"Collateral"

[Guest dpforum1968]

So I'm seeing the ads on TV for the DVD release of Tom Cruise's "Collateral."

 

Oooooo, Icky, gag, was it supposed to look that bad?

 

It looks like it was shot on BetaSP. Grainy, no detail, flat colours. It is especially noticeable when followed by a TV spot shot on 35mm, what a night and day difference.

 

So my question is, did they intend for the movie to have that "look." Or does HD just look crappy when it's output to film?

 

Yes I know Lucas is shooting his stuff in HD, but there is heavy post work done on every shot.

 

I hope Collateral is not indicative of the future of film, if so heaven help us.

 

DC

[Guest Kai.w]

So I'm seeing the ads on TV for the DVD release of Tom Cruise's "Collateral."

 

Oooooo, Icky, gag, was it supposed to look that bad?

 

It looks like it was shot on BetaSP.  Grainy, no detail, flat colours.  It is especially noticeable when followed by a TV spot shot on 35mm, what a night and day difference.

 

So my question is, did they intend for the movie to have that "look."  Or does HD just look crappy when it's output to film?

 

Yes I know Lucas is shooting his stuff in HD, but there is heavy post work done on every shot.

 

I hope Collateral is not indicative of the future of film, if so heaven help us.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know. It's funny because we just did a project with the Viper (apparently most of the collateral HD shots were done with this). and all I can say is that I believe that the look was more or less desired and to some extend created on purpose. I mean, I can understand that there is noise in dark shots (although we had some low-light shots which were surprisingly good). But if you consider the fact that in collateral even in very bright places at daylight (airport) there was a lot of noise/grain in the image it looks like being done on purpose.

It gave the movie a very "urban" look (not organic grain but more dirty video noise), which fits to the story and in the end I liked it.

 

I think Collateral was a great movie but I guess Thomson does'nt really want to put it onto their demo reel. ;-)

 

Anyway, I've seen some beautiful pictures from the viper (and we shot some nice ones ;-).

 

Considering the fact that the last stunning image i saw in a theater was Episode II digitally projected... (if only it was a different movie ;-)

 

-k

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

I saw Collateral on a digital projection system in a new AMC 26 in dwntwn Chicago. It looked really good very smooth nightside scenes. However nothing that could not have been done in 35mm. Michael Mann said in interviews that he became so frustrated becuase of all the time the "technical issues" took he almost got a Bolex and shot it himself. He got the look he was after but it took way to long. Not a happy camper.

 

And yes the Ads most definitely were off BetaSP as where the 35mm ads that came next. So don't blame BetaSP. Air Dubs are a BetaSP world in this country.

[Guest dpforum1968]

I would expect that spots for air are sent in on D-Beta, and not BetaSP. They always where at the TV facilities that I worked at. The small stations may still use Beta SP and even 3/4.

 

Besides, why would the Collateral spots look so bad next to 35mm spots airing from the same channel even if they are on BetaSP? Then the following ads should also look as bad as Collateral, the degredation should be the same across the board.

 

I'll rent Collateral on DVD when I see it at the video store and make a final analysis.

 

DC

[Bill DiPietra]

I'll rent Collateral on DVD when I see it at the video store and make a final analysis.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I saw "Collateral" in the theater and loved the film and the look. I didn't think it looked crappy at all. I actually had difficulty discerning the film images from the HD images. And I have a trained eye.

 

I don't think you're getting a fair example simply by watching the trailers. You need to see the entire film on a large screen.

[Elhanan Matos]

But if you consider the fact that in collateral even in very bright places at daylight (airport) there was a lot of noise/grain in the image it looks like being done on purpose.

 

The airport scene was shot on 35mm.

 

Michael Mann was going for that super grainy super "video" look. He wanted to be able to "see the los angeles sky." The majority of the movie that was shot on HD was shot with +6 or +12db of Gain, and sometimes even +18db gain (usually you would be shooting at either 0db or -3db!). If you want to know more about collateral read the ASC magazine article about it, http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug04/collateral/page1.html

[Rob Belics]

Personally I thought there was a stunning difference between the airport images and the HD shots. Film really stood out but you have to take into consideration the HD images were shot in low light.

[DavidSloan]

Collateral is the perfect example of an artist taking an "inferior" medium, and using it properly to tell a story. Personally I thought Collateral looked beautiful. The video grain gave a feeling of enhanced reality which really worked with the tone of the film. Kudos to Michael Mann, Dion Bebe, and Paul Cameron!

