Michael Mann's "Collateral" - What the hell?

[BrendanLeahy]

I should start off by saying that Collateral was a pretty good story, both when I saw it back in 2005 on DVD and just last night. However, I was really thrown by a couple of things:

Frame Rate
I understand Collateral mixed both film + digital, but almost everything digital (nighttime exteriors and some interiors). Did Mann request it be shot at different frame rates (24 and 30, or something more "exotic"), or did they have to adjust the shutter speed? Watching it reminded me of anything I'd catch on TV now with "smooth frame" on.


Lighting
As I read in the ASC magazine, the fill was used as key. Something overall, though, made it look subpar, and I'm not sure it was that. Did anyone else get this feeling as well?


Admittedly, both of these issues were present in Public Enemies as well, but I haven't been able to find a clear answer on whether or not Mann had that particular film shot at 24p with 360-degree shutter, or if it was something else.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

“Collateral” was certainly a fine film, it was done before the “Red Epic 6K Dragon Camera” existed here is the information from Wikipedia.com; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_(film)

FROM WIKIPEDIA; ” Collateral sat on DreamWorks' development books for three years. Mimi Leder was initially attached to direct, it then passed on to Janusz Kamiński. It wasn't until Russell Crowe became interested in playing Vincent that the project started generating any heat. Crowe brought Michael Mann on board, but the constant delays meant that Crowe left the project. Mann immediately went to Tom Cruise with the idea of him playing the hitman and Adam Sandler as the cabbie. Beattie wanted the studio to cast Robert De Niro as Max (once again making him a taxi driver, though the exact opposite of Travis Bickle). However, the studio refused, insisting they wanted a younger actor in the role. Mann chose to use the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera to film many of Collateral 's scenes, the first such use in a major motion picture. THERE ARE MANY SCENES IN THE FILM WHERE THE USE OF A DIGITAL CAMERA IS EVIDENT, IN PARTICULAR, SCENES WHERE THE LOS ANGELES SKYLINE OR LANDSCAPE IS VISIBLE IN THE BACKGROUND. One event of note was the filming of the coyotes running across the road; the low-light capability allowed Mann to spontaneously film the animals that just happened to pass, without having to set up lighting for the shot. Mann had previously used the format for portions of Ali and for his CBS drama Robbery Homicide Division and would later employ the same camera for the filming of Miami Vice. The sequence in the nightclub was shot in 35 mm.” Wikipedia.com

Humberto Rivera

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The frame rate was normal, what you are seeing is due to a longer-than-normal shutter time being used (which gave them more exposure but also more motion blur, giving a look reminiscent of 60i video shot without any shutter, i.e. 1/60th per frame).

The idea with the lighting in the cab was to just have an overall soft ambient light. Since they saw some noise problems from the low levels of exposure they needed to use to get the city backgrounds to read brightly, they somewhat let the cab lighting overexpose the actors, or light/expose them more fully, and then used Power Windows in the color-correction software to bring them back down. This way, there would be less noise in their faces compared to the views out the window.

 

[dio Zafi]

would have been very interesting with DeNiro

 

[Nick Morrison]

Here's the trailer:

To be honest, I think it looks pretty good. Of course this trailer is just a sample, but I kind of like the "realism" of the more open shutter. It feels a but more "tv" yes, but also has an immediacy, a kind of "you are there/doc" feel.

Then again, I remember seeing part of Public Enemies and not liking that look as much, so not sure if both films had the same treatment or not....

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think Michael Mann has developed a taste for the aesthetic of 360 degree shutter if you look at the trailer for Blackhat which is shot on Alexa he seems to have done the same thing with this film as well.

 

[drew sandoval]

I am a big fan of the Michael Mann HD look... I think it is really cool, although I can totally see why someone would find it ugly or gross. As a follower of his work, I wanted to throw in a few more points, which is more about the lighting of Collateral...

In the Miami Vice AC (or maybe the ICG mag), Beebe talks about how he and Mann developed this idea that they choose expose based on the background of the real city, and then tie in foreground lighting to match that exposure. So on night shoots it means they were lighting scenes to very low light levels (the deep background building and streets), and then geliing the foreground lights to match the background. Although they didn't shoot day interiors in Collateral, on Miami Vice Beebe discusses how they would ND down windows, and then still used massive amounts of light inside so the exposure would remain consistant for both foreground and background.

Another thing Spinotti talks about regarding Public Enemies, is Mann also pushed to light his sets completely with practicals. This probably didn't happen quite so much on Collateral, but he was probably developing that idea there. Spinotti talks about how the much-discussed plane landing scene is lit completely with those onscreen flares, strategically placing flareholders throughout the set. And how production design became very important to lighting, as Michael Mann didn't want to augment onset lighting with anything out of the frame, unless it was a practical that was part of the set.

ITs also worth noting Public Enemies is Michael Mann's only movie shot completely on digital, and that Collateral includes big sections shot on film (the earlier mentioned Koreatown club scene), and Miami Vice also has 35mm used side-by-side the digital cameras and scattered throughout the film.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Thank you everyone for the comments so far! These have all been very helpful. I'm very curious why Mann would go with 24p/360 shutter rather than something like 30p for the more "realistic/immediate" effect?

The lighting also makes more sense now - it's interesting that he tried to make it as practical as possible here, except for the overexposed cab scenes that were brought down later.

