Michael Mann's "Collateral" - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > Awake In The Dark

Awake In The Dark
What you're watching these days on the Big Screen and the Small Screen.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 5th, 2004, 05:24 PM   #16
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,564
heath, can't remember which documentary but george lucas inserted a HD shot in phatom menace somewhere towards the end of the lightsaber battle or somn. it's definitely in there... hence imdb.com is a bit dubious when it comes to info! =^). ah well.
__________________
bow wow wow
Yi Fong Yu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2004, 05:32 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 331
I heard there's a shot in TITANIC that was done on HD...it was to test and see if the audience would catch it.

They didn't.

I'll try to find a link somewhere.
Nick Medrano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2004, 08:14 PM   #18
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
I read an article about Collateral in Film and Video:

The CineAlta was used for car shots (portable), the Viper was used for most everything else, 35 mm film was used for under/overcranking.

heath
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 04:19 PM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 581
Here's a quote from a cinematographer on a different forum. It's taken from an interview with Michael Mann about "Collateral":

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. "
Rob Belics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 05:54 PM   #20
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
The F900 was far more portable, according to the interview with the Cinematographer in Film and Video, unlike the Viper. But every time they went over a bump, things would get loose, like circuit boards, etc.

In the same magazine, Michael Bay said that it's still not portable enough, the higher end, 10 megapixel jobs like the new Sony. But that will change soon. Watch the Star Wars Ep. 2 DVD for an unbiased look at the CineAlta vs. Film. Some love it, others hate it.

hwm
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 09:23 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Northridge Ca
Posts: 734
Having just returned from viewing "Collateral" on the big screen, I'll give you my off-the-cuff impressions. And let me say I am a big fan of Michael Mann, going back to "Manhunter," which I thought was much better than "Silence of the Lambs." But, I digress.

First of all, I really go to the movies to be entertained, and I try not to pay too much attention to the techniques. Having said that, I found myself looking at the pictures quite a bit in "Collateral", because the story was not that engrossing, IMHO. I thought "Heat" was a much more compelling film. Buy anyway. The taxi scenes that were shot with the Viper, and maybe the Sony also, were interesting because they actually looked like night. But I don't think that is such a big deal to most viewers. In addition to the "look," Mann says that he liked the ability to shoot long takes by using video, and I can see where that is a great advantage. It would be interesting to see how they rigged the cab for shooting. There are some absolutely dreadful "B" camera shots (which may be the Sony) that are shaky to the point of distraction, and there are some shots that appear soft. But overall, I can't believe that anyone viewing the film on a big screen in a stadium theatre is going to be able to tell it's not film. Some may say so, but what I think they are really objecting to is the somewhat flat lighting, or lack of lighting. Often, there are no speculars in Jamie Foxx's eys, indicating that there may not have been any key lights added to the taxi.

Astute viewers will also note more zooms than usual for a feature film, and a couple that are very tentative, which makes them particularly odious. The use of zooms is not bothersome to me normally; in fact, there are a number of them in "Personal Velocity," that are well used. Heck, even the "Shining" has an obvious zoom shot. But these folks use the zoom like operators that are not used to doing their own zooms, and are not comfortable. Maybe the next time Michael Mann shouldn't hire his own son as the DP.

As I have said before, "If it was easy, they'd get a relative to do it."

Wayne Orr, SOC
Wayne Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 09:52 PM   #22
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
The F900s, according to Film and Video magazine, were used on the taxi shots, because of portability.

hwm
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 10:39 PM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 331
Why didn't they just get Richard Gere to play Tom's part? Looks like him...
Nick Medrano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2004, 11:41 AM   #24
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 581
Hollywood has something against Gere. To me, he was the real performance hit in "Chicago" but, you notice, he didn't even get a nomination for it.

But it doesn't matter. Gere may have not wanted the part or was unavailable. Gere is older than Cruise also.
Rob Belics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2004, 12:55 PM   #25
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,929
<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : The F900s, according to Film and Video magazine, were used on the taxi shots, because of portability. -->>>

Did they really say that? I can't imagine a Panavised F900 being easier to use in a confined location than your average compact-body film camera.
__________________
All the best,
Robert K S

Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors
Robert Knecht Schmidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2004, 02:18 PM   #26
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
Unless I read it wrong, that's what the mag said.

h
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 05:24 PM   #27
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
How come Tom Cruise still looks so young. Isnt he like 45?

No offence intended moderator, i guess there a lot of you guys over there, dont want to ruin my career just yet.
guess u did me a favor.
Brendan Sundry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 07:14 PM   #28
New Boot
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 5
The Shining is full of zoom shots, as is Clockwork Orange, 2001, Full Metal Jacket, etc; they're a Kubrick trademark. Personally I love zoom shots under the right circumstances: ie it can be an interesting artistic choice. (Of course.. my favorite directors are from the '70's so that might explain it)

I watched Collateral last week and loved the use of digital video -- giving the film a more "realistic" and gritty look. However, it was very obviously video and the cinematography was a lot sharper and had a lot more video noise than I've seen in the previous big budget movies that were made with HD.

I imagined the choice to shoot on video had something to do with the budget, then I read that this thing cost $65 million!

Wow, that's a lot of scratch.
T.L. Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 07:18 PM   #29
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
They shot on HD to get great pictures of the night, according to Mann.

hwm
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 08:33 PM   #30
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA
Posts: 572
I just saw it this weekend... didn't care too much for the story (especially the ending). The dialogue got pretty unnatural at many points too. Anyway, as was stated before, there were a bunch of shots that had A LOT of video noise, so much so that it took me out of the "film" a couple of times. When these were intercut with some film portions (or video with less gain?) , it really took me out of it.
Jesse Bekas is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > Awake In The Dark

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:48 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network