Tom Cruise's "Collateral" shot on tape? at DVinfo.net

Richard Lewis · September 13th, 2004, 09:02 AM

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...?

Keith Loh · September 13th, 2004, 09:42 AM

<<<-- 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.

Hugh DiMauro · September 13th, 2004, 11:01 AM

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!"

Daniel Hollister · September 13th, 2004, 05:51 PM

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.

Boyd Ostroff · September 13th, 2004, 06:00 PM

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

Hugh DiMauro · September 14th, 2004, 06:24 AM

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.

Jesse Bekas · September 14th, 2004, 11:59 AM

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

Boyd Ostroff · September 14th, 2004, 03:48 PM

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

Jonathan Noone · September 15th, 2004, 09:20 AM

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

Loren White · September 15th, 2004, 02:09 PM

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

Jonathan Noone · September 15th, 2004, 02:29 PM

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

Shane Ross · September 15th, 2004, 05:17 PM

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.

Jesse Bekas · September 15th, 2004, 08:42 PM

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.

September 13th, 2004, 09:02 AM	#1
Richard Lewis Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Manchester and Kent, UK Posts: 256	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...? __________________ Richard Lewis. Steadicam Owner / Operator

September 13th, 2004, 09:42 AM	#2
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	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. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

September 13th, 2004, 11:01 AM	#3
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	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!" __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

September 14th, 2004, 06:24 AM	#6
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	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. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

September 13th, 2004, 05:51 PM	#4
Daniel Hollister Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 128	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.

September 13th, 2004, 06:00 PM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	This should answer most of your questions http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug04...ral/page1.html...

September 14th, 2004, 11:59 AM	#7
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	He probably wanted certain portions to have the "real" look of typical video, instead of the "dreamy" type when using slower frame rates.

September 14th, 2004, 03:48 PM	#8
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Seems like this sort of subtlety would be lost when making the final film print as it was shown in most venues....

September 15th, 2004, 09:20 AM	#9
Jonathan Noone Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 35	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

September 15th, 2004, 02:09 PM	#10
Loren White New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Oceanside, CA Posts: 10	I never saw the movie, however in the trailers it didnt look very attractive.. right away you can tell its not Film.

September 15th, 2004, 02:29 PM	#11
Jonathan Noone Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 35	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

September 15th, 2004, 05:17 PM	#12
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	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.

September 15th, 2004, 08:42 PM	#13
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	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.