It seems like that the digital camera used for Collateral was somewhat in its infancy (very digital look to it). The example from Black Hat shot on the Alexa seems to be much better, although the digital feel still exists to some extent in the motion-heavy scenes.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Thank you everyone for the comments so far! These have all been very helpful. I'm very curious why Mann would go with 24p/360 shutter rather than something like 30p for the more "realistic/immediate" effect?

It seems like that the digital camera used for Collateral was somewhat in its infancy (very digital look to it). The example from Black Hat shot on the Alexa seems to be much better, although the digital feel still exists to some extent in the motion-heavy scenes.

He shot it at 24 fps because theatrical projection runs at 24 fps. If he shot it at 30 fps, it would be shown at the wrong speed in movie theaters.

The Thomson Viper was the first HD video camera to offer an uncompressed 10-bit Log output that could be recorded externally. But it was still a 3-CCD 2/3" video camera.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

He shot it at 24 fps because theatrical projection runs at 24 fps. If he shot it at 30 fps, it would be shown at the wrong speed in movie theaters.

The Thomson Viper was the first HD video camera to offer an uncompressed 10-bit Log output that could be recorded externally. But it was still a 3-CCD 2/3" video camera.

Today, though, you can project at these variable frame rates, correct? That's how they projected The Hobbit​ at 48p?

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Back in the home made cinema cameras days. The Viper was a top commercial camera, but to get extra low light you went 360 degree shutter (but better for 48/50p).

The lighting was a new gimmick of using electro luminance panels, as used in LCD panels of the time, which had less spectral range. They were on the market for a while, that is where the strange flow same from.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Today, though, you can project at these variable frame rates, correct? That's how they projected The Hobbit​ at 48p?

In theory, yes, in practice, you've got the 48 fps Hobbit 3D screenings and that's about it. Plus shooting at 30 fps makes an awkward PAL video release later, it's hard to convert 30 fps to 25 fps smoothly. There's a reason for standards. 48 fps converts easily to 24 fps for the majority of theaters not showing The Hobbit at 48 fps.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I understand Collateral mixed both film + digital, but almost everything digital (nighttime exteriors and some interiors). Did Mann request it be shot at different frame rates (24 and 30, or something more "exotic"), or did they have to adjust the shutter speed? Watching it reminded me of anything I'd catch on TV now with "smooth frame" on.

Michael Mann is a guy who's very technically aware and knows what he wants. His preference is for a 360-degree shutter angle in digital, and while it bothers some people, he's very, very specific and hands on in the production and post of his films.

Public Enemy is another one that had a similar look, there were critics who felt it worked against a 1930s period picture, particularly in scenes with fast horizontal action or panning:

[edited -- originally said 180 degree!]

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The Thomson Viper was the first HD video camera to offer an uncompressed 10-bit Log output that could be recorded externally. But it was still a 3-CCD 2/3" video camera.

It should also be noted that the Viper had 3 * 1920 * 1080 = 6.2Megapixels
vs
RED One 4096 * 2048 = 8.3 Megapixels.

So from a raw sensor site perspective the viper was pretty competitive.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Except that you couldn't record "raw" from the Viper, though they called it that. You got 4:4:4 log out of the camera in 1080P, basically 1.9K / 2MP per color channel.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Period movies, particularly period action movies, always have this creative conundrum, does the filmmaker try to add a period "patina" to the image to evoke the time, suggest that we are in the past, that this is something like a memory... or does he shoot it like any modern drama and let the production design and costumes recreate the period, try to make it seem raw, immediate and in real time for the viewer? No right or wrong answer.

I think in the case of "Public Enemies", Mann went very far in applying a modern "reality TV" aesthetic to the shooting, as if we were watching an episode of "Cops" but the modern crew had used a time machine to shoot it in the 1930's. That was a creative choice, and being a strong one, it didn't sit well with some viewers. But anachronistic touches are not something new in telling stories set in the past. I just finished reading the Arthurian classic "Once and Future King" by T.H.White and he has medieval characters making modern references to Hitler, communists, etc.

 

[Julio Quintana]

Michael Mann is a guy who's very technically aware and knows what he wants. His preference is for a 180 degree shutter angle in digital, and while it bothers some people, he's very, very specific and hands on in the production and post of his films.

Just to be clear, 180 degrees is the traditional shutter speed for narrative cinema in both film and digital. Collateral, Miami Vice, and Public Enemies were shot with a 360 degree shutter, which is the source of all the controversy since it introduces the unpopular video motion blur.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I believe it was a 270 degree shutter not 360 degrees.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The longer shutter speed looks like shit. I think it's the main thing that creates a videoish look and in a film like Public Enemy it's just bad. Compare Public Enemy to Road to Perdition.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The longer shutter speed looks like shit. I think it's the main thing that creates a videoish look and in a film like Public Enemy it's just bad. Compare Public Enemy to Road to Perdition.

Christoffer, I think you may be going a bit too far calling longer shutter speeds "shit". You may not like them, but it doesn't mean they are not a valid creative choice. Everything eventually has it's place. I'm sure many were appalled when Danny Boyle and Anthony Dod Mantle shot 28 Days Later on MiniDV, but it ended up working pretty well. The creative process is often about taking risks, and not everyone is going to agree with them, and not all risks are going to work - but ironically risks are often one of the few ways to make bold/new choices that can challenge audiences in fresh ways.

Michael Mann's creative choices may not appeal to all, but he's an ambitious film maker, and I respect his strong visual approaches, and that he has a very personal aesthetic. Considering how gorgeously similar so many movies look these days, I find it refreshing when filmmakers like Mr.Mann stand firmly behind bold, personal aesthetics (whether right or wrong).