|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 23rd, 2006, 03:15 AM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 35
|
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. |
August 23rd, 2006, 03:50 AM | #2 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 150
|
Associating the HD100 with handsome Rob, I think that's quite a compliment to the HD100 :-)
What didn't you like about the trailer? |
August 23rd, 2006, 05:38 AM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 223
|
Are you sure about that? Looks like 35mm not the JVC. Any sources to back up your claim?
|
August 23rd, 2006, 05:58 AM | #4 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: N. Ireland
Posts: 370
|
Quote:
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 |
|
August 23rd, 2006, 06:09 AM | #5 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 150
|
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.
|
August 23rd, 2006, 07:24 AM | #6 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
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.
|
August 23rd, 2006, 07:37 AM | #7 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 223
|
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.
|
August 23rd, 2006, 07:53 AM | #8 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
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 | #9 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
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 | #10 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
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 Dashwood |
August 23rd, 2006, 08:23 AM | #11 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posts: 263
|
That looks like a 416, but I'm not sure. 16mm would explain the deep depth of field.
|
August 23rd, 2006, 08:45 AM | #12 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
Quote:
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 Dashwood |
|
August 23rd, 2006, 08:52 AM | #13 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posts: 263
|
Quote:
|
|
August 23rd, 2006, 09:27 AM | #14 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,152
|
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. |
August 23rd, 2006, 09:40 AM | #15 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Tim Dashwood |
|
| ||||||
|
|