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

[Marc Wielage]

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.

My mistake -- 360 it is. It's an unusual choice, and it's not right for everything, but I'm not one to argue with Mr. Mann.

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

That's unless it was 270 degrees! We can all agree it was far beyond the usual 180-degree "normal" shutter angle.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Let's Test It.

Let's Test It.

180 degrees looks like rubbish on movement at 24fps, its just a cheap and nasty compromise to use less film without continuous motion blur. But people have become conditioned to thinking it is a right choice.

It probably also comes from how our eyes scan images in a jerky stuttering effect as our visual systems update and our eyes jerk along catching moments of clarity (less motion blur) Presented with a continuous image where don't matter where the eye flicks it is all smooth and the decision has been made for it, it looks unnatural. I don't support 360 degree as a valid choice outside low light at 24fps. But what about 50fps.

24/25 or 48/50 can easily be made to conform to each other, 30/60 fps are the odd men out. And 48/50 can easily be made to confirm to 24/25 by dropping every second frame to get 24/25 fps version with 180 degree shutter. However, what about at 48/50p.

At 48/50p 360, or close to it, is a valid point I think, maybe even at 96/100 fps. What often makes video videoish, is the unnatural linear and other response curves, even film can look unnatural because of its response curves. but close enough for us to enjoy it.

So anybody got any perfectly lit and color graded and response curve corrected Dragon footage at 24, 48 and 96 (or 25/50/100) footage to compare what 360 and 180 degrees looks like at each of these, to see once and for all where 360 degree shutter in a valid option for normal shooting?

Thanks.

 

[Julio Quintana]

180 degrees looks like rubbish on movement at 24fps, its just a cheap and nasty compromise to use less film without continuous motion blur. But people have become conditioned to thinking it is a right choice.

Don't you understand that when it comes to aesthetics, the right choice IS whatever someone likes? Here are some hypothetical statements to illustrate my point:

"Blue jeans look like rubbish, but people are just used to wearing them. Green jeans would obviously be better."

"Tomato sauce tastes like rubbish on spaghetti noodles, people are just used to eating it that way. Tomato sauce would obviously be better on quinoa."

"Flamenco music sounds like rubbish using acoustic guitars, people are just used to hearing it that way. Electric guitars would obviously sound better. Can someone test this once and for all?"

There have been countless technical advances in cinema history that have stuck because audiences immediately felt that it was better than what they were used to. Audiences didn't have to be convinced that sound was better than silent film, color was better than black and white, or that HD was better than SD. So if audiences don't like watching hobbits at 48fps, or prohibition era gangsters at 270 degree shutters, maybe they really just don't like it.

 

[Maik Müller]

I like it when rules get broken and i get to see something unusual or even new. 360 or 270 shutter is looking different, as is HFR, and thats cool. You just have to give it a chance.

Sure, footage can quickly get "videoish", but the shutterspeed and framerate are just two pieces of the puzzle and why is "videoish" always considered to be bad? There should be a way to erase all that memories of soap-operas, tv and homemade videos. If you look closer, that stuff does look bad for many reasons, not just because of the shutterspeed and framerate. And another thought, how many DSLR shooters have learned that shooting 24fps isn't giving you automatically the real film-look?

I hope shutterspeed and fps is getting used more creatively in the future. I want to see movies where those things are used as creative tools to underline specific scenes. A simple example could be the switch from reality-scenes in HFR to dream-sequences in a more artistic setup. There are so much opportunities here to create new looks, aside from lighting and color-grading, and it's so damn easy with digital cameras, or RED in particular.

And then there is the motion mount with different shutter-modes...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

What's "normal" shooting mean anyway? A longer shutter time isn't going to be noticeable in a talking head sitting at a dinner table but would be very noticeable in a fight scene. So which scenario is "normal"?

