XH-A1's in Crank 2 Trailer

[Lucasberg]

I loved the 1st movie and then when I heard they were filming with XH-A1's and even smaller cams for part 2 I was very interested in how it would look.

NSFW trailer
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/12/30/...iler/#comments

You can see extreme wide angle lens distortion and a little behind the scenes with an A1 on a fig rig. Im interested in their workflow and color grading of those cams for a real movie.

[Ian-T]

Ha ha...thanks for updating us. I was wondering what was going on with that flick. That last part where they looked like they were having fun cracked me up. I was surprised to see all the same players from the original movie...heck...that he even survived. Is this still straight to DVD or is there going to be a theatrical release?

Edit: Ok I see where it says headed for theaters April 17th. Like it or not...I got to go see it.

[threadhanger]

The movie looks cheesy as hell, but I think that was the point. I can see it doing it's best business on torrents, especially with all the T and A action. I wonder if they used the HV20 as a b-cam.

[Ian-T]

The movie looks cheesy as hell, but I think that was the point. I can see it doing it's best business on torrents, especially with all the T and A action. I wonder if they used the HV20 as a b-cam.

They used a dozen of it's twin brothers...the HF10's, as crash cams.

[threadhanger]

I wonder why not the HV20/HV30? Do they know something we don't.

[Hunterr]

I wonder why not the HV20/HV30? Do they know something we don't.

Probably because if something happens to it, then the tapes could get ruined? There isn't any moving parts in the HF10's, so it's probably less prone to loss of footage.

Just a guess.

-Hunter

[spideralex90]

Probably because if something happens to it, then the tapes could get ruined? There isn't any moving parts in the HF10's, so it's probably less prone to loss of footage.

Just a guess.

-Hunter

A good guess being that you can get info off a almost destroyed hard drive still.

This film looks alright, i'm going to see it just to see how an XH-A1 plays on a big screen, and to see how they mess with it, also the trailer is in 4:3 , i'm hoping they actually shot in widescreen.

[Ian-T]

The trailer looks squeezed...so I assume it was shot in wide screen. I believe the HF10 just came out right about the time they announced when they were going to start filming. I would have done the same thing...especially being on a tight schedule.

[Lucasberg]

Is that Corey Haim in the blonde Mullet?

[Ian-T]

Is that Corey Haim in the blonde Mullet?

Yes. Scary isn't it?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

I just downloaded a 720p WMV version of the trailer, really nice. I don't think they used any DoF adapter for most of the shots! And it came out just fine! Which shows that it's all about how your light, frame, and color your scene, rather than taking the shortcut of a 35mm adapter that actually degrades the sharpness of the footage.
http://s.streamingmovies.ign.com/mov...1509_wmvhd.wmv (115 MB)

This movie shows that with a bare HV20 you can make a good movie. Sure, quality won't be as good as the XH-A1's, but it will be very close and as good as it gets for $700. Where videographers need to invest instead is learning about framing, lighting, sound, editing, grading.

[Ian-T]

That looks hilarious!!! I'm actually quite surprised in how good it looks.

Plus....Did you see the rolling shutter?? I did...the part where Dwight Yokum (I think that's him) was saying "Keep you body electrically charged...." there was an under the car view...wobbling like crazy....but it worked...LOL.

Edit:That must have been one of their crash cams (the HF10)...which...looking by the shots in this movie...was probably used all over the place.

[net]

I just downloaded a 720p WMV version of the trailer, really nice....
http://s.streamingmovies.ign.com/mov...1509_wmvhd.wmv (115 MB)

This movie shows that with a bare HV20 you can make a good movie. Sure, quality won't be as good as the XH-A1's, but it will be very close and as good as it gets for $700. Where videographers need to invest instead is learning about framing, lighting, sound, editing, grading.

The coloring looks awesome in that trailer.

