Michael Mann's "Collateral"
 

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