Michael Mann

J

JaydeeG83

Active member
So I was watching Miami Vice the other night and I noticed that Michael Mann uses a 60 fps look in his recent films (also noticed it in Ali and Collateral.) I don't know if it's exactly 60 fps, but the movements of the actors look much smoother and video-like during certain sequences. I was just wondering how that look is achieved seeing as how no matter what frame rate it was shot at, the movie is actually projected back at 24 fps. Just curious to see if anyone knows.
 
Personally, I'm not exactly sure what makes Collateral and Miami Vice so video-ish. I'm pretty sure however that they are 24p and not 60i.

I think the reason the motion looks so smooth isn't the frame rate but the shutter speed. In order to shoot in the uber-low light, he probably had to lower it which produces odd looking video trails that give it that wierd motion.
 
Collateral was shot with a Sony F900 HD camera. He talks about it in the Commentary on the DVD. I am not sure if the entire movie was shot with that camera but a good majority of it was.
 
arhartman: how did you find that on imdb? Thats pretty cool...I have been wondering if information like that was available for the public.
 
Why would he shoot on an F900 when there are so many better HD cameras available to someone like him, not the least of which would be the F950.
 
I remember reading at some point he uses a shutter speed of 1/24. Film uses a max of 1/48. Video is the only thing that can shoot with the same frame rate and shutter speed at the same time. This might be what you're talking about.
 
Dion Beebe used the Viper, F900, and 35mm for Collateral. He is also the DP for Miami Vice.

The following is a portion from an International Cinematographers Guild interview with Dion Beebe: (Note this interview is about Collateral)
The decision to switch between the Grass Valley Viper camera, Sony’s HDW-F900 camcorder and 35mm film throughout the shoot had more to do with practical issues than with aesthetics. For example, Beebe says the production favored the F900s, with their onboard recording, when the camera needed to be very portable— scenes shot inside the cab, for instance— and film cameras were used when action scenes needed to be overcranked, one area where digital cinematography still lags far behind the curve. The Viper’s main disadvantage was its umbilical-cord connection to the hefty HDCAM-SR decks that were used to record the data. ( Sony has since introduced the portable SRW-1, a streamlined approach to image capture that would have been welcome on Collateral.) But that inconvenience was outweighed by the Viper’s ability to capture a widescreen image across the camera’s full vertical resolution, rather than simply masking the top and bottom of the frame to the desired aspect ratio. In the end, Beebe says, the Vipers "did the bulk of the work."
Click to expand...
Also to answer the question earlier, the film print has very little to do with the look we see on screen. That look has to do with how the movie was shot. Here is another portion from the article:
"Michael had a digital projector set up at his production office where test prints were done. When we had to, we would do film-outs. But the projector had been set up to closely resemble the look of the film-out. I remember looking at my first set of digital projections, and then the same footage being projected on film. I was really surprised how closely aligned the two of them were. That transition to film was so good— you expect a certain amount of image alteration or loss with any transfer from one medium to another, but I was very impressed with how it filmed out."
Click to expand...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I found this article awhile back while writing a research paper on Dion, for a film class I was attending. It is a very interesting article and Dion Beebe is a wonderful director of photography. Here is the link to this particular article: http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat_beebe/beebe_collateral.htm
[/FONT]
 
I know Collateral Was NOT shot in 24p! i know that because i remember watching A HBO FIrst Look on it back when it came out and the DP said in his own words that they were using "Interlaced High Def" so.

Just My Two Cents:)
 
Here is another part of that article:





