Does Michael Bay like HD format?

Hello everyone, this is my first post. So I wanted to say hi and I am glad to be apart of this board. To make a short introduction, I am an independent filmmaker who is working on my first feature right now.

Does anyone know Michael's thoughts on the High Definition format? I've been starting to notice more directors supporting the format. Such directors as Michael Mann (Miami Vice, Colleteral), Peter Burg (The Kingdom), Tony Scott (Deja Vu), George Lucas (Stars Wars II and III), and David Fincher (Zodiac).

High Def is a great format, but I always wondered what Michael Bay feels about this format. I see that he loves shooting on film in anamorphic (Panavision). What medium do you all like to see?

Thanks!

Maxwell Burnett

Michael still seems to love film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nelson

Michael still seems to love film.

---

Thank god. As soon as he switches to digital crap, I don't care anymore for any of his movies. Might sound strange, but that's the way it is.
By the way, Deja Vu wasn't a "HD production", it had some shots, but it still was shot on film (fortunately). As soon as Tony Scott should move entirely to digital... he's also not my favourite director anymore (just like Michael Mann was my #1 until Collateral).
But who knows, perhaps in 5 to 10 to 20 years digital productions actually will be looking like film, then I don't care about it anyway... ;)

The worst things in all those movies mentioned, were... well those scenes shot with hd. Miami Vice looked so awful, man......

Collateral would've been a weaker movie had it been shot on film. One of the things that sets it apart and allows it to work on another level is the digital cinematography.

Like it or not, digital is the way of the future. Look at Zodiac. Look at what Cameron's doing.

You also gotta give credit where credit is due.

The intro HD sequence in Miami Vice which was not shown in the theaters looks like film. Those boats racing along the Florida coast is so awesome.

The whole thing breaks down in the exterior night shots.

Speaking of which, Fincher got the night shots to look fairly good in Zodiac.

I actually liked the way that Collateral and Miami Vice looked. I thought the use of digital worked well for those two movies. Now I will agree that it is not appropriate for all movies, at least not yet (for example, I think a period piece might be problematic), but I think that the problem with digital is that we are just not used to it. We are not use to the background of scenes having such clarity.

The first couple times I saw Miami Vice, especially during the rooftop scene in the beginning, I kept watching it thinking, "Something is so wierd with these shots, what the heck is going on?" Finally I figured it out; the background of Miami was so clear, like almost too clear.

With digital, the picture comes closer, although still fairly far off in the absolute sense, to what the world looks like when we look at it, with our own eyes. Now, there are lots of other things in the scenes that take away from that realism, like the lighting and such, but as the resolution gets higher and higher, it will approach that of our own eyes (although I don't think it will ever really achieve what our eyes can do).

The point is that it's very different, very unusual, and something we are not used to seeing (psychologically speaking) coming out of a television or projected on a screen. That may be why so many people have such an adverse reaction to it.

I'll admit, I love the look of film; it has a quality that I expect from my trip to the theater; it is important part of my cinematic "experience". However, I also like digital, because it is a step towards visual clarity that mimics our own visual system, and that is a mindblowing thought.

Ed Fuego

Simon QUOTE: "The worst things in all those movies mentioned, were... well those scenes shot with hd. Miami Vice looked so awful, man......"

Miami Vice has great cinematography at certain scenes, it just got real grainy at some parts. The best scenes in HD had to be that cool shootout at the end. And when The two go fast boats were entering the port of miami at night (Those clouds look so freaky). Also, the scene where they are under the bridge with the blue underlighting. Funny thing, that's also the same location where Marcus Burnett got the call that his sister's been kidnapped.

Trigger Mike QUOTE: "Collateral would've been a weaker movie had it been shot on film. One of the things that sets it apart and allows it to work on another level is the digital cinematography.

Like it or not, digital is the way of the future. Look at Zodiac. Look at what Cameron's doing."

Trigger Mike, Collateral worked perfectly in HD, because Mann wanted to "Shoot throught the night to get the abandoned landscapes of LA. And he shot it when it was humid and caused a strange disfusion from the lights. Mann mentioned on the commentary his comparison what happened if this scene was shot on 35mm. Very interesting information!

The ASC.com, 8/2004 web article described more about this. I feel cinematographer Dion Beebe did a better job on Collateral than Vice. I've read that Universal was rushing to get the film done by July 2006 release. While Mann was rushing to get it edited in a nick of time. Explains all the bad publicity. :(

As for Zodiac, the HD was not grainy and came out great. Since Fincher worked with Harris savides ASC on many occasions, he knew what David wanted so Kudos to them! Have you seen the Apple Ad that features David Fincher? Cameron is a tech freak, what he is doing with Avatar (2009) is having a camera called "Fusion Cinema". Which is a dual strip 3-D HD camera, that him and Vincent Pace used on Ghost Of The Abyss. I am really looking forward to that!

