So, what's wrong?

Collateral is one of my favorite movies ever. There is definately something about it, and I really think that if Michael Mann would have made the compromises that he would have needed to in order to shoot on film, it would not be as good of a movie.

I know a lot of you guys have a lot more knowledge about this kind of stuff than I do. But to my eyes, the DOF, lighting, shutter, etc... is not what "gives it away" in my mind those factors are pretty much on par with any other quality major motion picture. There are plenty of shallow DOF shots and all kinds of cool rack focusing. So I don't think the whole DOF deal is an issue.

A lot of people are pointing out that film has a distinct look, that we are used to seeing. I definately agree, its much similiar to analog verses digital audio, we have been used to analog for the history of recorded sounds and now we have digital and all that it entails. Which is a whole 'nother conversation.

What I want to point out is, not how video is not film, but how film is not video. Collateral is a fine example, shot for shot you could not have made that with film. No way. Those camera's see deep into the darkness. The DP said he was tripping over things it was so dark, when they were shooting the final sequences when Vincent gets shot. Not to mention tons of other shots. The fact that is was HD definately gave it a non film look that think was absolutely awesome. I think that movie kind of "re-defined" what a motion picture "has" to look like. Forget Star Wars, they may as well have CG'd the entire movie.

Where I saw video the most in Collateral is in the movement, the way is tracks. Either in the pans/tilts, or the even the steady cam stuff. I certainly would not say its a "slick movie" but its certainly not a film grain either. A huge part of that film, I think is how it was lit. Thats another thing, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like color temp is a whole new deal with video. I mean, film is either balanced daylight or tungsten right? Show me a place down town LA that is perfectly 5600 or 3200K.

Ok, thats my novice comment for the night. I love Collateral and I can't wait to see Miami Vice as well as Finchers new film(s).
 
Droog said:
Ok, thats my novice comment for the night.
Click to expand...

Excellent points, especially about lighting and color temps. You speak with the wisdom of an experienced cinematographer.
 
Hi there,

I think the Audio Post work has alot to do with it aswell, they say sound is half the picture, so sound does influence what your eyes experience.

Then, I think color grading's got a lot to do with it too. ? so in all POST is crucial.

Check out "13 going on 30", watch the movie, then look at the extras on the DVD.

They show bloopers and deleted scenes with abolutely no post work, just cutting.

The sound has not been touched, neither any color correction or grading.
That footage looks CRAP and FLAT!!!! And sounds like home movies.

Just my opinion though?

- Derrick
 
Something you shouldnt overlook is that film lives in the real world and therefore is analog by definition. Yes it has a limit to how much it can resolve but it is still an analog medium. Digital is .... well a digital medium. This is something that probably will always make them look different.

In many ways i think we are trying too hard to MAKE dv look like film - they are not the same and never will be so just work in the medium you have. Perhaps 24p doesnt look better because it looks like film - rather maybe its just a better cadence for the eye and motion.
 
Loki said:
I'd wager that if nobdy had known Collateral was shot partly with HD nobody would even "notice" these things that give away the video look.


Yes there is a difference between film and video acquisition, but when in the hands of a pro, the differences become small and almost indistinguishable.. having this forsight though... no doubt makes people "think" they are clearly seeing differences..

perception is an interesting thing..
Click to expand...

Well, in this case, the differences are very clear and kind of obvious; even to the untrained eye someone would point and say (hey, that looks like something out of COPS!). And it's all intentional; Michael Mann wanted the video look -- so the "Subject-expectancy effect" doesn't really apply.

I've noticed a difference in the motion in particular; the fact that even when video is 24p and has a slightly faster shutter speed; it still has a little more motion blur than does film; I see this a lot in the DVX. Also, something about how the Collateral camera handled light (maybe the gamma or latitude, not sure) also made it look like video.
 
smelni said:
In many ways i think we are trying too hard to MAKE dv look like film - they are not the same and never will be so just work in the medium you have.
Click to expand...

Well put! :)

We should focus on our stories first, then the craft second. I think a good story will always transcend the medium, and we will never be able to keep up with the joneses!
 
