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, 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, 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.