I was about ready to say I was stumped, until I went looking for more pics of the 950 seperated block rig. The trailer is clearly video though, and I agree with Tim's assertion that it's most likely 1/3rd". Car interior shot looking up and out window at the beginning has vertical smear in it, but it's quick.

I think they probably used a 1/3rd" for most of it (or at least most of what is in the trailer), and then had this 950 rig for other things. One thing is for certain, the trailer is oversharpened like a badly setup 1/3rd" HD camera!

I don't think extremely oversharpened full res HD, that the halos would come through after being resized down to 640xwhatever.

Here's some pics:

Thanks Nate.

Until we hear anything more about the making of this film, I think we should just move this thread into the General HD Acquisition forum.

There's no doubt it was shot in HD. The directors and Jason Statham himself had said so. They could have mixed cameras, using bigger cameras when they could and small 1/3" ones for the action stuff. The trailer doesn't look like HD100 footage, specially the bright sun parts. Also, I saw a picture where I could swear the camera was a XL series one. If so, probably the H1 since the XL2 is SD. Looking at the trailer, a lot of scenes look more like XL-H1 than HD100 stuff. But one thing is for sure, either way there's nothing pathetic about the image. It serves well the story of the movie and that's what matters. It doesn't have to look filmic all the time. The look has to serve the story.

Didn't even know it was video....
 

It never even occurred to me that the film was shot on video (I thought the trailer looked great). The future is here. Any more on if the JVC100 was used to shoot 2d unit stuff? Good stuff guys....

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

Is it just me... or was the colorist asleep at the wheel? Everything looks flat and uninspiring, or badly blown out.

I personally dont care if its shot on film or HD, but having everything at a high shutter speed is fatiguing on the eyes .

It was shot with an F900 and an F950,
some with a stripped down head & at certain points the Directors (who operated the cameras) where running around with the head on rollerblades and a hard disk strapped to their back...good stuff

It was the 950 and the T-Cam. Here's proof. No mention of the HD-100 or any other HDV class camera.


http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirm...AD15442C8AA09A

SHUTTER SPEED ENHANCES INTENSITY

"Another thing that enhances the speed of the film," Baumann says, "is they cranked the shutter speed up to between 200 and 500." Well above a norm like 180

Oops! Someone confused their degrees and seconds!

Yes, I agree. I think it looks like poo, all around.

I'm pretty sure there were some smaller cameras too, probably HDV. As I said I saw a picture where there seemed to be a XL type camera, probably a XL-H1 filming Jason running around.

yup,
XL2's. I don't think it was an H1

I think it looks great, experimenting with something other than super shallow depth of feild, hell I think it would be cool to shoot the entire thing in 60p crazy motion. I for one will see this movie Im not a big fan of box office hits but this one has caught my eye. Tip of the hat to the directors for experimenting.

imagine they were like... well alotta people download screeners off the pirate bay... maybe we could shoot the movie with a kick ass camera , snip snip, print to film, and then use a canon xl1 to shoot it again from a theatre while its running, then take the xl1 footage and print to film again.

FUNNNnnn

HA! I love that idea, I'm sure someones going to take your idea and run with it. But could you say it's a new and unique idea and never been done before? or that it's "over used"? Hmmmmm..... ;)

So is there confirmation that XL2's (or H1s) were used, as well?