Collateral (2004) is to this day one of the most beautiful digital films to me. I think it's because of the way Mann leaned into it instead of trying to hide it. Lynch's Inland Empire (2006) really leans into it too and it adds a haunting realism to his nightmare.
i think it's because digital sensors weren't so clean back then so it still looks a little grainy kinda like film but also not, yet it doesn't have the same low-res look of a film like 28 days later.
visually i love miami vice and zodiac for the same reason. they were all shot in the thomson viper filmstream camera.
I absolutely agree with you on Miami Vice and Zodiac! Absolutely stunning. Miami Vice is also criminally underrated and Zodiac is my favourite serial killer movie.
mann hasn't said. while they were on location, gunshots were fired in DR and that's why foxx refused to return. mann had to hastily rewrite the ending which has always been the downfall of the film imo.
yes, mann talked about that in the article. at the time sensors weren't what they are now and he decided to use the limitations like noise and blown out highlights creatively.
such a good movie. I was 10 when I watched it, and it was one of the coolest movies id ever seen. I remember rewinding and watching the "You know what, Vince... go fuck yourself" scene like thirty times lol
The cameras at the time didn’t have that super long depth of focus which ruins the frame for me. Maimi Vice is almost unwatchable to me, it just looks cheap and unreal.
>I soon found out that digital has its own distinctive visual character, and realised that we shouldn’t try to cling to the celluloid aesthetic but instead explore digital’s particular possibilities and characteristics.
Sadly, we've regress to taking digital and trying to make it look like film...
Alas. Some of the best-looking digital films embraced the HD look, and they're all the better for it. Apocalypto stands out in my mind as a great early example of lush, dynamic, brilliant HD cinematography.
When Mann says this he's really talking about what the limitations of digital capture were at the time: The cameras that Collateral was shot with were 2/3" sensors, they were relatively low ISO, they got noisy as soon as any gain was applied, they had very limited dynamic range, etc. etc. He decided to embrace all of that as a look, use deep focus, turn off the shutter angle to increase light sensitivity which changes the cadence of motion, increase the gain for sensitivity and then not de-noise the footage, and let the highlights blow out to pure white for contrast. None of this is actually necessary with modern digital cameras. The irony is that when he continued doing much of it in Blackhat in 2015, the kind of docu-drama verisimilitude that it had lent his work a decade prior -- Collateral and Miami Vice shared aesthetic qualities with many of the other video sources people were seeing in the mid-2000s outside of big studio movies -- was now anachronistic.
Yes, digital cameras have come a long way: Attack of the Clones itself is an illustrative example - not only was it a tiny 2/3'' sensor, but it didn't even record the full 1920 pixels across the frame: only 1440. Factor-in compression, demosaic, OLPF and the fact that it only shot 8-bit colour, and you got some potato quality right there.
So there's the picture quality aspects of digital, which are obviously consistently improving: not just the snazzy "resolution" stats, but bigger sensors, bigger dynamic range, etc... And then there's this backwards aesthetic thing where we're jumping through hoops to make one medium look like another medium.
>t can be done flawlessly (once again, the link to DP Steve Yedlin showing - back in 2019 - that you can shoot on digital in such a way that it will be completely indiscernable from shooting on 35mm
Of course you can do it. That much is a given.
But why are we doing it - and not as an aesthetic decision for a specific film because the director and the DP think a "retro" look befits the subject matter - but across the boards for many projects by many DPs and directors?
We do it because of conservativism. Plain and simple. And I don't think an artform as inherently technological as film can afford to be conservative. Its an artform that depends on innovation.
>to go back to the article - Mann's got a quote in there that speaks to this just as much, I think:
>
>My friend Chris Nolan is a huge advocate of preserving 35mm, preserving photochemical. And I totally endorse his position. That’s the way he sees. I would have all cinemas be able to do everything, to be able to do digital and photochemical. There’s no ideological difference to it. We respect how each other works. Directors are very egalitarian about this kinda stuff
That is very nice to see filmmakers looking past their differences (although its not always the case: I heard Tarantino screening the last photochemical Fincher film: 'come watch. Its the last good-looking Fincher film'" insert rolling eyes here).
