> The reason for that choice is simple: This is one of the first big-budget movies ever shot primarily on a digital camera, and the digital cameras of the time worked great in low-light environments but also tended to flatten the entire image in a way that more or less tugged the entire picture toward the darkest pixels within it.
I am not certain that the discussion of "Collateral" is accurate. The writer is considering the movie through the presupposition that Michael Mann was attempting to match a color grading style that could only be achieved years in the future, when Mann is more on record saying that he chose digital cameras specifically for the look that was realized in the movie. I think a case would be better made that a new style was then turned to an extreme. I also think that the colors of the costumes seem more in line with what the characters were supposed to represent in the film than with a supposed style of color grading that was being attempted.
https://filmschoolrejects.com/michael-mann-collateral-commen...
> 28. He points out several shots in Collateral that wouldn’t have been possible on 35mm film including the one at 1:38:37 — a closeup of Vincent in the office that shifts focus to reveal Max on the parking garage rooftop across the street. “Max would either be not exposed at all, and/or he would not be able to carry the focus.”
https://uproxx.com/hitfix/on-the-digital-legacy-of-michael-m...
> “We have seen an emergence of what I think is a digital aesthetic. It's a beautiful aesthetic, and it plays to the strength of that medium, which is the very open bottom of the curve. It can look into shadows; it's got an amazing range. Digital gives us the ability to work from a base of ambient light, essentially. Because of that, you tend to light in a very different way. And I do think 'Collateral' helped launch that because it played to the strengths of the format. We never set out to replicate a film look, but rather to discover a digital one…Film has a unique texture and tone, and digital has its own unique texture and tone. It would be a sad day if we lost the ability to choose between them.”
I don't see the same flatness in Collateral as I do in Marvel.
I strongly agree. One of the most striking aspects of Collateral is how the camera captures the city at night. The entire movie feels like a liminal experience - otherworldly.
I think audience perception is the biggest reason for this. The Dexter screencap at the start is the perfect example. Looking at the photos side by side the right one subjectively and objectively looks terrible, yet at some level I'm also thinking that it must be from a well-produced big budget show, whereas the left one screams basic network TV.
I remember in the 90s watching some American tv shows and they always seemed overly bright with color compared with other international shows. I don't seem to notice that anymore.
I thought it was the reverse. US shows of the time were so often dark. I'd heard there was a technical reason behind this: in NTSC, if the colours are too bright the video signal can leak into the audio channel causing annoying noises and PAL didn't have this issue. I haven't attempted to verify this however.
I'm also unable to think of examples beyond X-Files, but that could well be for aesthetic reasons. I guess I didn't watch a lot of US TV back then.
5 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 22.2 ms ] threadI am not certain that the discussion of "Collateral" is accurate. The writer is considering the movie through the presupposition that Michael Mann was attempting to match a color grading style that could only be achieved years in the future, when Mann is more on record saying that he chose digital cameras specifically for the look that was realized in the movie. I think a case would be better made that a new style was then turned to an extreme. I also think that the colors of the costumes seem more in line with what the characters were supposed to represent in the film than with a supposed style of color grading that was being attempted.
https://filmschoolrejects.com/michael-mann-collateral-commen... > 28. He points out several shots in Collateral that wouldn’t have been possible on 35mm film including the one at 1:38:37 — a closeup of Vincent in the office that shifts focus to reveal Max on the parking garage rooftop across the street. “Max would either be not exposed at all, and/or he would not be able to carry the focus.”
https://uproxx.com/hitfix/on-the-digital-legacy-of-michael-m... > “We have seen an emergence of what I think is a digital aesthetic. It's a beautiful aesthetic, and it plays to the strength of that medium, which is the very open bottom of the curve. It can look into shadows; it's got an amazing range. Digital gives us the ability to work from a base of ambient light, essentially. Because of that, you tend to light in a very different way. And I do think 'Collateral' helped launch that because it played to the strengths of the format. We never set out to replicate a film look, but rather to discover a digital one…Film has a unique texture and tone, and digital has its own unique texture and tone. It would be a sad day if we lost the ability to choose between them.”
I don't see the same flatness in Collateral as I do in Marvel.
I'm also unable to think of examples beyond X-Files, but that could well be for aesthetic reasons. I guess I didn't watch a lot of US TV back then.