I didn't know it was HD until I saw the trailer in front of "The Bourne Supremacy" today. What do people think of the look?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369339/

Technical details according to IMDB:

Camera
Panavision Cameras and Lenses
Sony HDW-F900 CineAlta
Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera, Zeiss Digiprime Lenses

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
Video (HDTV)

Cinematographic process
HDTV (1080p/24)

Aspect ratio
2.35 : 1

It is not shot entirely in HD, only portions of it. I have not seen it but was told you can tell when HD is used. HD was used for a look of sorts during those portions.

The first trailer I saw as a Quicktime gave me no indication that there was any video. But the trailer now showing in the theatres is really noticeably not film.

The HD looks really flat, doesn't it?

I read it was 100% Viper, but that may have been a misprint or a misunderstanding.

heath

That would make sense. It's really tough to fit a decked-out CineAlta in a car.

Hey as soon as I saw the trailer for Collaterral, I knew it was shot on video..and I could tell even with the quicktime internet clips because of the video noise in the night scenes.

By the way, doesn't that trailer look boring as hell? Didn't do it for me.

And...The Bourne Supremacy was shot on film, but I thought it looked terrible. Aahhh, maybe my eyes are going bad...


I, did, however hate the cinematography in TBSupremacy.

Damn, am I negative or what?

They used the Viper and Sony's F900 for the video parts. Mainly the night exteriors and the cab scene.

But the question is why? Why not use film or all HD?

hwm

I have the most recent issue of American Cinematographer, which has an article on Collateral. They used HD for exteriors and some other stuff, since it can see into the shadows better than film can, using available light, and they wanted LA to be as much a character in the movie as any other character--using HD for exterior work would allow them, using available light, to see a lot of stuff they wouldn't have been able to on film. Some film was used, for interior scenes, I believe. The whole movie was a combo of F900, Viper, and film footage. I guarantee nothing of what I've just written to be completely right, but it's real close.

"Why not use film or all HD?"

Mann is an experimental director making experimental choices. He did the same thing on Ali.

What did he use on Ali? I felt he shot way too loose on Ali, almost sloppy, I feel. But The Insider, wow, that was awesome. As far as setting up shots, Mann considers Ridley Scott to be in the upper "2%."

heath

hey guys!!!

glad you guys have a thread already. i had been reading a movie-review & they mentioned HD. so i checked the specs on imdb and noticed you guys are already talking about it. this is ali:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248667/technical

this is phantom menace:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120915/technical

both ali and phantom use a mixture of film and digital. however... for collateral i ONLY see HD and unless imdb is wrong i think collateral is 100% all digital.

i'm looking forward to seeing this flick digital or not! =).

Collateral was indeed a mix of HD and film. Josh reported the story correctly. One of my pals was an operator on the show and he has confirmed this.

Mann is interesting in that he is using whichever medium suits him for a given scene--not for the look, not for the economics, but for the capabilities. HD has given the director a way to shoot night exteriors that expose similar to the way the eye sees, something he discovered while shooting the opening scenes of "Ali" where Will Smith is running at night. I think he likes being an innovator as well. But he still seems to prefer the look of film when shooting in a controlled setting.

Yi,

Phantom Menace's printed format, other than 35 mm, was digital for DLP-equipped theatres. It wasn't shot digitally at all, other than digital effects.

hwm

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.

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.

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

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. "

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

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

The F900s, according to Film and Video magazine (http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/), were used on the taxi shots, because of portability.

hwm

Why didn't they just get Richard Gere to play Tom's part? Looks like him...

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.

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : The F900s, according to Film and Video magazine (http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/), 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.

Unless I read it wrong, that's what the mag said.

h

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.

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.

They shot on HD to get great pictures of the night, according to Mann.

hwm

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.

<<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.>>

The big issue with even the best 35mm cameras for this sort of thing tends to be the magazine; it not only extends the length of the camera but sticks up above (even when it's a backloaded 400 ft.). Theoretically you could use a 200 footer but I have rarely seen those trotted out. The Cinealta is no "little guy" by any means, but stripped down without a lot of hardware on the back and a prime lens, it might just be handier. You can also potentially use a remote LCD monitor and not have to have your eye in the eyepiece, which would help get into really tight corners. That's possible with a film camera also, but you are risking not seeing something gnarly in the frame with the lower resolution video tap, so we try to avoid that.

But I think the real issue here was not whether the 900 was better suited physically than any given film camera, knowing that Mann was using HD specifically to "see" into the night; it would be whether the 900 or the Viper would be best suited. I'm actually surprised that the 900 won out because I believe the Viper is the smaller camera (more hardware to contend with, but that was housed on the camera car, so as long as the picture vehicle was being towed...)

I think I'm rambling.

<<<<<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. -->>>

I think the $65M is just tom's take:')

I spent a lot of time "looking" at the film, and I still can't decide whether the HD look of the film was intentional or not. There's a quality to the motion that definitely says "video"...almost a deinterlaced look...blurry whenever something moves...yet on the otherhand its mostly really sharp, very detailed, and certainly without all the color anomalies I've seen with other video to film projects.

