Collateral

D

DVX100Shooter

Veteran
Im sure you all already discussed this movie in length...I was just amazed that Director Michael Mann chose to shoot 95% of the movie in HD with the Sony F900 camera. The images look really good. In the commentary on the DVD he pointed out that if they were using a film camera they would not be able to see stuff like the palm trees and other things at night but with the HD camera it brings those images right out. Very impressive. I also posted something in the Light forum on this site. Does anyone know what that special light is called that they used to light the interior of the taxi cab? It looks like an electroluminescent sheet of some sort that produced a soft light similiar to a Kino Flo. They had those things velcroed all over the inside of the car.
 
Re: Collatteral

Re: Collatteral

I'm curious, did you see it in the theater as well or just DVD? I have not seen the DVD but I found it in the theater to be grainy and soft... thought maybe the 16 year old projectionist was just off.
 
Re: Collatteral

Re: Collatteral

yea I saw it in the Theater and on DVD on my 42 inch plasma....some of the images were dark and grainy but as the director pointed out had they used a film camera you wouldn't be able to see certain details of the background like those palm trees at night and stuff like that.
 
Re: Collatteral

Re: Collatteral

Mann WANTED the 'video' grainly look - that was the style he was going for. Was good to see a movie that used DV and wasn't all special effects - just a low down 'n' dirty street drama.

P.S. Digital 95% of the time? Not so sure he used it THAT much....?
 
Re: Collateral

Who knows; some commentary by Mann in a fetaurette says "80%" and another one says "95%". Maybe it was 89.345 %
 
Re: Collateral

I noticed actually that the film vs HiDef sections were more noticeable on the DVD version I just watched - the blacks in the video sections are much more lifted than in the film version, and you really notice it in contrast with the letterbox bands, whereas the film-shot footage melds right with the letterboxing. The difference is very, very clear.

I wonder, though, how the video footage would have looked with a more standard shutter speed - normally with the video, to get better exposure, they shot with it as low as 1/24 - which adds a MUCH smearier image than were it at 1/50 or something more standard. The dynamic range and such, though, wasn't necessarily the biggest difference.
 
Re: Collateral

Only film people who obsess over this kind of stuff would even notice or care that the movie was shot in HD. Like me. :)

I just saw this movie on DVD and forgot pretty quickly to search for pixelation, so I didn't notice any.

As for the actual movie and story, well, it was a better than usual Cruise story; his character was more believable and likable as the antagonist than as, say, the protagonist in 'The last Samuria'. It was OK in my book.
 
Re: Collateral

The movie Collateral looks really good to me. This is just the beginning. Dalsa has their camera now in LA & Arri has their D20, thompson the viper, etc...

I don't know how many of you have seen film-out from DV & HD video but if shot well it looks great. DVXs look very good, same with most all the other DV cameras given they are shot properly (exposure). I watched a reel the other week at the film-lab and really, video isn't an issue anymore...it looks great! 99% of most everyone can't tell when it's transfered to 35.

Also, Video to Film shouldn't be that big of a deal because it is becoming quite common to produce digital intermediates during post for color correction, SFX, etc... and then lasered back to 35 for release prints. Most theatre prints are so poor that HD looks much better.

Robert Rodriguiez, as you all know shot, Once upon a time in Mexico in HD, with the Sony w/ panavision lenses...looked nice & sharp in the theatre. As good as dailies! and that's as good as it gets.
 
Re: Collateral

Well put and some good points.

We of course tend to obsess over the technical details but if we can put together a solid film and are firtunate to have it transferred and brought to the big screen; the average moviegoer wont have a clue.
 
Re: Collateral

We of course tend to obsess over the technical details but if we can put together a solid film and are firtunate to have it transferred and brought to the big screen; the average moviegoer wont have a clue.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, John, like THAT'S ever going to happen.

;)
 
Re: Collateral

Woodson, you're whack...but that's another thread. ;)

As for Collateral, I had a chance to see it for the first time last night. Not sure if anyone agrees but I loved the brooding, original first half of this film. It kept me guessing, I loved the suspense and paced dialogue. Then, the second half killed me! It was like they needed to wrap things up, and they did so in a predictable, tight little package, with all the elements needed to sell a high concept film including cliches, action set pieces and ho-hum sound bytes. Dissapointed overall, but I loved the first half, so it was worthwhile.
 
Re: Collateral

I saw the flick last night for the first time as well. I found it suspenseful, yet predictable. If that makes sense.

I predicted who hios last target was going to be. I mean COME ON! Who didn't see that coming. Though I wasn't exactly sure how it would all conclude.

I love the photography and the story. Tom Cruise played that character very well, the subtlety and attention to detail is what sold it for me.
 
Re: Collateral

Just watched this a few nights ago -- wow! This was a beautifully-shot movie . . . the colors . . . the lights . . . the angles. I was mesmerized. I wasn't even paying attention to the story much.
 
Re: Collateral

[quote author=alveraz link=board=movies;num=1103944384;start=0#12 date=12/29/04 at 11:09:14]Woodson, you're whack...but that's another thread.  ;)

As for Collateral, I had a chance to see it for the first time last night. Not sure if anyone agrees but I loved the brooding, original first half of this film. It kept me guessing, I loved the suspense and paced dialogue. Then, the second half killed me! It was like they needed to wrap things up, and they did so in a predictable, tight little package, with all the elements needed to sell a high concept film including cliches, action set pieces and ho-hum sound bytes. Dissapointed overall, but I loved the first half, so it was worthwhile.[/quote]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Personally, I loved the opening sequence with Max and Annie in the cab. It's unusual in a mainstream film now to see/hear a conversation between a man and a woman that's more than dumbed-down flirting. It didn't hurt that the helicopter shots pointing straight down had me drooling. The only scene that tops it is the pre-crash sequence with Max and Vincent, as Max basically drives himself/talks himself into flipping the car.
 
Re: Collateral

I saw it last night on DVD. Great film. I enjoyed every bit of it. Didn't even notice it was digitally shot. Don't care either. It was definitely a Michael Mann film. Very stylish, as are all his movies. The pacing was great, the beats were strong as were the turning points and plot twists. The local cop subplot was cool, although I found the casting in the subplot a little strange. Really like the symbolism of Cruise's look. Grey hair, grey suit, (not really good, but not really evil). Ambiguous. Yes he killed plenty of people, but weren't they all scum anyway? It reminded me a lot of La Femme Nikita but without the overblown guilt and emotional burdern that Nikita suffers for killing. Just business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top