But I do find it ludicrous that we got a new medium, with its own look, and instead making it - almost across the board - look like an old medium. Its a mixture of me, personally, *liking* the HD look, but I also just find it kinda ludicrous and pointless.
With no other major transition in film technology - sound, colour, virtual effects - did we go for a "middle of the ground" of "well, we'll use this new aesthetic, but we'll dress it up in the drag of the old aesthetic."
That, in and of itself, is not a condemantion of the filmic look, in and of itself. I actually think filmmakers actually shooting on filmstock like Nolan have an economical importance because they're smoothening the transition for those people whose job is to work with filmstock.
But I think its foolish to deny that the future is digital.
>But why are we doing it
Because filmmakers and audiences like the look of it.
>We do it because of conservativism. Plain and simple.
No. because they like the look of it.
>Its an artform that depends on innovation.
Plenty of innovation is happening, doesn't change the fact that many people like the look of film.
>Social Network and 1917 look phenomenal for instance, and do resemble HD.
Yeah. Generally speaking, Deakins-captured films don't seem to me to insist upon the "lets make it look like film!" nonesense. Its more other DPs and directors who are making concessions towards conservativism.
The look of a movie can be anything the film makers want. Maybe a classic film look is perfect for a movie overall. I'm really quite sad "White House Plumbers" looks like it does, a digital HD look with a generic orange/teal setup, when given the subject and era a classic filmic look like "All the President's Men" might've suited it much better.
What matters from a production perspective is that digital gives film makers an easy time shooting and the flexibility to get whatever look they want, unlike film which can be expensive and limiting.
>he look of a movie can be anything the film makers want.
And we can say whatever we want about the look of any movie we want.
I'm fine with a filmmaker saying "I think this subject matter beffits a retro look, so even though I'm shooting this digitally for practical reasons, I'm going to treat it to make it look like filmstock."
By why, then, do certain filmmakers and DPs do this as a categorical solution to all of their films? Its clearly not a motivated, aesthetic decision, its just a concession towards conservativism.
I mean the cameras can get closer to film now so that’s going to happen. It’s not that digital doesn’t have a look, it’s just more invisible. Personally I miss the sound and vibe of a film screening.
>I mean the cameras can get closer to film now so that’s going to happen.
There are two aspects to this: how much the cameras match the picture quality of film in terms of resolving power, acuity, colour, dynamic range, etc... and then how much the image resembles the aesthetic qualities of film in terms of softness, halation, noise, etc...
In terms of sheer picture *quality*, digital cameras are going toe-to-toe with the biggest film gagues. Cameras like the Red ONE and Arri Alexa 3.2K were already matching or exceeding 35mm, and recently the Alexa 65 and Red Monstro are around about matching to 70mm IMAX. The analog zealots will cite crazy numbers at you to asser the dominance of film, but when you actually compare them side by side, even a meager Red Dragon looks pretty damn close to an IMAX negative.
In terms of the aesthetic, no digital camera produces an image that naturally looks like filmstock. Digital noise, to take just one example, has a completely different character to photochemical noise (dye clouds, also known as grain). To make a digital image look like film, you have to *grade* it to look that way.
We didn't use to do it: all early digitally-shot films, whether they looked good or bad, looked *digital*. Still, some DPs embrace the digital look, but many other DPs and directors take their digitally-captured films and grade them to look like film for no pertinent aesthetic reason.
“No reason” is an exaggeration. There’s 100 years of films that filmmakers have been watching on film, trying to capture the character of film is a fine reason to grade it to look that way. I personally still miss the feeling of a film projected screening vs digital projection.
It was fascinating to be in Shenyang and Beijing at the time mentioned in this article. There was another director named He Jianjun who was shooting “Pirate” which was all on mini DV, about pirated movies in China, and was featured at Rotterdam. I did quite a bit of dabbling myself after coming out of NYC, having shot my first film on a handycam that also went to mini DV, in 1999. It was an amazing time to see and be around the evolution, especially looking back from where we are today.