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

I would expect that spots for air are sent in on D-Beta, and not BetaSP.  They always where at the TV facilities that I worked at.  The small stations may still use Beta SP and even 3/4.

 

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We just FedExed 36 BetaSP airdubs to top 100 market TV stations. In each case that is what they specified. Also four 3/4 inch Umatics, :blink: . Some Digi-Beta decks play BetaSP also. When you are down to the duplication and fulfillment stage of a TV commercial project the extra cost of a DigiBeta air dub makes them impractical. A saftey or generic version yes a straight airdub no.

[Greg Gross]

dpforum1968,

I have to agree with you,I think it was ugly. It was a good story/plot and

it was directed well(good director,we all know that). To me this was a story

that was meant to be told on film. Tom Cruise was fantastic,true to the char-

acter. I'm sorry but I don't agree with the experts that the story had to be told

on the digital format. What?, we can't shoot films at night with film? I really do

respect Michael Mann and I like his films and work. Now for what I'm going to

say I'll be an outcast, I think Sydney Pollack should have shot the film on film.

Sorry but thats how I feel,Sydney Pollack is my favorite director. Here in PA I

write my own scripts and shoot them with a PD-170(Sony),I know you are heavy

into shooting,so you are probably familiar with this camera. The camera gives a

quality image and I'm trying to develop methods to shoot superior dv. Also I'm

learning basic principles of shooting a film. I've been working on one romantic

comedy for three years(have the first scene shot). Anyway while I was shooting

at "BORDERS" one day, this kid walks up to me and says,hey man you're doing

your audio all wrong. I'm 56 yrs old,he's 23 yrs old,so I say,no kidding well how

should I do it. This kid is an expert with audio(he's like a guru!) he commenced

to show me and tell me. He's now my sound man and he buses tables at Borders

and operates the coffee counter. My first scene was a master shot of a girl driv-

down the highway to establish location of scene,she turns into Border's parking

lot and parks her car, gets out and walks into the Borders store- CONTINUED:

Edited December 14, 2004 by pd170user

[Greg Gross]

Continuing with dpforum1968,

Well my sound man had micrphones everywhere,running into the mixer, I

mean in a tree,on the side walk, in the car, I mean the music is actual music

recorded off the radio as she's driving the car. So dpforum1968, the kid says

to me,the sound will make your movie man! You should hear the audio in the first

scene,which is the only scene shot so far. We were sitting in the studio editing

this scene(Private Ryan was playing in the background on the HD with surround

sound 5.1 dolby). When I heard the sound for my first scene I was blown away!!

So any way what a long story to get to the point. The kid says to me,"Greg how

come Tom Cruise didn't look right in Collateral?" I said what do you mean and he

said well you know, it just didn't look like the usual Tom Cruise. I gave him the

money for a two year subscription to American Cinematographer magazine.

Have you ever been shooting and you feel like a jerk? I mean like you'll say to

yourself,jesus ****** what am I doing? Am I an idiot? Well now I don't feel so

bad! I heard "Marty" interviewed on Bravo last night and he said thats okay!

 

Greg Gross,Professional Photographer

Student Cinematographer

Edited December 14, 2004 by pd170user

[Guest Kai.w]

The kid says to me,"Greg how

come Tom Cruise didn't look right in Collateral?" I said what do you mean and he

said well you know, it just didn't look like the usual Tom Cruise. I gave him the

money for a two year subscription to American Cinematographer magazine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know it sounds terribly boring, cause it's more or less common sense and has been repeated so often, I almost want to contradict just because I get bored so easily... ;-)

 

...but (sigh)... I think Tom Cruise looked "different." Whether it was "wrong"...? That depends on what the director wanted to tell and especially how he wanted to do so.

You can say you think it's ugly. But that's a matter of taste.

Film is a tool that's been around for quite a while now. And like every creative tool it has it's own aesthetics (and it's aesthetical limits) which people got used to. So everything that does'nt look like this might seem wrong in the first place.

I for one got a bit bored of films stylised idea of reality. You "fetishists of the real!" as my media arts prof would have said ;-) And then it does'nt even look real! I'm loving hyperreality at the moment and seeing Episode II digitally projected was such an eyeopener.

 

I'm sure in a few years time when digital projections and digital cameras will be more common I will be bored of it again. But this is another story.

 

 

I don't know. I'm on this board now since a few days, but I think there seems to be a lot of paranoia towards HD and digital stuff in general (or maybe people just like to open up some controversial threads for the sake of entertainment ;-)

Just like the opposite reaction to all the hype that you think has been made about it ;-)

 

 

 

 

-k

[Guest dpforum1968]

Thank-you pd170user.