When I get into a low-light scenario, the question is whether an increase in noise, an increase in motion blur, or less depth of field is going to be more or less distracting, and that depends on the amount of motion in the scene, how challenging the focus-pulling is, etc.

Shutter angles that are above 200 degrees were not possible with a film camera, so that look to the motion is unique to digital cinematography, it is only a decade old compared to the rest of the artifacts of filmmaking. Either we will get used to it or we won't, but I don't think we must reject any technique that is unique to digital out of hand just because it takes the image away from what we are used to seeing. If we always had that resistance to trying something new, we wouldn't have had sound, color, etc. as Julio mentions.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Don't you understand that when it comes to aesthetics, the right choice IS whatever someone likes? Here are some hypothetical statements to illustrate my point:

"Blue jeans look like rubbish, but people are just used to wearing them. Green jeans would obviously be better."

"Tomato sauce tastes like rubbish on spaghetti noodles, people are just used to eating it that way. Tomato sauce would obviously be better on quinoa."

"Flamenco music sounds like rubbish using acoustic guitars, people are just used to hearing it that way. Electric guitars would obviously sound better. Can someone test this once and for all?"

There have been countless technical advances in cinema history that have stuck because audiences immediately felt that it was better than what they were used to. Audiences didn't have to be convinced that sound was better than silent film, color was better than black and white, or that HD was better than SD. So if audiences don't like watching hobbits at 48fps, or prohibition era gangsters at 270 degree shutters, maybe they really just don't like it.

There are too many selfish artists around, it is what works for the audience, that makes films popular. It is why 3 transformer movies were popular, because the audience liked the formula's style those times, why film and theatre values are so tightly regulated, stuff the simple headed artist, as long as it serves good taste for the people. Here I am talking about figuring out what actually works and looks better.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

David, paradigm shift. People con themselves and get conditioned, but after a long time of insurmountable evidence they have to admit defeat. In this visual/audio area of format however, it is often professionals that are the conned resistance. 24 fps was designed to be less rubbish than 21fps, otherwise we would be going somewhere between 50-100 (maybe more) fps. 180 degree 24fps during a pan is just awful, keeping the characters still or slow moving it is better. Normal is not even the issue, what suites is, even what appeals. So anybody got comparison footage to see what is the best general fit?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'd rather see another selfish artistic work by Mann than another Transformers movie at this point... I don't think we have a common ground for discussion if you believe that an artistic idea is not worth fighting for, is not a valid excuse for any technique, and all that matters is catering to the mainstream tastes of 2014. I think even Michael Bay would take exception to this attitude, he pushes technique to some pretty far extremes, it's just that with such a short average shot length, you wouldn't catch a shot where the shutter time was increased.

 

[Julio Quintana]

Wayne, it sounds like you believe that some artistic choices that are objectively better than others, but audiences just need to realize that they actually like the new "perfect" choice. By that argument, we just need to teach audiences that Bob Dylan music is better when sung by Pavarotti because his voice is "less rubbish".

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'd rather err on the side of artist indulgence than artist suppression, the negative consequences are worse with the second than with the first.

We are all hired to be visual communicators and Mann's choices on "Public Enemy", successful or not, was born from tackling the problem of making a story set in the 1930's more accessible and immediate for the viewer, he wasn't such indulging some private impulse with no consideration of the story or the audience.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

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.

Spinnoti and Mann chose that particular look for that story.

Instead of expecting the aesthetic to fit the story in a way you'd choose, try to perceive the story through the aesthetic chosen by the storyteller.

After talking to Mr. Spinnoti and attending his workshop I did, and I looked at that example differently from that point on.

 

[Steve Das]

Spinnoti and Mann chose that particular look for that story.
Instead of expecting the aesthetic to fit the story in a way you'd choose, try to perceive the story through the aesthetic chosen by the storyteller.
After talking to Mr. Spinnoti and attending his workshop I did, and I looked at that example differently from that point on.