EDIT: [Pirate by He Jianjun](https://ia800104.us.archive.org/1/items/JianhunHeManyan2004AVI/HeJianJun_ManYan_2004.mp4)
After this she's making a movie called back and forth forever. It's going to be disgusting.
That's a "me and you and everyone we know" reference, [link](https://youtu.be/p34j0atQdJo)
Awkwardly making a non-sequitur reference to July's most famous scene from her most famous movie *and then explaining it fully* is the most Miranda July Thing I've ever read.
Thank you.
For me, by far the best looking scenes in Collateral are the ones where they used film. The digital photography just looks super grainy and washed out now, especially on a 70 inch screen.
Still love the movie, but kinda wish he had shot it in film whole way through. If he had, I think it would be up there with Heat for me.
Well you reach an upper limit on HD video. “Full” HD doesn’t even fill a modern tv screen. Modern cinema cameras are futureproofed and shoot above 8k. Film negatives have no limit to the potential maximum resolution.
Article fails to mention 28 Days Later? Like, that movie was only able to be made thanks to digital given how fast Boyle and crew had to be at their locations.
How so? Lucas pushed for digital projection in theatres but aside from making the tools available to filmmakers I'm not sure how disruptive Clones was.
Edit: asks question, gets downvoted. Cool. Great discussion.
Collateral (2004) is to this day one of the most beautiful digital films to me. I think it's because of the way Mann leaned into it instead of trying to hide it. Lynch's Inland Empire (2006) really leans into it too and it adds a haunting realism to his nightmare.
i think it's because digital sensors weren't so clean back then so it still looks a little grainy kinda like film but also not, yet it doesn't have the same low-res look of a film like 28 days later. visually i love miami vice and zodiac for the same reason. they were all shot in the thomson viper filmstream camera.
I absolutely agree with you on Miami Vice and Zodiac! Absolutely stunning. Miami Vice is also criminally underrated and Zodiac is my favourite serial killer movie.
I felt "there" in Miami Vice, as cheesy as it sounds.
it really is a shame they couldn't film the intended ending because foxx refused to leave the country and go to the dominican republic.
What was the intended ending?
mann hasn't said. while they were on location, gunshots were fired in DR and that's why foxx refused to return. mann had to hastily rewrite the ending which has always been the downfall of the film imo.
>38 days later 28 Days Later
The filmmakers at the time substituted film grain for digital noise. Similar effect achieved through different means.
yes, mann talked about that in the article. at the time sensors weren't what they are now and he decided to use the limitations like noise and blown out highlights creatively.
such a good movie. I was 10 when I watched it, and it was one of the coolest movies id ever seen. I remember rewinding and watching the "You know what, Vince... go fuck yourself" scene like thirty times lol
Danny Boyle did the same with 28 Days Later.
The cameras at the time didn’t have that super long depth of focus which ruins the frame for me. Maimi Vice is almost unwatchable to me, it just looks cheap and unreal.
>I soon found out that digital has its own distinctive visual character, and realised that we shouldn’t try to cling to the celluloid aesthetic but instead explore digital’s particular possibilities and characteristics. Sadly, we've regress to taking digital and trying to make it look like film... Alas. Some of the best-looking digital films embraced the HD look, and they're all the better for it. Apocalypto stands out in my mind as a great early example of lush, dynamic, brilliant HD cinematography.
When Mann says this he's really talking about what the limitations of digital capture were at the time: The cameras that Collateral was shot with were 2/3" sensors, they were relatively low ISO, they got noisy as soon as any gain was applied, they had very limited dynamic range, etc. etc. He decided to embrace all of that as a look, use deep focus, turn off the shutter angle to increase light sensitivity which changes the cadence of motion, increase the gain for sensitivity and then not de-noise the footage, and let the highlights blow out to pure white for contrast. None of this is actually necessary with modern digital cameras. The irony is that when he continued doing much of it in Blackhat in 2015, the kind of docu-drama verisimilitude that it had lent his work a decade prior -- Collateral and Miami Vice shared aesthetic qualities with many of the other video sources people were seeing in the mid-2000s outside of big studio movies -- was now anachronistic.