 

I'll rent the DVD, and try to keep an open mind.

 

To each his own at this stage that's all I can say. I'll stick with my beloved 35mm film.

 

DC

[Guest fstop]

Wow! Revelation... :rolleyes:

 

Honestly DC- the continual "HD as threat to film" ranting is just so negative and old, you've been flogging this horse continuously from as long as I can remember being here-

 

There's no argument that within your lifetime shooting 35mm stock footage you'll continue to make a healthy living and be in great demand. There's no argument that video is still finding it's way, and who knows when it'll achieve what everyone wants it to?

 

However:

 

Some of us are INCREDIBLY excited about the new technology, regardless of whether it's in it's infancy or not and can tolerate all the shortcomings and things to work on, primarily because the technology and the progression so far has been an exciting time for cinematography. I for one, being right at the bottom of the ladder (not even on the first rung) cannot wait for the day I get to work on a big project with the latest cutting edge technology, at a point where nobody knows what the photographed result will look like once completed.

 

HD and video isn't film. Period. However, it CAN be and I believe along with many others that it will one day take over and take us to an even more exciting level and who knows what will be the next big thing then?

 

I for one am a huge fan of film, I was brought up watching 35mm features shot on slow stocks. I also love video though, and I am more excited about oneday working on video images unlike anything ever seen before (regardless of whether or not it looks as good as film) than sit around imitating what hundreds of DPs have already done to death with the existing format. Regardless of the format, taste as far as lighting and exposure is concerned as a storytelling priority are the ONLY things that matter, IMO.

 

Sure there's hype, sure there's corporate monopoly ploys and propanganda- when hasn't there been in cinema history? I feel though, and I'm positive I'm not alone in thinking this, that this whole belittling video and dismissing the efforts of everyone involved and their attempts to take an alternate route is just so achingly, painfully conservative and blatantly terrified of change it's got my toes performing loop the loops!

 

C'mon, put us out of this moany moan moan misery- Just say it for everyone instead of tip-toeing around your overlaboured, neon shrine you keep bringing us back to:

 

DC WANTS VIDEO TO FAIL. PERIOD.

 

There. What else have you got to say? ;)

Edited December 15, 2004 by fstop

[Guest dpforum1968]

What else have I got to say?

 

Holy geez what a can of worms that is to open, this forum ain't big enough for all that.

 

Ok so I won't be happy until every one has a 35mm film projector in their house so they can skip even using a TV HD or SD.

 

I'm loading up my weekly copy of Law and Order into the projector as we speak.

 

DC

[Guest Kai.w]

I for one am a huge fan of film, I was brought up watching 35mm features shot on slow stocks. I also love video though, and I am more excited about oneday working on video images unlike anything ever seen before (regardless of whether or not it looks as good as film) than sit around imitating what hundreds of DPs have already done to death with the existing format. Regardless of the format, taste as far as lighting and exposure is concerned as a storytelling priority are the ONLY things that matter, IMO.

 

Sure there's hype, sure there's corporate monopoly ploys and propanganda- when hasn't there been in cinema history? I feel though, and I'm positive I'm not alone in thinking this, that this whole belittling video and dismissing the efforts of everyone involved and their attempts to take an alternate route is just so achingly, painfully conservative and blatantly terrified of change it's got my toes performing loop the loops!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

fstop, I could not have put it better ;-)

 

-k

[DavidSloan]

I second that. There is no reason to belittle video other then a foolish conservative mentality that says change equals evil. I can't wait to shoot my first HD movie. The prospects of that excite me very much. I think people who bash video are just intimidated by all the little buttons and settings. They want their simple box with a hole.

 

@dpforum: I think you're a closeted videographer, mate. Otherwise you wouldn't get so worked up! :P

[Guest dpforum1968]

Yes I'm a closet "video guy". And a closet homosexual.

 

Must be why I oppose Canada's same sex marriage laws so vehemently.

 

DC

[DavidSloan]

A gay videographer! :o Is that even legal!!!!

[Guest dpforum1968]

In Canada any thing is legal.

 

DC

[Rob Belics]

I think people who bash video are just intimidated by all the little buttons and settings.

I think people who tout video are jealous wannabes cause they can't play the game. And I'm not even gay!

[Guest dpforum1968]

I would add to Rob Belics comments that many of the HD supporters here appear to be young people i.e early twenties, "film" students etc.