Nelson QUOTE: "
You also gotta give credit where credit is due.

The intro HD sequence in Miami Vice which was not shown in the theaters looks like film. Those boats racing along the Florida coast is so awesome.

The whole thing breaks down in the exterior night shots.

Speaking of which, Fincher got the night shots to look fairly good in Zodiac."

Nelson, I cannot agree with you more. I really wished that the boat race was kept in the film. Alot of people were complaining that Miami Vice had a "Cold opening" and didn't understand what was going on. I am also a member of the Miami Vice.org message board, and everyone was pissed that it was cut out. :(

Since you've mentioned Zodiac, it was shot with the same camera, Viper cam. As Michael Mann used on both Collateral and Vice.

If Bay does do the Friday film, I would hope that he would use film. The grittiness of the first three films is what made them good and helped to make them scary. Digitial horror just seems contrived to me.

Yes the bottom line is film's days are numbered. In many but not all ways its a better format, but it is the format of the future. Also it really comes down to how you shoot. The main issue should be the over all look of the movie and more so the content of the movie itself, at the end of the day its all that matters.

If Bay likes working with film thats his choice, as an artist he has that right. But I have to say I would like to see him shoot a feature on digital, because of the way he works, I think that he would be able to make great use of the format and that its advantages would work well for him. But he's a great director and really what ever he chooses I am cool with and I will still support his movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxwell Burnett

Look at Zodiac. Look at what Cameron's doing."

---

IMO Zodiac cinematography and "image" sucks so much.

More or less the same as Miami Vice.

HD format needs to walk a long way before it could offer the same quality as film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexsm

IMO Zodiac cinematography and "image" sucks so much.

---

No way.

I personally think Zodiac is the best looking "digitally acquired" film so far. The print in the cinema I saw was very good.

What exactly sucked about it?:confused:

Im gonna jump in the fray here.

Has anyone been over to RedUser.net and previewed the footage being shot with the new RED camera yet?

One to view in particular is the folowing, which you should right click and save as to download and view. Its a quicktime mov file.

http://www.digitalfx.tv/clients/red/...on_4k_h264.mov


This camera looks very very good! I would think that if Michael Mann had this camera available to him for Miami Vice, all the high noise/grain criticism would be non existent. And the DOF issue of the F900/Viper cams are also a non issue as the RED One is a 35mm sensor.

I know that a lot of people are actually turned off by digital because it looks "too sharp". Personally I'm a sucker for tack sharpness and high detail which the Red One Camera is delivering. Plus this "video" camera is ingesting footage at 12Mp which is a whopping 10Mp over the highest HD standard. Thats also a bigger frame resolution then my Nikon D200 DSLR which is a 10MP file.

Even the downconverted footage from this camera looks tons sharper then any DVD i've watched.

**

The real question is not if Michael likes HD or not. But does he really need it for his productions? How would it make them any better?

We all know he is quite content with film and gets the look he wants from it. And thats the look that we all love.

I'm sure that with some good post work you can easily turn the footage from the RED One into the Michael Bay look. But the RED cam while out in the field, is still undergoing development as is Digital capture in general. I'm suspecting that Michael just would rather not even jump into that ballgame because his productions yield enough to think about as it is. Micheal and his Crew know what to expect from film, and they know how to mold it with ease to get the final product they want.

Michael maybe very much interested in Digital technology and watching it closely. Or maybe not. But until Digital will save a few million off the budget and the crew is dead on efficient in the digital workflow, there is no reason to jump into Digital yet.

Hell, I love HD but I am a long ways away from getting a HDTV. They are still too damn expensive and I hate the thought of having to pay extra for HD channels. So I'm waiting till its all set in stone cause right now it brings in more issues then solutions.

I want it all digital. And I want to watch it on a 4k projector :)

Why cant we just stay with good old DVDs :) LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StefsChemicalRomance

Why cant we just stay with good old DVDs :) LOL

---

We're talking about film vs. digital in terms of production photography here. This is not a Blu-ray/HD DVD thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nelson

Speaking of which, Fincher got the night shots to look fairly good in Zodiac.

---

When I saw on IMDB they were using the same gear as the last Highlander, I was most interested in seeing David Fincher work it.

I hate to go there with Highlander and all, but loving to see films knows no bounds - even if they suck. Most every night shot looked like it was done in front of a green screen.

In fact - the green screen shot at the end of The Rock was more convincing then their night shots in contrast.

Zodiac was very effective with it, and really cool to see David Fincher trying out some new toys in place of Super-35.