Jump to content




Photo

How was this shot?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Jaime Marin III

Jaime Marin III
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 December 2015 - 03:00 PM

Hey everyone I thought It would be interesting to breakdown this scene completely in terms of how you believe it was shot, type of stabilization used, lighting, lighting set up, etc. Here is a dialogue scene from the movie Collateral. I like this scene because it has some motivated camera movement from the car and in a way emulates a "bumpy" car ride in the city. 

 

here is the clip  

 

My first guess is that it was shot in some sort of studio environment in order to get all the different angles and the "shakey" camera movement 


  • 0




#2 Jeff L'Heureux

Jeff L'Heureux
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Director
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 28 December 2015 - 03:19 PM

No studio.  It was all shot on the real streets, using differently configured tow rigs with different parts of the taxi cut out for the camera crew, depending on the angle.  The bumps are real because the camera crew is along for the ride as well.  Look around the 5:00 mark of this video.

 


  • 0

#3 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 30 December 2015 - 12:13 AM

So it was shot in a studio environment, but where the studio environment was attached to the car.

 

C


  • 0

#4 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 30 December 2015 - 01:03 AM

My first guess is that it was shot in some sort of studio environment in order to get all the different angles and the "shakey" camera movement 

 

 

Jeff is correct, but I'm curious as to what you're seeing that makes you think it was shot in a studio...


  • 0

#5 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 30 December 2015 - 02:12 AM

Here is a link to the American Cinematographer article on Collateral.  It's very insightful in lot of different ways, especially in the sense that this was kind of the dawn of digital.  Dion Beebe & Paul Cameron both talk about the sensitivity of the HD cameras and how they were relying on the monitor to tweak the image - something a lot of camera crews weren't used to back in 2004.

 

They specifically state that the majority of static-interiors were shot on Vision2 5279 & 5218 (now 5219) and that most of the action scenes were shot on two HD cameras - the Sony/Panavision F900 and the Viper Filmstream.  So I'm sure the portability of both cameras was a big consideration in pre-production.  Beebe states that they sometimes wound up pushing the gain on both cameras to the max to achieve the look Michael Mann wanted: the F900 to +12db & the Viper to +6db.  In order to match the grainy look on film, they pushed the 5218 1 or 2 stops.

 

Amazing how far digital film-making has come in only 11 years.


  • 0

#6 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 30 December 2015 - 03:27 PM

I rememeber watching it when it came out and not really being able to understand why they had shot the night exteriors on digital and made it look so nasty.

 

It does detract heavily from what is perhaps Michael Mann's best movie.

 

Freya


  • 0

#7 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 30 December 2015 - 04:03 PM

I remember seeing it in the theater and I liked the grainy, night look, but that's just me.  I've always preferred to actually see the grain/noise on-screen and it was clearly enhanced for this film because that's the look Michael Mann wanted.


  • 0

#8 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 30 December 2015 - 04:10 PM

I remember seeing it in the theater and I liked the grainy, night look, but that's just me.  I've always preferred to actually see the grain/noise on-screen and it was clearly enhanced for this film because that's the look Michael Mann wanted.

 

It could easily look better in the theatre I guess. I saw it when it came out of DVD and I was shooting night time stuff on Mini-DV that looked better back then so I didn't quite get it. Especially the nasty colour and chromatic abberation everywhere too.

 

I don't mind a bit of video noise but I felt this didn't work.

 

Quite liked the movie tho oddly.

 

Freya


Edited by Freya Black, 30 December 2015 - 04:11 PM.

  • 0

#9 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 30 December 2015 - 06:00 PM

From what I understand the digital was being used in a way that would make a virtue of what digital could do differently from film, and part of that was the way in which digital rendered night scapes.

 

C


  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 December 2015 - 06:28 PM

Pushed digital has more open shadows than pushed film, which gets more contrasty.  Also, the Viper has 2/3" sensors so there is more depth of field than with 35mm, so for night photography being shot wide-open, it's unusual to see deeper focus images since most movies are or were shot on 35mm film.  So the effect in some ways is more like how we see at night (ignoring the noise) rather than how urban nightscapes usually are rendered in traditional 35mm movies.


  • 0

#11 Ravi Kiran

Ravi Kiran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 30 December 2015 - 07:56 PM

For the Blu-Ray, were the video scenes taken from the original video footage or from the film-out?


  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 December 2015 - 08:33 PM

I suspect that for a movie released in 2004 with a mix of HD and 35mm, the home video masters (HD and SD) were made from a telecine of the film-out, but I could be wrong.  It would be the easiest way to get it into an HD master for home video back then.  Now if the movie had been even more popular, there might have been a push to re-do the video master by putting the whole movie through a new 2K D.I. and make the HD version from that, but I don't see that happening.

 

I could be wrong, maybe the home video master is made directly from whatever digital master they created for the film-out.

 

Remember that they mixed some Sony F900 into the Viper footage, and the Viper used that odd 2.40 digital anamorphic process that allowed you to use all 1080 lines for a 2.40 image, whereas the Sony F900 footage had to be cropped to 2.40.


  • 0


CineLab

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Zylight

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Pro 8mm

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Zylight

The Slider

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Technodolly

CineLab

Visual Products

Glidecam

Abel Cine