film

 

There is an article "Hell on Wheels" in the August 2004 issue of "American Cinematographer".

 

The films used were Kodak VISION 500T Color Negative Film 5279 and Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218, mostly push processed.

 

Kodak Laser Pacific transferred the HD to 35mm.

 

Prints made on Kodak VISION Premier Color Print Film 2393.

 

"Better" is the wrong word -- "different"

 

Of course I'm wearing my "film" hat. ;) But I've seen some pretty nice looking "available darkness" material shot with 5218. Does the "video smear" detract from the storytelling by calling attention to itself? Was the tradeoff for increased depth of field worth it? Those are creative decisions that could be argued either way:

 

But as a result they also get some video-ish "smear" to fast motion. There's one awful shot of Tom Cruise leaping through a glass window in the nightclub and stumbling on a chair that looks particularly bad for smearing motion.

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

I don't mean to be geting in to a film vs HD debate, but does anyone know the motivation behind useing HD. As i dont think it was financial discision

[John Pytlak RIP]

It's discussed in the AC article:

 

"Collateral" director Michael Mann had experimented with high definition (HD) video...Intrigued by the format's potential for feature filmmaking, Mann decided to use it on the extensive night-exterior work in "Collateral" to make the most of available light in and around Los Angeles.

 

He wanted to use the format to create a kind of urban glowing environment

[Rob Belics]

In an article posted elsewhere he also said he was ready to kick it off the truck,too.

[Marty Hamrick]

Of course I'm wearing my "film" hat. ;) But I've seen some pretty nice looking "available darkness" material shot with 5218. Does the "video smear" detract from the storytelling by calling attention to itself? Was the tradeoff for increased depth of field worth it? Those are creative decisions that could be argued either way:

 

But as a result they also get some video-ish "smear" to fast motion. There's one awful shot of Tom Cruise leaping through a glass window in the nightclub and stumbling on a chair that looks particularly bad for smearing motion]

Very good points,John.The scene where after the body falls on the taxicab and Jamie Fox jumps out and crawls backwards away from it was particularly troublesome to me.

Marty

[Guest phlegmatic]

They were able to push the gain in the hd cams really high and watched the singnal to noise ratio extensively. The night interior shot at the end in the office building was also shot on HD because they didn't want any lights inside the room because of reflections off of the glass windows everywhere. They did end up using some kino flo solutions which were rigged up with pvc piping.

 

The article in ASC gives the details. I saw the movie weeks ago and was quite pleased with the results.

[Landon D. Parks]

I thought the HD images looked grainy as all get out. Even in once upon a time in mexico, the blacks where black... with no visible grain. But in this movie, All the dark areas where terribly grainy.

 

Does this mean Robert is a Better DP than the one on collateral? Hmmm....

 

I can understand wanting to push the cameras to a limit.... But there is a limit before the actual limit that you should just not cross, and they crossed it.

[Max Jacoby]

Does this mean Robert is a Better DP than the one on collateral? Hmmm....

Haha.

 

I wish you stopped bringing up Robert Rodriguez all the time, as in most people's opinion he is not someone you should try to model yourself after.

[Landon D. Parks]

I wish you stopped bringing up Robert Rodriguez all the time,

Sorry, But reguardless of what most people think. I think he is the coolest thing to hit hollywood (Or Austin anyway..). Finally, someone who wants to change the 150 year old jazz of making a movie.... And all of a sudden that makes him an outcast? I dont know what makes any one else any better than he is.

 

Last time I checked, the industry needed a face lift anyway.

 

Let me guess... Everyone thinks George Lucas is a nutt too I bet?

 

Im starting too see a patern here. That anyone who tries to change the sacred 150 year old business gets to be a cast away.

Hmmmm.... Interesting.

[David Mullen ASC]

First of all, in your original post you said you've never seen HD projected in a theater before, so does this mean you are comparing "Collateral" projected versus "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" on a TV set??? Second, you ARE aware that there are much better light levels in Mexico in daylight than in Los Angeles at night? Third, "better" cinematography does not mean technically better. When Robert Rodriquez shoots something as good as Paul Cameron or Dion Beebe has done, THEN I'll believe he's a better cinematographer. Just having less noise in an image doesn't make you a better cinematographer. ANYONE can shoot a low-noise image in HD with enough light levels. My four-year-old nephew could.