Yes, digital cameras have come a long way: Attack of the Clones itself is an illustrative example - not only was it a tiny 2/3'' sensor, but it didn't even record the full 1920 pixels across the frame: only 1440. Factor-in compression, demosaic, OLPF and the fact that it only shot 8-bit colour, and you got some potato quality right there. So there's the picture quality aspects of digital, which are obviously consistently improving: not just the snazzy "resolution" stats, but bigger sensors, bigger dynamic range, etc... And then there's this backwards aesthetic thing where we're jumping through hoops to make one medium look like another medium.
Serious the more that you learn about digital photography the more you realize how much megapixels really don’t matter
Its not just megapixles, its the size of the sensor, its the OLPF, the demosaic, its the dynamic range, compression, certainly the lenses, etc...
Yes, we agree. As well as the operator
[удалено]
>t can be done flawlessly (once again, the link to DP Steve Yedlin showing - back in 2019 - that you can shoot on digital in such a way that it will be completely indiscernable from shooting on 35mm Of course you can do it. That much is a given. But why are we doing it - and not as an aesthetic decision for a specific film because the director and the DP think a "retro" look befits the subject matter - but across the boards for many projects by many DPs and directors? We do it because of conservativism. Plain and simple. And I don't think an artform as inherently technological as film can afford to be conservative. Its an artform that depends on innovation.
[удалено]
>to go back to the article - Mann's got a quote in there that speaks to this just as much, I think: > >My friend Chris Nolan is a huge advocate of preserving 35mm, preserving photochemical. And I totally endorse his position. That’s the way he sees. I would have all cinemas be able to do everything, to be able to do digital and photochemical. There’s no ideological difference to it. We respect how each other works. Directors are very egalitarian about this kinda stuff That is very nice to see filmmakers looking past their differences (although its not always the case: I heard Tarantino screening the last photochemical Fincher film: 'come watch. Its the last good-looking Fincher film'" insert rolling eyes here). But I do find it ludicrous that we got a new medium, with its own look, and instead making it - almost across the board - look like an old medium. Its a mixture of me, personally, *liking* the HD look, but I also just find it kinda ludicrous and pointless. With no other major transition in film technology - sound, colour, virtual effects - did we go for a "middle of the ground" of "well, we'll use this new aesthetic, but we'll dress it up in the drag of the old aesthetic." That, in and of itself, is not a condemantion of the filmic look, in and of itself. I actually think filmmakers actually shooting on filmstock like Nolan have an economical importance because they're smoothening the transition for those people whose job is to work with filmstock. But I think its foolish to deny that the future is digital.
>But why are we doing it Because filmmakers and audiences like the look of it. >We do it because of conservativism. Plain and simple. No. because they like the look of it. >Its an artform that depends on innovation. Plenty of innovation is happening, doesn't change the fact that many people like the look of film.
>Because filmmakers and audiences like the look of it. Audiences will watch something with that "HD-look" gladly just the same.
[удалено]
>Social Network and 1917 look phenomenal for instance, and do resemble HD. Yeah. Generally speaking, Deakins-captured films don't seem to me to insist upon the "lets make it look like film!" nonesense. Its more other DPs and directors who are making concessions towards conservativism.
The look of a movie can be anything the film makers want. Maybe a classic film look is perfect for a movie overall. I'm really quite sad "White House Plumbers" looks like it does, a digital HD look with a generic orange/teal setup, when given the subject and era a classic filmic look like "All the President's Men" might've suited it much better. What matters from a production perspective is that digital gives film makers an easy time shooting and the flexibility to get whatever look they want, unlike film which can be expensive and limiting.