At the peak of the shooting schedule, the Collateral production carried two Grass Valley Viper cameras and two Sony HDW-F900/3 HD camcorders for principal photography. A third F900/3 was added for second-unit work in the last three weeks of the shoot. As many as 11 cameras could be involved in an action sequence, when 35mm film cameras were added to the mix for off-speed acquisition. Collateral used Panavision Millennium, Panavision Millennium XL, Pan-Arri 435 and Bell & Howell Eymo cameras with Panavision Primo zooms and fixed lenses.
At the time, the production decided, recording to the HDCAM SR tape format was more cost-effective from a post-production standpoint than disk-based solutions, so two HDCAM SRW-5000 decks were brought on the scene. Tethered to the SR decks, the Vipers recorded in dual-link VideoStream mode (10-bit linear 4:4:4 RGB at 24fps), which offered in-camera image control, rather than the 10-bit log files that are output, uncorrected, directly from the CCD in FilmStream mode. Two Leader 5700 4:4:4 scopes were used to monitor the Vipers via the outputs of the SRW-5000 decks, and two 5700 4:2:2 scopes were used for monitoring the F900s. When the SR decks were not recording Viper, the F900s could be recorded to HDCAM SR in 10-bit 4:2:2 mode, but when both Vipers were rolling, or a scene demanded portability (scenes shot inside a free-driving taxi, for example), the F900s were used as camcorders, recording to on-board HDCAM tape in 8-bit 3:1:1 mode.
8ÂÌ$¤0¡çGm_äNEnùE‡Xã ª÷..29ÖÄ anamorphic widescreen mode (2.37:1), the images on the F900s were simply masked top and bottom to get a wider aspect ratio (2.40:1). Viper images didn’t display correctly on the small LCD monitors used on camera— pictures from them would appear "stretched." So the Viper’s 4:2:2 HD-SDI output was fed to an Astro Systems scan converter, which resampled the image to the proper aspect ratio for viewing. This processing introduced some delay in the video image, which bothered some viewers more than others. (The camera operator notices it more than the director.) A second output from the Astro went into an Evertz downconverter, which then fed an NTSC signal to the two Sony DVM-D24 monitors that were used for video assist. Miranda MDC 700 on-camera P#˜"


For whatever it is worth. Never mentions frame rate.....
 
Four Eyed Monsters said:
I know Collateral Was NOT shot in 24p! i know that because i remember watching A HBO FIrst Look on it back when it came out and the DP said in his own words that they were using "Interlaced High Def" so.

Just My Two Cents:)
Click to expand...

I can't help but think that this is perhaps referring to 24 PsF.
 
=Prodigy= said:
In the end, Beebe says, the Vipers "did the bulk of the work."
Click to expand...

This is interesting, because in another article I read exactly the opposite... That they ended up using the Vipers with the first DP who worked on Collateral, and after they swapped over to Beebe they pretty much only used the F900's for exteriors and 35mm for most of the interiors.

EDIT: Its in the article posted above.
 
on a side note, there is some crazy grain during alot of the low-light hd stuff in miami vice. makes me feel good that the big budget guys have the same problems we have!
 
Yes Gage FX, I missed that detail in my own post. Sorry.... I was skimming the technical info looking for frame rate. So according to the article I posted it was 24p.

I will read the article J. Hudson posted and see what it says.
 
ninjaleprechaun said:
This is interesting, because in another article I read exactly the opposite... That they ended up using the Vipers with the first DP who worked on Collateral, and after they swapped over to Beebe they pretty much only used the F900's for exteriors and 35mm for most of the interiors.

EDIT: Its in the article posted above.
Click to expand...

You read very wrong, Beebe joined the team 3 weeks into the 12 week shoot. This is a quote from Hudson's posted article:
By the time Beebe joined Collateral, the Viper accessories were ready, and the production switched from dual F900s to dual Vipers as the A and B cameras. However, whenever the camerawork was run-and-gun, they used the F900s to avoid the Viper’s tether system.
Click to expand...
 
agentjonny said:
on a side note, there is some crazy grain during alot of the low-light hd stuff in miami vice. makes me feel good that the big budget guys have the same problems we have!
Click to expand...

I've seen the flick 3 times now (mostly studying nuance) and one thing I thought I saw the first time and was confirmed on subsequent viewings: there is mad grain whenever Crocket and Tubbs are on screen. In the meeting between FBI, their Chief (or whoever he was - haven't paid much attention to character names :embarasse ) and the two boys, shots of FBI dude or Chief had much less noticable grain - but some - and then when they cut to the boys there is crazy, mad grain. I think it was a stylistic thing about the two main characters, but I also think it was done in post. Or at least enhanced in post.

Just some thoughts on what I saw.

-GageFX
 
that smeary videoish look is definitely 1/24 shutter speed 24p. i mean you can try it on your own- it'll give you that look. i hate that look. I'm not sure what the problem is if you transfer to film with a 1/60 or 1/48 but whatever it is, using 1/24 to match film isn't working for it. instead it still gives off the same videoish look right on film.
almost all DV made movies have that look. EXCEPT for starwars and the newer films made with Genesis like Superman and Click. I dont know why they use that look. I think it's terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top