Comments on: Identity Through The Eyes of Michael Mann http://thefilmstage.com/2009/06/28/identity-through-the-eyes-of-michael-mann/ Your Spotlight On Cinema Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:28:37 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Steve Owens http://thefilmstage.com/2009/06/28/identity-through-the-eyes-of-michael-mann/comment-page-1/#comment-1591 Steve Owens Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:20:41 +0000 http://thefilmstage.com/?p=5161#comment-1591 I'm not a film professional, but I would like to comment on how Michael Mann sets atmospheres with music. I always wondered why I enjoyed his films, and being aware of the music present in his films is a reason. Steve I’m not a film professional, but I would like to comment on how Michael Mann sets atmospheres with music.
I always wondered why I enjoyed his films, and being aware of the music present in his films is a reason.
Steve

]]> By: TheMann http://thefilmstage.com/2009/06/28/identity-through-the-eyes-of-michael-mann/comment-page-1/#comment-1504 TheMann Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:46:53 +0000 http://thefilmstage.com/?p=5161#comment-1504 Not bad, but do some more research before posting. As mentioned above the interiors of the club was shot on film not on video. Also, "This is Mann’s way of representing to the audience that the only way of achieving clarity is through confusion. This would not have the same effect if shot on film." and "Even though we would have seen it, it wouldn’t have had the same impact if it was shot on standard 35mm film." Care to elaborate as to why? Not bad, but do some more research before posting. As mentioned above the interiors of the club was shot on film not on video. Also, “This is Mann’s way of representing to the audience that the only way of achieving clarity is through confusion. This would not have the same effect if shot on film.” and “Even though we would have seen it, it wouldn’t have had the same impact if it was shot on standard 35mm film.” Care to elaborate as to why?

]]> By: Derek http://thefilmstage.com/2009/06/28/identity-through-the-eyes-of-michael-mann/comment-page-1/#comment-1485 Derek Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:53:26 +0000 http://thefilmstage.com/?p=5161#comment-1485 Hi, I love that you wrote a very in depth article about Michael Mann's work, but there's also a couple of errors, mostly just technical. For example, you mention deep focus or high depth of field as being shorter. This is incorrect. Short/shallow depth of field refers to more selective focus, as opposed to Mann's use of very deep focus so almost everything from the foreground to background is in focus. Digital cameras themselves aren't more light sensitive than fastest film stocks. Many have the light sensitivity of a high speed film stock, but there are film stocks that heavily exceed this as well. This is probably a misconception based on the words of Michael Mann and his cinematographers. When they speak of the ability of digital to see into the night, they are referring to the inherently high depth of field of smaller than 35mm sized sensors such as on the 2/3" CCD cameras like the Thomsom Viper or the Sony F23, not necessarily that digital cameras are more light sensitive. In order to increase depth of field, you must stop down (or close up) the iris, but this happens at the expense of how much light reaches the sensor or film. Thus you generally need a lot of light to have high depth of field. However, depth of field is higher on smaller gauges like 8mm or 16mm in film and 2/3" and 1/3" sensors on digital cameras, so they do not need to stop down as much. Digital itself does not high depth of field, but the Mann intentionally cameras that do, although he does do this at the expense of overall visual quality, not unlike using 16mm instead of 35mm for higher depth of field. Also, you mention the use of digital in a club scene. This is incorrect, as in Collateral all the interiors and day scenes were shot with celluloid. This was intentional, since lighting is much more easier to control indoors. Increasing the amount of light for the skyline of LA on the other hand is quite impossible. Hi, I love that you wrote a very in depth article about Michael Mann’s work, but there’s also a couple of errors, mostly just technical. For example, you mention deep focus or high depth of field as being shorter. This is incorrect. Short/shallow depth of field refers to more selective focus, as opposed to Mann’s use of very deep focus so almost everything from the foreground to background is in focus.

Digital cameras themselves aren’t more light sensitive than fastest film stocks. Many have the light sensitivity of a high speed film stock, but there are film stocks that heavily exceed this as well. This is probably a misconception based on the words of Michael Mann and his cinematographers. When they speak of the ability of digital to see into the night, they are referring to the inherently high depth of field of smaller than 35mm sized sensors such as on the 2/3″ CCD cameras like the Thomsom Viper or the Sony F23, not necessarily that digital cameras are more light sensitive.

In order to increase depth of field, you must stop down (or close up) the iris, but this happens at the expense of how much light reaches the sensor or film. Thus you generally need a lot of light to have high depth of field. However, depth of field is higher on smaller gauges like 8mm or 16mm in film and 2/3″ and 1/3″ sensors on digital cameras, so they do not need to stop down as much. Digital itself does not high depth of field, but the Mann intentionally cameras that do, although he does do this at the expense of overall visual quality, not unlike using 16mm instead of 35mm for higher depth of field.

Also, you mention the use of digital in a club scene. This is incorrect, as in Collateral all the interiors and day scenes were shot with celluloid. This was intentional, since lighting is much more easier to control indoors. Increasing the amount of light for the skyline of LA on the other hand is quite impossible.

]]>