Tom Cruise's "Collateral" shot on tape?
 

I dont know if this has already been debated...

As far as I can see, the feature looks like it was shot on video and not film.

I've not seen the "making of" so I couldn't have a look at the cameras they used.

Does anyone have any insight...?

Re: Tom Cruise's "Collateral" shot on tape?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Lewis : I dont know if this has already been debated...
-->>>

Yes, yes it has. Please click on the search button on the top right hand menu.

The quick answer is that he shot portions on HD.

Outdoor night scenes were shot with the Sony HD Cine Alta FW900 and Viper Filmstream HD cameras and the interiors were shot with Panaflex cameras. Michael Mann was blown away by the fact that with the HD outdoor night scenes, you could actually "...see into the sky like it had depth!"

indeed. the issue with Collateral is an interesting one. usually, films trying to achieve the "digital look" (i.e. 28 days later, open water) will film with "bad" cameras, as they did witht he XL1 and the VX2000, respectively.

professionally-shot digital movies are everywhere. it can be hard to tell HD from film sometimes, becuse the HD cams mimic the frame rate and gamma curves that film produces.

what Mann did in Collateral was use extremely high-res digital cameras (in this case the cinealta and viper), but he did NOT make use of a filmic frame rate, nor did he color-correct or adjust the gamma curves in such a way that it looked real. he basically took the most high-end cameras and configured them like home movie cameras, such that they provided extremely high resolution and sharp images, but nothing else.

it did indeed provide a very unique look. extremely detailed, yet amateur-ish. the viper, for one, happens to be one of the most mindblowing cameras out there. someone can correct me if i'm wrong, but i THINK that in terms of digital, nothing comes close yet to touching the Viper. so thus it is quite interesting to see it being used in a film of this nature.

This should answer most of your questions http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug04...ral/page1.html...

Hey Dan:

You mentioned a curious thing. Can you elaborate more on Mann's decision not to use the filmic frame rate? That's a tidbit I must have missed in the article.

He probably wanted certain portions to have the "real" look of typical video, instead of the "dreamy" type when using slower frame rates.

Seems like this sort of subtlety would be lost when making the final film print as it was shown in most venues....

Must admit from seeing the Cinema trailer I thought it had been shot on DV because some of the scenes looked particularly digitised. I assumed this was for the gritty realism wanted such as 28 Days later.


Best

Jonathan

I never saw the movie, however in the trailers it didnt look very attractive.. right away you can tell its not Film.

I agree, I bet if you'd have shot it with an XL2 You'd have got quite similar results !!!

Also, am I the only one that thinks that Micheal Mann (Director) has just basically taken the character Neil from the film Heat and written a story around him. Amazing how he wears the same suit, even right down to the beard and hair cut cruise sports !

Jonathan

COLLATERAL was an AMAZING film. Wonder character study. Jamie Foxx really surprised me...and he easily overshadowed Tom Cruise. More Hollywood movies need to be made like this. Attention to detail and personality.

I disagree with the talk you are all having about the quality of the HD. The HD was VERY good. There were times when it had characteristics of video (which didn't distract me...I was too into the story) but most of the time it had the look and feel of film. I am glad he went with HD, and the ViperStreams ability to pull out detail from the darkness YET retain the blacks. It was a beautiful piece.

Now, I might have a slight edge here, having seen it projected digitally on the best digital projector in the world (in the DGA building in Hollywood), so I don't know how it looked having been transferred to film and projected. I would be more than willing to see it again just to compare.

And this footage is VASTLY SUPERIOR that what the XL1s can produce. Just look at it and 28 Days Later. BIG difference.

BTW...28 Days Later was a great film and the fact it was shot on DV carried little weight. I was drawn in and didn't notice it too much.

I didn't think it was a great film and felt like a lot of the characters' motivations, actions, and dialogue were unrealistic and forced. You could see the actors put in the effort, but I don't think the writing was finished. The ending, in particular, made the rest of the film feel emptier somehow, when it was done. The screenplay probably could have used some rewrites/editing.

Sometimes the noise of certain low-light/no-light shots was too much and took me out of it. The realism of the violence was top notch though. Gunshots sounded like you were in the alleys/clubs where shots were fired.

Loren, not all of the movie was DV and I'm sure a lot of the trailer was 35mm. In general it was all pretty good looking, minus some of the extreme video noise.