The feature film "Crank"

[Ralph Sturgess]

Some guy had the bright idea of using the HD100 to shoot his movie, CRANK! starring all around rough and tumble bad boy jason statham, yes the transporter and the transporter 2 JASON STATHAM! Anyways, they shot this movie with an HD100 and it looks pretty pathetic. Here's the trailer. http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_...ank/large.html Don't believe me? See for yourself.


ADMINISTRATOR NOTE: Please note that the rumour of HD100 usage in the film "Crank" has not been confirmed. The best estimate from on-set photos is that "Crank" was actually shot with the Sony F950.

[George David]

Associating the HD100 with handsome Rob, I think that's quite a compliment to the HD100 :-)

What didn't you like about the trailer?

[Yasser Kassana]

Are you sure about that? Looks like 35mm not the JVC. Any sources to back up your claim?

[Drew Curran]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sturgess

Anyways, they shot this movie with an HD100 and it looks pretty pathetic.

What looks pathetic? The film or the quality of the footage?

If its the quality, then I think its great for a £3500 1/3" HDV camera.


Andrew

[George David]

Budget is $15-million so it is highly doubtful this was shot with an HD100. But it would be very cool indeed if it was.

[Chris Hurd]

Maybe the word "pathetic" has become pop culture's latest term of endearment du jour, much in the same way as sick, bad, and stupid; all of which are among the highest compliments you can pay these days.

[Yasser Kassana]

I can't find any sources that it was shot on the hd100. sounds like bull or someone pulling our leg. It's blatantly shot on film.

[Tim Dashwood]

I definitely looks like it was shot with some small format CCD (2/3" or smaller) because of the long depth of field in almost every interior shot.

However, I remember someone mentioning they were using the XL2 on dvxuser last year when production began.
I can't confirm this either.

I did find one production still from the film and there is definitely a video EVF on that camera, but I just can't identify the camera.
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/180872...hoto/970406331

[Tim Dashwood]

I just found another photo, but you can't see the camera. Looks like it is definitely and electronic view finder, Crosziel matte box and an O'Conner 2575 head though.

http://www.cinemablend.com/gallery/p....html?tid=6657

[Tim Dashwood]

Here's photographic evidence.
http://www.cinempire.com/multimedia/...photos/33.html

This doesn't mean they didn't use the HD100 or even the XL2 for other material, but this photo clearly shows that they didn't use either for the body rig.

Nate, do you have any ideas as to what camera this is?
Probably a stripped down Viper.
I found another photo from a different angle. http://imdb.com/gallery/ss/0479884/S...th_key=0479884

[Tim Brown]

That looks like a 416, but I'm not sure. 16mm would explain the deep depth of field.

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Tim Brown

That looks like a 416, but I'm not sure. 16mm would explain the deep depth of field.

And a 416 would explain the size, but I'm still confused by this photo from another angle. I think this was digital 2/3". I'm trying to find out if a Viper can be stripped down this much.
http://imdb.com/gallery/ss/0479884/S...th_key=0479884

Update: After some research, I now doubt it can possibly be a viper based on the fact that it isn't modular like the D20 and can't be stripped down that much.

That photo looks more and more to me like an SR2 or SR3 without the magazine attached (which would make sense for Jason Statham's comfortability during a rehearsal.)

I'm now thinking this film may be hybrid digital and S-16. I doubt American Cinematographer is planning an article any time soon.
I really want to know where Ralph found his information.

[Tim Brown]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

And a 416 would explain the size, but I'm still confused by this photo from another angle. I think this was digital 2/3". I'm trying to find out if a Viper can be stripped down this much.
http://imdb.com/gallery/ss/0479884/S...th_key=0479884

You got me with that photo Tim. The only thing I've seen broken down to just the recording block like in that photo is the SI-1920.

[Brian Drysdale]

You can do this with the Sony F 950 using the HKC-T950. It allows you to remove the optical block and lens mount and use it up to 50 meters from the camera. It's not a new idea, there was a model of the older Betacams that allowed you to do the same thing.

You'll find find more info here http://www.csc.ca/news/default.asp?aID=1100

James Cameron has been using the optical heads from the F 960 in his 3D cameras.

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

You can do this with the Sony F 950 using the HKC-T950. It allows you to remove the optical block and lens mount and use it up to 50 meters from the camera. It's not a new idea, there was a model of the older Betacams that allowed you to do the same thing.

You'll find find more info here http://www.csc.ca/news/default.asp?aID=1100

James Cameron has been using the optical heads from the F 960 in his 3D cameras.

Good call Brian. That hadn't occurred to me. I found a photo of what you are talking about and I think by the placement of the VF mount and the cable clip that you are exactly right. F950
http://www.telecast-fiber.com/jh/hkct950.jpg

I also compared the photo of the viewfinder from Crank with a Sony photo of the F950's viewfinder, and I am now convinced.