Collateral - While we are talking Hi-Def

[TotalX]

I just bought the Collateral DVD. Michael Mann said 80% of the movie ws shot in Hi-Def. I liked the movie, but saw alot of instances where several scenes look like standard video.

Does anyone know what camera he used? The Star Wars Hi-Def was amazing ( Sony 24p).

I don't know if any else noticed this, or maybe I need sleep.

[scharky]

Same camera- Sony CineAlta F900
Again it's not the camera that makes the movie, its the way that you use it.

[TotalX]

I guess when they went from film (for the indoor scenes) and then to low light or outside night shots with the Hi-Def, the contrast highlighted the video part of the Hi-Def.

[John_Q]

They used a Sony F900, a Varicam and Vipercam (shooting uncompress to the Sony SR deck)...just depends on the scenes as to which camera they used.

And you guys really shouldnt guess which scenes are film and which arent...
Because you will end up feeling really surprised at how wrong you are at some of it.

I had one friend on the B unit camera, and another friend in post. I asked tons of questions cause I saw this movie 2x in the theater. And i was shocked by half the answers.

[Kidster]

It's to my understanding, that the 20% of the film that was shot on 35mm was the inside club scenes. I for one, thought this movie was very good and held up well on the big screen. So well in fact, that I didn't know that 35mm was used at all. Or should I say, If I didn't know going in that HD was used, I wouldn't have known the difference.Man technology is getting so good. Too bad these higher end HD camera's are so freakin expensive. I still almost wonder, if shooting a low budget feature, like 99% of us would do. If still shooting on S16mm, would be the way to go. Now, I am hoping that the "affordable" Panasonic HD offering in the near future (fingers crossed) will be much better than what I have seen from HDV. Perhaps then quality versus price between HD and S16mm would lean me away from film.

[Woodson]

And you guys really shouldnt guess which scenes are film and which arent...
Because you will end up feeling really surprised at how wrong you are at some of it.

Not really, digital has more depth of field so the image is sharper across the whole thing even with the blurr's added you can tell because there is no drop off . You'd have to rotoscope (cookie cut mattes) for your forground objects and blur the whole frame and lay the matte over it and even then it would be fake and obvious.

[TotalX]

One of my friends played one of the shooters ( blond hair guy) in the Korean club scene. He said that for his scene (where he shoots his automatic ( not being shot by Cruise)) Mann did around 100 takes. I think the scene was for about 1 whole second.

I would venture to guess that doing so many takes ( in this instance) would be better with digital than film. The instant feedback, I guess could have its plus or minuses.

I am not talking about the look.

[John_Q]

The asian club scene was film and digital all intercut.

The opening airport scene is obvioulsy all film (look at the depth of focus)

The hospital is all digital. everything in the cab is digital.

The scene in the DA building is digital

some few selected night shots are film.

The mexican club scene is film and digital intercut.

The jazz club is digital....cant remember if that one had some film or not.

[Neil Rowe]

just to clarify for our less inept readers here. depth of field has nothing to do with wether you shoot on film or on a electronic sensor. *the same lense set at the same settings on either camera will give the exact same DOF. the apparent difference in DOF comes from the fact that 35mm is well a 35mm exposure area, and most high end digital cameras only have a 2/3" sensor ..which is not quite as big. *so the 35 mm film area sees a picture almost 2x as much of a picture at the same lense setting because the imaging area is so big where the image area *of a 2/3" inch chip is not. * to make this easier to understand, imagine that your monitor is the total image area projected by the cameras lense into the camera (obviously its alot smaller in reality but this is only a simple exercise). * now if you take a square that is 35mm in size and put it on the monitor surface, you can see a certain amount of *the whole image. and if you take a 2/3" 16:9 rectangle *and put it in the same place. you get less of the same image. but the image dosent change.. *the DOF in the image is the exact same cause thats set by the lense which is projecting the image to begin with. if somthing in the image is out of focus, its not going to come into focus if you crop it more so you see less. *but to have the same image framing as you could get in a 35mm area at that lense setting you would have to zoom your lense out, and then you gain apparent DOF.

so in order to frame the shot equivilently when the image area is about 1/2 as big they have to zoom out more, which of course causes an apparent increase in the DOF. * *BUT if the digital camera they used had a 35mm size sensor like the DALSA ORIGIN digital fillmaking camera. the DOF would be exactly the same.

that said ive seen plenty of very shallow DOF and selective focus techniques used by 2/3" chip cameras, and plenty of deep DOF from 35mm cams. *i wouldnt say that judging whether something is film or digital based off DOF alone would be too accurate a way to discern an images origins. it all depends on the lenses and lense settings used. * * *but in certain cases as when the framing is pretty wide, and the DOF is still very shallow (like some of the scenes mentioned above) its a pretty good chance that its 35mm.

[TotalX]

Just out of curiosity, is there a difference in the technology between the Panasonic and Sony for 24p in Hi-Def? Do you think they did something in the movie, that made it more probable, that the footage would be more apt to look like video due to the lighting and conditions?