I've watched so much footage on Vimeo, I can actually spot the HF10 footage...lol

[Ian-T]

Yeah but the video quality was excellent throughout.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

In some shots the lack of dynamic range was obvious in the XH-A1. For example, Statham was in the car, and he was properly exposed, but the sky outside was all overexposed. If this was a big, expensive, camera the sky would have been better exposed. But hey, it worked fine!

[Ian-T]

It's funny though...my mind didn't pick up any of that. What I mean is the constant action in the movie masked whatever flaws that were in any particular scene. I think that's cool how movies do that...when shot and edited in a certain way it makes you focus on what's going on in the story instead of anything technically lacking. I only caught the rolling shutter effect because I thought it was on purpose...then I remembered...oh...that's rolling shutter. But the average Joe...wouldn't know if it hit the in the head.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Funnily, in that specific scene the overexposing of the sky actually functions as a... DoF adapter. What I mean is that, like with a DoF adapter it tells the brain "look here, not there", the overexposing of the sky naturally drives the brain to focus on Statham rather than the whole scene.

[Distortedrumble]

lol that is so damn awesome. I had to watch it twice..well. 8 times total

[dWyZaK]

Woah, cheers for the HD link.

That was done on a 2.5k cam! WOW!

[fishops]

On the one hand it really, REALLY does not look like film.

On the other hand, it looks pretty good!

Everything seemed slightly overexposed to me, but I am guessing that's a look they were going for. The only thing that bugged me were the non-fisheye closeups. I think we're just used to seeing a shallower depth of field for interior shots in films.

They sure love that fisheye, I wonder what lens that is?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Ok guys, let's do some study here!
Go here, wait for it to load, and then click on the picture to become 1:1 size:
http://www.2shared.com/file/4668021/63b7772/crank2.html

BTW, whoever encoded the WMV HD trailer is probably an idiot. He exported the 23.976 video as 29.97, so there are duplicated frames in it. While this could be valid for TV broadcasting, it's not for web viewing.

[Halsu]

Woah, cheers for the HD link.

That was done on a 2.5k cam! WOW!

Actually, that looks pretty bad to me, if a film look was indeed the goal. The camera should be able to do much, much better at that in capable hands.

The thing is, i don't think they wanted it to look like film.

My guess is, they deliberately made it to look "video", i.e. by overexposing and so on. It's a viable style too (though i personally dislike it).

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

>The camera should be able to do much, much better at that in capable hands.

I don't know... I mean, this is small sensor camera, we can't expect miracles out of it. I am sure that if the director was more careful about the time of day he was shooting, or used these huge light reflectors, might have been able to get a less overexposed images, but that would add to the movie's production cost. Although a strong ND filter doesn't cost that much...

[Ian-T]

I noticed that too. If you look at the whole picture there is extra sharpening all over the place. i think they were going for that semi reality type look. I think it works for the type of movie this is. It does not look like film...but it does not look like pure video either. I must have watched it 20 times or more by now.


Edit: Think this will start a new trend in Hollywood???

Edit: Is it me...or does it look like the whole thing was shot with a high shutter?

[Efrain]

I am glad that this thread was started. I have been a long time reader of this forum but this is perhaps my second or third post. My friends and I have been working on a screenplay for a sci fi short or feature that we would like to do on a little to no budget.
My friends and I have had the same heated debates that I sometimes read here. Scarlet/Red vs EX1/3 vs Canon. Sub-thousand $ cam vs $10K cam and onward.
Here we have an example of what could turn out to be a descent movie shot on a "budget" hd cam. Cinematography rules!
Back in college (more than a few years ago) we use to shoot using 8mm camcorders. Every now and then someone use to shoot something extraordinary. The right techniques or new ones, able to get a hold some of the better talent on campus. All of a sudden you forget you are looking at a tv at something "video-ish".
I would like to see more of this hybrid look. Not quite filmic not quite video-ish.
Ok I'll go back to watching my "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe" DVD.