Hrvoje..hehe..please don't keep us in suspense...what reasons did Spinnoti give for the Public Enemy look.
But it's interesting you say you looked at it differently after hearing the explanation...but
you didn't say you liked it any better than before.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Unreal, my attitude is good, I'll just stick up for objectivity rather than 'artistically' white wash it. Reminds me of Ford offering any color of Model T. Don't try to think you can peg me to some area, I'm not on the same plane, I'm more interested in what is balanced. So my decision will vary from situation to situation depending on fit.

David, I didn't say Mann was worse or better, I did point to old Transformers as something that actually worked for audiences, even though many would put it down in its 'artistic' value, which it has heaps fr the audience, just not elitist art. I can see how they pull the strings to enthrall the audience. It also is a matter of audiences, and what suites the type of film for an audience, and not unnecessarily offending others. Some choices are not valid or more valid than others depending on the situation, if at all.

It is serving the audience that gives us permission to make great films. And finding a way that dies this well to the type of audience members at the film us the objective, wherever Sharkey cam, artistic, 24p 360 degree shutter night time shoots and 180 degree in the day, or 360 degree 48 fps, we can sit compare footage and see which one "looks best" for the situation. All this other stuff guys ate going on with is off on a tangent.

Julio, you're onto something, Pavarotti would probably sound much better singing Bob Dylan songs Bobs way, and the songs would sound much better with him singing them. If only we could sign the rights up to do this.

As I said, not sounds like, some choices are better, and my opinion on which one it is will change depending on which is most suitable (some are not though, and maybe just a compromise convention but still useful as a special effect). Putting up and comparing examples is the way to see, but nobody wants to go that far. If the a certain choice is not presented to the audience they might not know how good the certain choice is that they are missing. Buffs are where we get the problem, 'it has been done this way and always should'. Obsessive fans and professionals are so self conditioned that something not ideal is THE ideal they can constrict the artistic freedom to do better to mistaken choices. So I am actually for better freedom (re-edit: of better choices), not worse.

Anyway, I've got to get to bed, my sleeping tablet is wearing off. Don't expect me to keep typing while asleep, then I really might loose the argument.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

I was the "Film Loader" on Miami Vice. I believe there were only 2 scenes shot on 35mm film that made the cut. The only obvious film scene is when Li Gong brings Colin Farrell to a bar for a mojito. Dion and Michael shot film because of the extreme contrast ratio due to interior vs. exterior sunlight present at that location.

Michael uses a long shutter (360 or 270) to get more light for exposure. Starting with Collateral and into Miami Vice he was extremely intentional about lighting his scenes with "found" or "realistic" light sources. We constantly pushed the Viper and F900s for night exterior work. Usually gaining them up and opening the shutter to get as much ambient exposure as possible. The slow shutter wasn't an aesthetic in itself, it was a by-product of getting the night exterior "found light/no lighting" aesthetic. Though Collateral has some really beautiful and unique night exterior shots of Los Angeles that were captured on the Viper, Miami Vice has far more examples of Mann pushing digital technology. It's definitely worth a second look.

BTW: I've always loved the look of the Viper. It was an extremely unusual digital camera. 2/3" 3 CCDs with an active mechanical shutter and a native anamorphic mode that was used on both Collateral and Miami Vice. Though the camera was pretty much the first to offer a log video output Michael did not shoot in Filmstream mode for Miami Vice. He opted instead to output color-corrected RGB direct to Sony SR Tape. What he saw is what he shot. Very ballsy...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Hrvoje..hehe..please don't keep us in suspense...what reasons did Spinnoti give for the Public Enemy look.

One was the agility required for the movie's dynamic (they used EX1 with F23, which has specific video look all by itself due to shutter type, color and gamma performance, 8 bit sampling, 1/2" sensor and poor grading options), another was the chosen aesthetic, there was also a shutter mentioned but not sure in which context, and I'll avoid precisely re-telling something this sensitive and talked about briefly 4 years ago, so please don't take my words literally or quote me on this.