I think the grain was really a product of the low light levels used throughout to hold background details...I mean they captured the silhouettes of trees against a dark sky...really phenomenal how you get a sense of how the night feels in LA...The grain really wasn't objectional to me. the only thing that bugged me was the overall color cast...sort of a desaturated, slighly-green flatness...you could tell that the camera was capable of registering more color--every once in awhile they'd throw in some orange, red, or yellow to spice things up.

Regardless, it was a phenomenal film. Tight, Gritty...everybody did their job and then some.

Barry

Charles,

They said the Viper was less portable. In the Star Wars Ep. 2 DVD, they talk about how BIG the 900 is.

hwm

Barry, what you saw was exactly what Mann was trying to get by using video.

i saw it last night.....yes it still looks like video...even after being blown to 35 but who cares....it was a great movie and as we all know.... if the story is good..dont matter what its filmed on! :D

Saturnin,

Your site comes up, then defaults to microsoft.com on my Mac's browser, Safari.

heath

I'm kind of surprised that so many people liked the story so much...I could see why it was more important to capture the many levels of darkness for visually and metaphorically artisitc reasons, but the grain just got to me too much (It was probably just because I'm always going nuts trying to prevent it in my own cheapo videos). It was a gritty film, but felt that aspect felt inconsistent to me. What I liked most, is that it had a beat all it's own that was unconventional, but really felt like a "natural" compression of the ten hour story time during the 2 hour running time.

Just got back from seeing the film and I thought it was Excellent!! Also, I could not believe at how "amateurish" the shots were...but the story was still engrossing.

That just proves that there really are no rules in filmmaking...just be sure you have a good story, then go ahead and make the darn thing.

Time to take the camera off that tripod...(but not like Bourne Supremacy).

I saw it Friday evening and it was a good film. My problems with the film were more to do with the characters and the story (major problems to be sure) but the technique I didn't mind at all. The HD I thought was less than 20% of the shots. I may be wrong. But when I did notice it, I thought it was a good decision. It really did show off the LA at night cool factor.

If people are interested in further use of the HD, I would recommend trying to see "All Tomorrow's Parties", which is a post-apocalyptic drama shot by a Chinese director. It is superb-looking. Beautiful.

I heard it was more like the majority of the movie is HD.

hwm

I was surprised how much the video footage looked like video. I guess I shouldn't have been though, because, hey, it IS video. I don't think it looked bad, but definitely different. I really liked the movie, but was disappointed in the ending. I don't want to ruin it for anybody, but there's a certain coincidence in there that is just plain stupid.

Someone asked how they shot the car interiors by the way, and the other day I saw one of those fawning "making of" documentaries on HBO. They actually built this tree-house sized shack over the front of the car and towed it around LA. The American Cinematographer article also mentions that they used some new type of lighting for the interior of the car. They said it resembled foam core and could be cut to fit. There's little pieces of it all over the interior of the car.

Also, I can't help but mention that I was really upset when I found out the plot of this movie because I had just finished writing a script with almost the exact same premise, as Keith Loh can verify. I'm not saying they stole my idea or anything, as they were already in production before I even finished writing, but how weird is that? My bad guy was a serial killer though, and the driver was some poor sap who happened to share a taxi with him, so it wasn't exactly the same, but close enough for me to abandon the project. Sigh.

YEs, Marco, it was quite similar. Though I think there is still room for your story as well.

Just as long as you stay away from L.A. :)

marco,

i know EXACTLY how you feel! it goes to show ya that if you don't do it quickly enough someone ELSE will find a way to do it. not to toot my own horns but i've always wanted to do a sequence where an action character (like a john woo gun-touting chow yun-fat hero) uses guns (or one machine-gun) is in a room and every exit/entrace is blocked by heavy enemy fire and he's the only guy left. so what does he do? he uses his gun to shoot a circle around where he stands and then the entire floor-board falls through to the lower floor (we're assuming he's on the 2nd floor or above). anyway they already did that in underworld. my jaw dropped when i saw that in the TRAILER of underworld. but my idea was a wee bit different though... so i still may do it =).

That was also kind of done already in Escape from New York where Snake Plisken is trapped in a bathroom and sprays a man-sized hole in a wall with his machinegun so he can bust through it.

Interesting.

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Yi,

Phantom Menace's printed format, other than 35 mm, was digital for DLP-equipped theatres. It wasn't shot digitally at all, other than digital effects.

hwm -->>>

There is one scene, near the halfway mark, which was shot digitally, using a prototype of the F900 that they decided to test. But that's it.

ah... we have seen that many times (like in the matrix when morpheus goes through the bathroom wall) but the ground one is particuarly interesting =). i don't recall any big pictures (except the recent underworld) that seems to have that.

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : That was also kind of done already in Escape from New York where Snake Plisken is trapped in a bathroom and sprays a man-sized hole in a wall with his machinegun so he can bust through it. -->>>

I dont know I really did not enjoy this film very much. For a thriller it was shockingly predictable. Tom Cruise always puts a certain amount of depth inot his characters but he's just a far too likeable actor to play this role. I'll always see him as the Tommy in Top Gun and A Few Good Men. As for the HD sections they really looked pretty bad very flat and paleish, with obviously less resolution on long shots. If you want to see good HD go rent The Company by Altman. Most beautiful use of the video medium I've ever seen.