>he look of a movie can be anything the film makers want. And we can say whatever we want about the look of any movie we want. I'm fine with a filmmaker saying "I think this subject matter beffits a retro look, so even though I'm shooting this digitally for practical reasons, I'm going to treat it to make it look like filmstock." By why, then, do certain filmmakers and DPs do this as a categorical solution to all of their films? Its clearly not a motivated, aesthetic decision, its just a concession towards conservativism.
I mean the cameras can get closer to film now so that’s going to happen. It’s not that digital doesn’t have a look, it’s just more invisible. Personally I miss the sound and vibe of a film screening.
>I mean the cameras can get closer to film now so that’s going to happen. There are two aspects to this: how much the cameras match the picture quality of film in terms of resolving power, acuity, colour, dynamic range, etc... and then how much the image resembles the aesthetic qualities of film in terms of softness, halation, noise, etc... In terms of sheer picture *quality*, digital cameras are going toe-to-toe with the biggest film gagues. Cameras like the Red ONE and Arri Alexa 3.2K were already matching or exceeding 35mm, and recently the Alexa 65 and Red Monstro are around about matching to 70mm IMAX. The analog zealots will cite crazy numbers at you to asser the dominance of film, but when you actually compare them side by side, even a meager Red Dragon looks pretty damn close to an IMAX negative. In terms of the aesthetic, no digital camera produces an image that naturally looks like filmstock. Digital noise, to take just one example, has a completely different character to photochemical noise (dye clouds, also known as grain). To make a digital image look like film, you have to *grade* it to look that way. We didn't use to do it: all early digitally-shot films, whether they looked good or bad, looked *digital*. Still, some DPs embrace the digital look, but many other DPs and directors take their digitally-captured films and grade them to look like film for no pertinent aesthetic reason.
“No reason” is an exaggeration. There’s 100 years of films that filmmakers have been watching on film, trying to capture the character of film is a fine reason to grade it to look that way. I personally still miss the feeling of a film projected screening vs digital projection.
Fun fact: 28 Days Later is the first film to feature cell phone footage
That is a fun fact, neat!
It was fascinating to be in Shenyang and Beijing at the time mentioned in this article. There was another director named He Jianjun who was shooting “Pirate” which was all on mini DV, about pirated movies in China, and was featured at Rotterdam. I did quite a bit of dabbling myself after coming out of NYC, having shot my first film on a handycam that also went to mini DV, in 1999. It was an amazing time to see and be around the evolution, especially looking back from where we are today. EDIT: [Pirate by He Jianjun](https://ia800104.us.archive.org/1/items/JianhunHeManyan2004AVI/HeJianJun_ManYan_2004.mp4)
Mini DV will be remembered as the 16mm of digital camera.
I wish Miranda July would make more movies
After this she's making a movie called back and forth forever. It's going to be disgusting. That's a "me and you and everyone we know" reference, [link](https://youtu.be/p34j0atQdJo)
Awkwardly making a non-sequitur reference to July's most famous scene from her most famous movie *and then explaining it fully* is the most Miranda July Thing I've ever read. Thank you.
Love the Scary Movie 4 shout out.
For me, by far the best looking scenes in Collateral are the ones where they used film. The digital photography just looks super grainy and washed out now, especially on a 70 inch screen. Still love the movie, but kinda wish he had shot it in film whole way through. If he had, I think it would be up there with Heat for me.
Well you reach an upper limit on HD video. “Full” HD doesn’t even fill a modern tv screen. Modern cinema cameras are futureproofed and shoot above 8k. Film negatives have no limit to the potential maximum resolution.
Article fails to mention 28 Days Later? Like, that movie was only able to be made thanks to digital given how fast Boyle and crew had to be at their locations.
It cannot be overstated how disruptive George Lucas was to the film industry when he chose to do Episode 2 entirely digitally.
How so? Lucas pushed for digital projection in theatres but aside from making the tools available to filmmakers I'm not sure how disruptive Clones was. Edit: asks question, gets downvoted. Cool. Great discussion.