DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   General HD (720 / 1080) Acquisition (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-hd-720-1080-acquisition/)
-   -   The feature film "Crank" (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-hd-720-1080-acquisition/74115-feature-film-crank.html)

Ralph Sturgess August 23rd, 2006 03:15 AM

The feature film "Crank"
 
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 August 23rd, 2006 03:50 AM

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 August 23rd, 2006 05:38 AM

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

Drew Curran August 23rd, 2006 05:58 AM

Quote:

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 August 23rd, 2006 06:09 AM

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 August 23rd, 2006 07:24 AM

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 August 23rd, 2006 07:37 AM

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 August 23rd, 2006 07:53 AM

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 August 23rd, 2006 08:10 AM

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 August 23rd, 2006 08:19 AM

Definitely not the HD100
 
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 August 23rd, 2006 08:23 AM

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

Tim Dashwood August 23rd, 2006 08:45 AM

Quote:

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 August 23rd, 2006 08:52 AM

Quote:

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 August 23rd, 2006 09:27 AM

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 August 23rd, 2006 09:40 AM

Quote:

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.

Nate Weaver August 23rd, 2006 09:53 AM

2 Attachment(s)
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

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

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?

Tim Dashwood October 5th, 2006 11:09 PM

Finally some confirmation on the use of Sony F950 on Crank. We can finally put the rumours to rest.

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/digitalci...le_15521.shtml

Brian Scott Fitzgerald October 13th, 2006 08:30 AM

Used Both HD and DV
 
Here is the link for the technical spec on the cameras that were used to shoot the flim.

Both the Sony 950 and the Canon XL DV.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0479884/technical

Ash Greyson October 13th, 2006 12:18 PM

I know for a fact they used XL2 as I was asked to shoot it! I was having a baby at the time and could not.



ash =o)

Saturnin Kondratiew October 13th, 2006 06:08 PM

the original poster of this thread is nowhwere to be found..figured as much. What an ass..i saw the movie crank, and it doesnt matter what it was shot ont..it was a fun film, lots of action and it looked great! Doesnt really matter if it was shot on super 8.....some ppl


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:03 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2020 The Digital Video Information Network