Lawsuit_Boy said:
That'd be a fun experiment though. Have people watch this film and ask them before the film to make note of anything strange they see picture-wise, and then have another group that finds out ahead of time that 80+% was shot HD video, and compare the answers after the showings.
Click to expand...

Well, there are a lot of good points here.

Here's an idea. Does everyone want to designate a particular evening, where we would all watch "Collateral," independently, and all discuss our findings/observations/analysis, the very next day?
 
I was watching Collateral just last night, so I've got that covered.

But why choose Collateral? Can't you choose a film in which the video look was not intentional? We should watch a film like Once Upon a Time in Mexico; to really study the difference between video and film (particularly in the motion). Also, why not a DVX movie, since that is what we are using?

Unfortunately, there are not a lot of films out currently that were shot with HD that are good subjects; they either have too many special effects for us to study, or, for the ones which do not contain much of that, they were shot in HD intentionally for the video look (Collateral, Miami Vice). There are only a few which we could choose from which don't fall into those categories. There is this new Superman movie coming out shot in HD; and I think they're going for the film look -- but the film isn't out, so that's also out of the question.

But again, that doesn't really matter; I think it's more important for us to study the difference between the prosumer video cameras and film, since most of us will be using these prosumer cameras.
 
I'm anxious to see the new Superman, considering they are using those new Panavision Genesis cams. SHould be interesting.

I like the idea of watching either Collatral or Once Upon a Time in Mexico.
 
I think that for me the thing that makes the biggest difference is the DOF. The DOF that can be obtained from film (and DV/HD with 35mm adapter) more closely represents how we see. Hold you finger up about a foot away from your face and focus on it... the background becomes out of focus. Now, leave your finger there and focus on something across the room... your finger becomes out of focus.

I think that the other items such as 24fps fall below the importance of the DOF in relation to making something that represents how our eyes see. Items such as progressive/interlaced and frame rate are not totally relevant to representing how we see. Our eyes and brain do not operate at 24fps or 30i. Frame rate is important to many because of the past uses of film and DV. I think that many find comfort in the "film look" because this is how we have seen movies for so long. Things like home movies and America's Funniest Home Videos have caused the "DV look" to become attached with sloppy and novice footage.

When color films first came out there were many that were uncomfortable with it and thought that it took away from the "look" of movies. The situation is similar with the current move toward HD. Some day the "film look" will rest in history along side the black and white greats of old.

I agree that even with all the effort and strides to make DV look like film, there is still "something" missing. I'm not sure that the last secrete thing that will finally make DV/HD exactly mimic film will be uncovered. They are simply different mediums. I can do everything in my power to make and apple look like and orange, but there is always going to be something different about it that keeps it from being a true orange.

I say the goal should be not to mimic film, but to mimic the eye and how our brains translate that which the eye sees into emotion and thought. I think that this is where the true art of filmmaking exists.

Amen.
 
Last edited:
in terms of motion, just looking at the way CCD and Film gates work. The CCD reads teh entire image in one shot. where as the Film surface because of the spinning shutter blades temporally gets gets exposed at dıfferent times. ıe the right side is exposed 1/48 a sec before the left side. it could be the subtle distortion of the image is what looks different. Maybe the CCD are too steady and even, where as film allows for a subtle motion distortion.

i still think its Dynamic range, and the stability of the image through different exposures. For EX. The ccd processo on a DVX for example gets noisy, if you give it a low contrast image, no highlıght no black. where as film would kında handle that situation more consistentlşy, just because its a physical chemchal reaction as oposed to a variable ridden set of computatıons based on the input from electronics.

just a theory.
 
xl70e3 said:
Collateral. Alright, I know they were going for the video look with this one, that's how most of the movie looks and I really don't mind it.
Click to expand...



why does a marker look different from color pencil?

why does a skateboard move different from a wheelchair?

why are green apples sour and red apples are sweet?

Why does shampoo clean hair and conditioner soften?


Different medium produces different results. Video does not film on celuloid just on tape or digital. Does this make sense?
:)
 
A cubic zirconium is not a diamond, and the difference can be discerned by an expert. Yet it looks very similar, and is a fraction of the cost, and is accessible to those who cannot afford a real diamond.
 
I'll compare this to recording on analog tape. Now, everyone uses Pro Tools, or other digital systems. You can sound like crap on 1/2" analog tape as well as you can using the best digital converters at 192khz / 24bit. It's the performance being recorded that is important. You can also sound great in both of those mediums.

Analog tape does have a different feel. The practice of using analog was usually taking advantage of how it could saturate. You could really "push" the medium and it would distort or change in a positive way if you needed it to. A digital workflow must definitely be handled differently. It can't be "abused" like analog workflow can. I liked what Xmag68 said about how the CCD reads the entire imagine in one shot. It's been argued that the reason some people don't like digital audio is because it sounds TOO much like the original source. For decades we were conditioned by the warmth and the positive change recording to tape gave us.

Film vs digital has many parallels to the audio realm. It's just that the visual medium is probably viewed and discerned by more laymen than audio. In modern times we grow up in a smorgasboard of visual stimulants. We're bombarded with TV, films, internet, and tons and tons of media. We're more sensitive to visuals than sound I would say. I mean most people have a decent TV. Most people have great theaters they can go to. A very small percentage of the population has audiophile quality speaker systems they could listen to, and even if they did, understanding exactly what they're hearing is another issue. What I mean by that is; they conditioned to listen to a highly compressed sound most of the time, and great sound might sound alien to some people.

I wish people were as passionate about analog audio, as they were about film. I hate to see any medium go out the window. Still, I go back to saying, it's more about what goes into the medium than the medium itself. I think one day digital will be up to the quality of film because of people like us. I think the standards will definitely evolve.

-Aaron
 
snodart said:
I think that for me the thing that makes the biggest difference is the DOF. The DOF that can be obtained from film (and DV/HD with 35mm adapter) more closely represents how we see. Hold you finger up about a foot away from your face and focus on it... the background becomes out of focus. Now, leave your finger there and focus on something across the room... your finger becomes out of focus.

I think that the other items such as 24fps fall below the importance of the DOF in relation to making something that represents how our eyes see. Items such as progressive/interlaced and frame rate are not totally relevant to representing how we see. Our eyes and brain do not operate at 24fps or 30i. Frame rate is important to many because of the past uses of film and DV. I think that many find comfort in the "film look" because this is how we have seen movies for so long. Things like home movies and America's Funniest Home Videos have caused the "DV look" to become attached with sloppy and novice footage.

When color films first came out there were many that were uncomfortable with it and thought that it took away from the "look" of movies. The situation is similar with the current move toward HD. Some day the "film look" will rest in history along side the black and white greats of old.

I agree that even with all the effort and strides to make DV look like film, there is still "something" missing. I'm not sure that the last secrete thing that will finally make DV/HD exactly mimic film will be uncovered. They are simply different mediums. I can do everything in my power to make and apple look like and orange, but there is always going to be something different about it that keeps it from being a true orange.

I say the goal should be not to mimic film, but to mimic the eye and how our brains translate that which the eye sees into emotion and thought. I think that this is where the true art of filmmaking exists.

Amen.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely.
 
I am new to this forum, but I immediately became sucked in by this thread. There are several good points being made. One thing that I would like to add is that I think we should all take into account that while we learn to film and create with new technology in new mediums, our audiences also have to learn how to view and decipher these works. The problem is the learning curve. Audiences are always going to be a little bit behind us. A fantastic film shot in mini-DV or HD is still a fantastic film. And we all know a piece of ---- shot on 35mm is still a piece of ----.
And although I've yet to see it, perhaps an interesting film for those reviewing this thread to watch would be November. It was a feature shot on the DVX-100 and it won the Cinematography Award at Sundance in 2004.
 
I agree with you chrislockerman.

I saw November at a theater for this reason (DVX). I honestly don't know if I would have caught on that it was DV had I not already known. Looked great. I could pick out a DV look at times, but I was watching for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top