 

I can see why they would favour HD over film for several reasons:

 

1) Film requires a long training and experience process to learn how to shoot it well. This idea does not jive with a generation that wants instant results, and every thing in the here and now.

 

2) Film is much more expensive to shoot than tape, so naturally a starving film student will often choose video over film. A Mini DV tape costing $7.00 and lasting one hour is pretty attractive. When I was in film school I shot every thing on Super 8 and 16mm, never touched a video camera. Myself and my friends got the money for the stock any way we could.

 

3) As to the ridiculous idea that film people are some how concerned about learning all of the buttons on an HD camera...please my grandmother could operate a video camera. Hmmmm, I wonder what takes longer to learn A) Loading a film mag in a dark bag properly? B) Putting a tape into a HD cam? For "B" you simply hit eject and drop in the tape, gee tough.

 

4) Then there is all skill required to effectively colour correct the film during transfer to tape for TV use. The DP must understand this process very well in order to get the best from the colourist. Here's another dilema for young folk, they don't get into the high end transfer suites when rates run at $400-$600 per hour. So it's tough to get the experience.

 

Think realistically. Could a film DP with 20 years experience learn video, faster than a video DP with 20 years experience, learn film?

 

DC

[David Mullen ASC]

A smart person with 20 years as a professional using pro equipment and achieving excellent results could probably learn another format -- they'd just hire a good 1st AC to help them! Or a DIT, etc. I'm not sure if it matters how FAST it takes, a week for one, two weeks for the other. Kubrick once said one could learn the mechanics of making a movie in a week, or a month if they were not so bright.

 

Hey, I have to admit I've never loaded a 35mm movie camera in my life even though I've shot 20 features in 35mm... I'm sure I'm smart enough to learn how to do it, but since I don't have to learn how to do it, I can concentrate on learning other things.

 

Whether you're shooting film or video, the camera or recording format really isn't the issue ultimately in terms of image making; knowing how to see a good angle, light a scene or actor well, tell a story visually, understand editing, work with directors and actors, stay on budget and schedule --- these all count FAR more. There are experts to help you out with the other stuff if you're weak on that.

 

It's true at the beginner level, video equipment tends to be more user-friendly because the results are immediate, so the problems are quickly apparent. However, anyone working at a pro level is sort of beyond simple issues like loading a film camera (or simply avoids that issue as in my case...) and using a light meter.

 

Often the mistakes that beginners make are similar whether they are shooting film or video anyway, while someone who is good at one can probably learn how to use the other.

 

Honestly, take a DP for example who has been shooting some TV show in video, narrative-style, maybe a soap opera or a sitcom, and has been doing a great job at it for 20 years. I have a hard time believing if one day his three video cameras on the stage were replaced by three film cameras he'd be lost as to what to do. Hand him a light meter, tell him the ASA and shutter speed, and I'm sure he'd figure it out. That's what a pro does -- they figure things out.

[Greg Gross]

Hey Guys,

I don't think video,HD is bad. I'm trying to shoot the best dv that I possibly

can and am not interested in transfering to film. On the other hand I'm also

shopping for a 16mm camera to shoot film with. I like the work that Sydney

Pollock has done with Mr. Cruise in the past, and I think he could have shot

Collateral on film and would have had one fine feature film. I would walk 100

miles to get Sydney Pollock a cup of coffee(I'm too old to run it) and walk it

back to him. I'd be happy to take a job with him and just do nothing but handing

the film cassettes to the AC. I like Michael Mann(great director) but I differ with

him, as I think the production should have been shot on film(who am I?). I just

think that the story and characters are so strong that they need to be portrayed on

35mm film. Think of some of the light levels(low) in David Mullen's North Fork,

you know where the light was low. Now sure we're talking about films with diff-

erent moods,styles. I just visualize Collateral on film with light levels at night

creating a style,mood for the film. I don't like to see a star like Mr. Cruise made

to look like he's on the set of a soap opera. Just get two monitors side by side and

run "THE LAST SAMURAI on one and "COLLATERAL" on the other. Now honestly

tell me, which Tom Cruise do you like. I like the Tom Cruise I've been watching

all these years on film,a great professional,a great star. Greg

Edited December 15, 2004 by pd170user

[DavidSloan]

I think people who tout video are jealous wannabes cause they can't play the game.  And I'm not even gay!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jealous wannabe? First of all I've never even shot HD, all my work is on film, so let's watch the unnecessary hostile name calling, here. My reply to DPforum was in jest!