Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Miami Vice shootout scene

A

AntonyCASAFilms

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.casafilms.co.uk
I was watching part of Miami Vice last night. During the shootout scene near the end, the film suddenly looked really badly shot, with a very pronounced "video look".

Looking on imdb, I see that 3 types of camera were used:
- Arriflex Cameras and Lenses (35 mm)
- Sony HDW-F900
- Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera

Does anyone know which one was used for this scene?
And why it looks so bad?

Or maybe it was just the screen I was watching it on?
 
Michael Mann has an amazing ability to make HD video look like total dog shit. The biggest reason for that in my opinion is the constant use of the 360 degree shutter (aka 1/24) in low light situations. If you want your HD movie to look like cheap video, shoot an action scene with a slow shutter. You'll get the shitty motion blur that only Michael Mann can get respect for...
 
AntonyCASAFilms said:
I was watching part of Miami Vice last night. During the shootout scene near the end, the film suddenly looked really badly shot, with a very pronounced "video look".

Looking on imdb, I see that 3 types of camera were used:
- Arriflex Cameras and Lenses (35 mm)
- Sony HDW-F900
- Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera

Does anyone know which one was used for this scene?
And why it looks so bad?

Or maybe it was just the screen I was watching it on?
Click to expand...

Viper. But the look of that scene - for that matter, the entire movie - was more indicative of what happens when you do things the way you feel like doing them without regard to getting the best quality out of the tools you have. When you exceed the capabilities of the equipment, you pay a price. Michael Mann wanted what he got, so he was willing to pay that price. Neither Collateral nor Miami Vice are examples of getting the best imagery out of an electronic camera, they are simply examples of getting images that the director liked. A better example of what a Viper can produce in terms of more conventionally good looking images would be David Fincher's picture "Zodiac," or his forthcoming "Curious Case of Benjamin Button."
 
Yeah he really sux!

23kx6ph.jpg


This is just Terrible!!! Awful!! My eyes cannot take this kind of punishment!
 
Tom said:
Yeah he really sux!

23kx6ph.jpg


This is just Terrible!!! Awful!! My eyes cannot take this kind of punishment!
Click to expand...

Is that sarcasm? I don't really get it, since Miami Vice is one of the ugliest HD films to ever be released in theaters. I mean, even the crappiest movies have a couple of good shots in them...
 
Don Julio said:
Michael Mann has an amazing ability to make HD video look like total dog poo
Click to expand...

I would not put it so strongly, but I more or less agree with this.

Everything that was done with both Collateral and Miami Vice kind of goes against what I've learned to make an electronic camera read like film.

One thing though, the lifted skies of downtown LA at night in Collateral were a very cool creative choice, one that went hand in hand with the medium and going counter to "the film look"
 
I suspect you are referring to use of video gain and 360 degree shutter to get some extra stops out of the camera.

On the plus side you can shoot natural light at night - downside is what you shoot looks like dog shit youtube footage.
 
I think that by shooting video/digital Michael Mann missed his charm. He used to have controlled camera framings and moves which made your film heart bleed.

With Miami Vice I believe he had a shooting ratio of 1 to 240, or something similar. If my memory serves me right.
 
I agree- Vice's look was colored by the use of HD with intensive gain, frenetic coverage and low-lighting. It's supposed to look immediate and vibrant but I prefer the tightly controlled compositions and crisp lighting of Heat or The Insider. I'm intrigued by his upcoming Public Enemy:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152836/

Which is still digital (on an F23 I believe), but lensed by the great Dante Spinotti- Mann's collaborator for Heat and Insider. One of the best shot films I've seen recently is Michael Clayton, that just looks awesome on Blu-Ray. Robert Elswit is a genius.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005696/

Noah
 
Mann embraces and pushes the technology of video. His goal wasn't to mimic film. Instead, he pushes the palette of video creating an entire new style.
 
Michael Clayton was a superb and very underrated piece of cinematography, IMO.
 
J.R. Hud said:
Mann embraces and pushes the technology of video. His goal wasn't to mimic film. Instead, he pushes the palette of video creating an entire new style.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm may be but it still doesn't take away the fact that Miami Vice and the second half of The Collateral were absolute S^&T, especially Vice
 
I don't know, Mann seems to really believe that HD has the capability to "see" in the darkness much better than film, which is why, according to him, it was used exclusively on Collateral since the whole film takes place at night. Then he went one step further, and a giant step at that, with Vice by shooting basically with almost existing light, at a frantic pace and less than ideal camera settings. So yes, it doesn't look good at all (to me, like shite as well) and if that was what he intended all along, then what a shame, because the look of both films, especially Vice, is so offputting as to take you out of the story completely. When you compare the vibrancy, immediacy and plain awesomeness of the shootout on Heat, then that does make a compelling case for extremely well planned and staged action scenes that look much better AND involve you more in the action if they are shot maximizing what the medium used (film) has to offer as compared to when the same director does a similar scene that is miles away in quality and feel just because he broke every cardinal rule of the medium (digital)...Oh well, he's still one AMAZING director...
 
Don Julio said:
Michael Mann has an amazing ability to make HD video look like total dog shit. The biggest reason for that in my opinion is the constant use of the 360 degree shutter (aka 1/24) in low light situations. If you want your HD movie to look like cheap video, shoot an action scene with a slow shutter. You'll get the shitty motion blur that only Michael Mann can get respect for...
Click to expand...

I agree. The smeary look from the 1/24 or 1/25 shutter is not pretty, but in a low light situation, it's better to shoot something, then nothing :)
 
Michael Mann has earned the right to do whatever he wants... clearly he could have chosen to shoot the film in whichever format he wanted to... that was the look he was going for. Not to mention his cinematographer was academy award winner Dion Beebe. I think its obvious to say both of them can make a pretty picture if they wanted to... but chose not to for this particular film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top