The feature film "Crank"

Nate Weaver · August 23rd, 2006, 09:53 AM

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:

Tim Dashwood · August 23rd, 2006, 10:01 AM

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.

Michael Maier · August 23rd, 2006, 11:37 AM

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.

John Vincent · August 28th, 2006, 02:24 PM

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

Jeffrey Brown · August 28th, 2006, 10:26 PM

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 .

John Benton · August 28th, 2006, 11:23 PM

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

Oscar Villalpando · August 30th, 2006, 10:10 AM

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

Justine Haupt · August 30th, 2006, 10:18 AM

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!

Nate Weaver · August 30th, 2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Brown

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 .

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

Michael Maier · August 30th, 2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Villalpando

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

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.

John Benton · August 30th, 2006, 03:29 PM

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

Mack Fisher · August 30th, 2006, 11:12 PM

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.

Abdulla Bastaki · August 31st, 2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

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

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

Daniel Patton · September 9th, 2006, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdulla Bastaki

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..... ;)

Justine Haupt · September 9th, 2006, 08:58 AM

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

August 23rd, 2006, 09:53 AM	#16
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	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: Attached Thumbnails Attached Images __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

August 23rd, 2006, 10:01 AM	#17
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	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. __________________ Tim Dashwood

August 28th, 2006, 02:24 PM	#19
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	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

August 30th, 2006, 10:18 AM	#23
Justine Haupt Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 208	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! __________________ ~Justine "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka)

August 30th, 2006, 11:12 PM	#27
Mack Fisher Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 158	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. __________________ Northweststockfootage.com Shooting 100% HD Washington, Oregon, and Soon British Columbia

August 23rd, 2006, 11:37 AM	#18
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	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.

August 28th, 2006, 10:26 PM	#20
Jeffrey Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 37	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 .

August 28th, 2006, 11:23 PM	#21
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	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

August 30th, 2006, 10:10 AM	#22
Oscar Villalpando New Boot Join Date: May 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 18	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

August 30th, 2006, 03:29 PM	#26
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	yup, XL2's. I don't think it was an H1

September 9th, 2006, 08:58 AM	#30
Justine Haupt Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 208	So is there confirmation that XL2's (or H1s) were used, as well? __________________ ~Justine "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka)