View Full Version : Collateral... Digital?
06-12-2004, 10:36 PM
Just watched Riddock - okay film nothing too great.
Had a preview for the upcoming Tom Cruise Michael Mann directed Collateral. Looks like it was shot digitally from the trailer I saw. Anyone concur? Have heard anything? I know it isn't dvx, but the more films going digital is music to my ears as a dv'er.
06-13-2004, 09:28 AM
06-13-2004, 10:12 AM
I just saw Riddick too (fell asleep half way :-/) but it definitely looked like Collateral was HD...probably 1080i
06-13-2004, 11:42 AM
yeah its defnitely hi-def. i posted this a while ago when kill bill vol 2 came out. it was filmed with a sony hi-def cam. not sure which though. someone posted it in my last post.
06-15-2004, 06:11 PM
Michael Mann and guns? I'm excited. ;D
06-15-2004, 07:17 PM
I just saw Riddick too (fell asleep half way
I never noticed that spelling mistake before! :P!
Talk about your freudian slip!
06-16-2004, 08:19 PM
Technical Specifications for
Panavision Cameras and Lenses
Sony HDW-F900 CineAlta
Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera, Zeiss Digiprime Lenses
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
2.35 : 1
06-16-2004, 08:52 PM
24P eh? I would have sworn it was 60i (or 50i)...it looked like there were interlacing artifacts, and some form of conversion was made TO 24p...
And the image didn't look nearly as good as Once Upon a Time in Mexico or Episode II...interesting!
06-20-2004, 08:50 AM
It is a mix of 35mm and HD. Looks interesting.
08-06-2004, 02:10 PM
Did anyone watch this yet? Just wanted a downlow/opinion from anyone, or from a Barry or 2, as I probably wont be able to see it until Sunday, if at all this weekend.
08-06-2004, 04:26 PM
Just got back from seeing it. I thought it was wonderful. I had my doubts about Jamie fox , but he came through and played his part very well. Very beautiful film.
08-06-2004, 04:46 PM
The first time I saw the trailer, I didn't pay that much attention to the look of it. So, I didn't see it as video.
But, after I learned that it was shot with an HD camera, I looked at the trailer again, and I definitely agree that it looks like video.
The best looking footage I have seen from an HD camera was star wars, but some guys say they haven't used tapes. That it was captured straight to the hard drive.
I saw the behind the scenes, and I saw some tapes running around. Also I saw those cameras that didn't look like the cinealta.
Does anyone know about the star wars one?
All the best
08-06-2004, 05:58 PM
Star Wars was shot 1080/24P, and Collateral was shot (what seems to be) 1080/60i...so Star Wars has essentially double the resolution, and is native 24P, which is why it looked more like it originated on film than Collateral
08-07-2004, 11:16 PM
Just watched Collateral. Excellent Film. Surprising how funny it was. I was laughing out loud on numerous occassions.
The HD looked terrific. I've come to the conclusion(feel free to disagree) that it really doesn't matter that much resolution wise between HD and film. On the enormously huge screens at the Silvercities, everything is a little soft. If you watch a film that intermixes to 2 formats you'd probably notice a difference, but as a whole, either works. I watched Bourne Supremacy earlier today also and the 2 films parellel each other on quality of image on the big screen. The best place to view any movie for quality is on your own television, and HD, and even Dv looks awesome on it. I look to the digital revolution to slowly take over!
Back to Collateral. Apparently Michael Mann chose HD because he was able to show the city of LA better at night.
Jamie Fox was superb. There were rumors Adam Sandler was up for his role, but I think they casted very well with Fox.
If you like HEAT, check Collateral out. It's Heat with humour.
08-08-2004, 12:31 AM
i watched collateral tonight. if that was 1080, i have to cringe at the thought of anything less splashing across the big screen. it had about the same image quality as 28 days later. great story though, and witty dialogue. music and sound design also very good, helped to distract the viewer from the image. the dp must have been really big on fooling everyone into thinking it was film, cause he used ecu's as often as he could and always racked focus or shallow focused the foreground to the point it was obvious. it also had the 'video' feel to it, especially in the contrast and way the street and car lights refracted, feeling more like i than progressive.
as far as star wars goes...those cams are about as far away from hd as hd is from 8mm.
08-08-2004, 02:25 AM
as far as star wars goes...those cams are about as far away from hd as hd is from 8mm. *
Not sure what you mean by that. Star Wars Episode II was shot with Sony CineAlta F900 cameras, which are standard 1920x1080 high-def cameras with a 24PsF mode. Off-the-shelf stuff, although Panavision did design lenses for them.
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith is being shot with the next generation of that camera, the F950, which is 4:4:4 but still is, IIRC, standard 1920x1080 resolution.
08-08-2004, 07:31 PM
I just got home not 3 minutes ago from seeing this beast
What a great flick, there were people with me who are in the business and they didn't even realize it was shot on HD, it looked sooo slick...
Some of the shots were a bit "bourne identitysque" that is, they were shaky.
Tom cruise = awesome, a real compelling performance
See this, now
EDIT: In response to Israel, I think some shots were a bit yucky in terms of it feeling video and yes, he did focus a LOT, it was giving me a headache (literally) in the beginning, however, I think for the most part the film didn't look anywhere near as bad as 28 Days Later... I mean, comon!
08-08-2004, 07:51 PM
I thought this film was awesome. I thought about the image quality for about two minutes then just got into the film. Good story, good acting and you dont care whether it was film or digital.
Great movie. Loved the action in the nightclub scene.
08-08-2004, 09:57 PM
just saw it too. It was a great movie. parts where it was very very videoish was bothering the heck out of me. so I was going in and out of the movie.
I don't think Mann was trying to acheive a film look on certain parts. I think he did it intentionally.
but while watching the movie I kept thinking that lighting in the taxi cab was blatantly obvious. or is it just me? i dunno... it was so kino flowy in there.
08-14-2004, 04:05 PM
Yah, for the first maybe 10 minutes I kind of zoned onto some things that were obviously a bit lower quality than film, the overall picture was a bit videoish, but i think that the story is good enough that you don't even realize it, and it was done extremely well.
I really liked the cab lighting DVpixl