 

I don't have a problem with Rodriquez so much as I have with someone who only listens to what he wants to hear from him and ignores the rest. Nor do I have a problem with Lucas either. The problem always comes from people who use their examples in the wrong manner, who take the wrong lessons. These guys LEARNED their craft over time, but THAT part of their life's story doesn't seem to be what you've picked up on.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'll also note that you seem to be saying that Hollywood needs to be shaken up and think out of the box, yet you seem to complaining about a film that pushes the limits of HD to achieve an artistic result compared to a technically conservative HD movie like "Once Upon a Time in Mexico."

 

Ultimately I think you'll become a better filmmaker if you modelled yourself on better filmmakers.

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

I thought the HD images looked grainy as all get out. Even in once upon a time in mexico, the blacks where black... with no visible grain. But in this movie, All the dark areas where terribly grainy.

 

Does this mean Robert is a Better DP than the one on collateral? Hmmm....

 

I can understand wanting to push the cameras to a limit.... But there is a limit before the actual limit that you should just not cross, and they crossed it.

Landon

 

If HD is going to rock Hollywood wouldn’t you want to get audiences used to digital grain vs film grain. as I doubt that the general public will notice in 10 years. There just going to say that is a beautiful movie, not it was shot on film.

 

On the bottom of your posts the line “ money makes the movie, you just work on it” “OUCH” :o appears. And the people that say if your going to make more then one movie is the general public right. Other forums I have been on with just the general public im sorry “ civilians” :ph34r: had other opinions about once a upon a time in Mexico like the movie looked cheap or the story was hard to follow.

And if I remember the local paper (sun) suggested not to waste your money. Humm. But they raved about collateral? Your first post sounds like you had to sit through it like a chore, is it kind of the way I look at pre-production. Did you enjoy the movie? Did you like the story? did you have fun? is this not the way a good producer thinks.

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

Does this mean Robert is a Better DP than the one on collateral? Hmmm....

 

 

NO they have different talents, part of working on a film set is that everyone has different talents. and you utilize there talents in different places. kind of like some of the best cinematographers whos work i follow. thay are different.

[Landon D. Parks]

If HD is going to rock Hollywood wouldn?t you want to get audiences used to digital grain vs film grain.

No... I think the role should be to get rid of the grain period.

 

On the bottom of your posts the line ? money makes the movie, you just work on it? ?OUCH?  appears.

Yes... without money you DONT have a movie. Go make a film for NOTHING($0.00) and see where you end up.

 

? civilians?  had other opinions about once a upon a time in Mexico like the movie looked cheap or the story was hard to follow.

And I agree with the people who say the story was hard to follow. I thought It looked nice.

 

And if I remember the local paper (sun) suggested not to waste your money. Humm. But they raved about collateral?

Again, Good for them. This is america, they can hate and love what ever films they want to. There ARE people who loved OUATIM too you know. The news paper is not the best place to get reviews in my opinion. Reviews should come from someone who is not being hired to give them. I think it made a B or B+ on Yahoo movies.

 

First of all, in your original post you said you've never seen HD projected in a theater before, so does this mean you are comparing "Collateral" projected versus "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" on a TV set???

Yes... And not a TV set, my Hi-Res R,G,B Computer monitor.

 

Im not going to reply to any of the other posts. I will leave you with thi question though:

 

Why is it that every time I have an opinion on somthing, all hell breaks loose?

 

 

Im not here to put down how the film looked. Only that I didnt like the grain. Period.

[Brad Grimmett]

Why is it that every time I have an opinion on somthing, all hell breaks loose?

This forum is meant for people to exchange ideas and help each other. Maybe if you started doing this instead of just posting a lot of opinions about things you know nothing about, things would be different for you here. Oh, also, if you would actually go out and do what you say you're going to do, instead of just talking about it, people might respect you more.

[Alvin Pingol]

First of all, in your original post you said you've never seen HD projected in a theater before, so does this mean you are comparing "Collateral" projected versus "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" on a TV set???

Yes... And not a TV set, my Hi-Res R,G,B Computer monitor.

Either way, it was a standard-definition signal wrapped in a highly-compressed, color-subsampled MPEG2 stream, probably decoded by a cheap software MPEG decompressor.

 

Unless, of course, Landon somehow got ahold of the HD transfer and watched on his high-end HD monitor... B)

[Jason Rodriguez]

BTW, some friends from film school and another very good co-worker/dp saw OUATIM at the theatre, and didn't know it was HD until I told them!

 

Pre-assumed assumptions are a big part of what I feel makes the digital versus film argument moot in many cases.

 

If it looks good, it looks good. To say good=film, bad=HD is stupid, and frankly your only response to the two different formats would probably be subcioncious until I told you one way or the other, and then you'd say "oh yah, it looked bad because it was shot on HD," or if it was shot on film and looked bad, "Gosh, they must have been a sucky DP."