I probably haven't shot as much as you guys in 24p with my DVX, but whenever in 24p, I never seen a shot with my projects that came close to the video look (of course I am using cine-gamma and etc.,) Then again, I haven't shot in the near dark conditions that these guys were in.

[Neil Rowe]

no real difference in how 24p is achieved. *they shot in very minimalistic set lighting for a feature film .. often useing alot of practical light so that it seemed more real and ambient. micheal mann wanted the flavor of the real city at night *to show through instead of making it look all "hollywooded up". * *so yeah .. it snot the best example of how filmic the VIPER or cine alta are capeable of looking. in another post i linked to a pic thats cut in half 1/2 viper 1/2 35mm.. and nobody can tell the difference. if its treated like a normal film it will look like a normal film. even normal film looks "video like" somtimes. it all comes down to lighting for the most part.

video does have its limits.. but so does film. .. when dealing with cams like the cine alta and viper and DALSA origin.. some of them even exceed films lattitude ability. in certain setups

[J.R. Hudson]

I understand they shot all of the EXT on Digital and all of the INT on Film.

So they say...

[John_Q]

I understand they shot all of the EXT on Digital and all of the INT on Film.

So they say...

I just listed how most of it was shot. That is coming straight from the horses mouth...two of them.

You can also tell when they used the Viper vs the Panavision...look at the blacks.

Personally, I love this entire look of this movie, its why I saw it twice in the theater (sadly not once in digital projection, wanted to) The look completely suited the story and I feel the cinematography was its own character.

[TotalX]

Overall, I liked the movie as well.

[combatJJ]

Neil R.

Can you point me to the post where you put the link to the vipercam and 35mm comparison?

[Rich Lee]

i just saw this movie the other day. i thought it was very well done. at first i was kinda distracted by some of the video looking shots. there was one shot in particular that looked like it came straight out of a xl1s...its the shot of the cab pulling up to the office where he drops the girl off. anyway, once i got into the flick i totaly fell into the story. but yeah, its had a strange look, they obviously werent trying to mimic film with these cameras. but it served the story and feeling of the film well. the shots in the jazz club while talking to the big guy at the table looked fantstic, where those hd as well?

[Hayden_Rivers]

35mm vs. Viper. Don't know if it's the same shots that Neil R. was talking about, but maybe.

http://freespace.virgin.net/shaw.clan/dpviper35mm.html

I'm really curious why Rodriguez and Lucas shoot using the Sony F900-F950 instead of the Viper if the Viper gives you more data and thus a better picture? Is it just because Sony is working with them? Or is it because there's a greater amount of lenses that can be used with the F900-F950?

[John_Q]

A viper being recordered to a sony SR deck is 4:4:4. a F950 to the same deck is also 4:4:4.

Lucas went with the Sony cause Sony wanted him to use them and most likley gave him an amazing deal. It was also the newest uncompressed camera on the market...and of course george likes to the be first with new technology. With that said....lucas and sonys relationship in getting the HDCam off the ground with panavision also probably prompted some loyalty....even though lucas didnt use panavision for the third film because they would not buy F950s....now they have a Genisis.

[Rich Lee]

Panavision Genesis...sweeet

[John_Q]

Panavision Genesis...sweeet

Arri D20...SWEEEEE...T


Gensis is pretty badass. I interned at panny woodland hills years ago. I still prefer the arri/movicam systems better. But i have enough panavisions shirts to last a month lol.

[J.R. Hudson]

...it had a strange look, they obviously werent trying to mimic film with these cameras.


I read where they intentionally upped the Gain pretty high to get the look Mann wanted.

I thought this film was great; one of those types of films one of us DVX'ers could pull off (Minus the umpteen aerials of L.A.). It was nice to see Tom play this part.

I was watching the DVD and the Subway scenes are done in Green Screen. That's awesome.

[Neil Rowe]

..yep hayden thats the same one i posted a while back.. only i just linked to the pic instead of the page.. cause the page says which is which. and as we know when certain people see that.. all of a sudden they start spouting about how they knew it before they read that and how they could tell and had a feeling ... blah blah blah. whatever. its near impossible to tell the difference, and if both were being screened from 35mm onto a very large screen i think that only jaded fools would profess to know which was which.


i watched collateral again last night, and alot of exterior scenes you could tell that the gain or pedestal was up . the blacks were washed out, and it was generally muddy. and then there were some that were spot on. but in general -without knowing which scenes were shot on what i woudnt have had a clue at all that it wasnt all 35mm. 3 different cameras..2 being video wouldnt have even crossed my mind if i just blindly went to the theatre and saw it. sure some scenes looked a bit videoish, but ive seen plenty of 35mm that looked similar.. all depends how you treat it.

..and i had absolutely no clue that the subway was all green screen.. WOW!

[J.R. Hudson]

I can personally tell the difference between an Arri, Pani and Sony.

(I jest)