But it's interesting you say you looked at it differently after hearing the explanation...but
you didn't say you liked it any better than before.

I re-considered my judgement after spending a couple of days watching this highly skilled Creative Professional and a visual Artist go through the subtlest details of his work. Although this topic was briefly covered, he and Mann worked on a couple of projects before and based on their previous work and experience it is not unreasonable to assume that they knew exactly what they were doing and were experimenting with new creative routes.

Which is what creative people sometimes do, evolving their Craft. Some things turn out great, some don't. When they don't, the reason does not necessarily have to be in the approach itself but in the expectations, affected by the movie subject pre-conditioning in this case (video look + plot period). Whether or not every attempt succeeds as it was intended, the Creative tries. Which is very easy to criticize yet not so easy to attempt by yourself when your own family jewels are on the chopping block. $214M from the box office an IMDB scoring 7 may also suggest that the viewers did not mind the aesthetic as much as some industry folks may have.

The tendency to valorize other's creative choice through own frame of reference instead of looking at their intended context easily disappears after being aware of that context, and in this particular case also by being aware about the depth of the Artist's skill. It also helps understanding that some things have a very good reason, reason which the observer may not be aware of but the observed skilled Artist is.
And it is his work and his choice.

I am not proposing here mentality which blindly tolerates everything under the label of an "Art", just more benefit of the doubt to the Craftsmen who have proven their skill many times and are sometimes exploring further.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I was the "Film Loader" on Miami Vice. I believe there were only 2 scenes shot on 35mm film that made the cut. The only obvious film scene is when Li Gong brings Colin Farrell to a bar for a mojito. Dion and Michael shot film because of the extreme contrast ratio due to interior vs. exterior sunlight present at that location.

Michael uses a long shutter (360 or 270) to get more light for exposure. Starting with Collateral and into Miami Vice he was extremely intentional about lighting his scenes with "found" or "realistic" light sources. We constantly pushed the Viper and F900s for night exterior work. Usually gaining them up and opening the shutter to get as much ambient exposure as possible. The slow shutter wasn't an aesthetic in itself, it was a by-product of getting the night exterior "found light/no lighting" aesthetic. Though Collateral has some really beautiful and unique night exterior shots of Los Angeles that were captured on the Viper, Miami Vice has far more examples of Mann pushing digital technology. It's definitely worth a second look.

BTW: I've always loved the look of the Viper. It was an extremely unusual digital camera. 2/3" 3 CCDs with an active mechanical shutter and a native anamorphic mode that was used on both Collateral and Miami Vice. Though the camera was pretty much the first to offer a log video output Michael did not shoot in Filmstream mode for Miami Vice. He opted instead to output color-corrected RGB direct to Sony SR Tape. What he saw is what he shot. Very ballsy...

As I said.


Ballsy, just old fashion, get it right one set

 

[Julio Quintana]

Wayne, I am now totally confused about what you're trying to say in this thread. Maybe the confusion is all on my end. Oh well.

 

[Donald MJ Anderson]

Wayne, I am now totally confused about what you're trying to say in this thread. Maybe the confusion is all on my end. Oh well.

You`re not alone.

 

[Nick Morrison]

He opted instead to output color-corrected RGB direct to Sony SR Tape. What he saw is what he shot. Very ballsy...

WOW. Ballsy indeed. Hat's off to him! A man who knows what he wants! Love that!

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Its simple, what is right for the job or compromise, is professionalism, not too confusing. The job is to entertain people within reason, if it happens to entertain us or our peers that is an alright side effect. The use of shutter to get more light in low light can be a good compromise, getting lighting and color right on set rather than post is called old fashion skill, and good to him. Arguing from inflexible opinions and not backing it up with inflexible proof, is not professionalism. Anybody got well done samples.

Once you understand yourself it is easier to understand others.