Crank 2 - in HD Video Pro Magazine

cyclone said:
Speaking of artifacts in motion pictures that we have all come to accept over the years, what about wagon-wheeling? I truly am surprised that with all of the technology out there, films still allow that to happen and that audiences still accept it. For me, it immediately pulls me out of the film.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the phenomenon where wheels appear to be rotating backwards? That has never bothered me, since it also occurs in "real life", for instance when looking at adjacent vehicles on the freeway.
 
Very cool, lot of info on this thread. Thanks for sharing. Just caught the trailer on the theater and it does look different. I hope the DVD BTS is everything I am hoping it will be.
 
So what does this mean

So what does this mean

If a film can be made using these cameras, why break our necks buying cameras for tens of thousands of dollars. How much of our time in spent in gear lust rather than content creation? In my case, I come here to read about the latest and the greatest, but guys with crappier cameras than mine are making a 20 million dollar movie while I'm struggling to secure a hundred grand, or even 50 thousand. Who care what gear heads think it looks like? If the people like the movie, the people like the movie. I mean, we live in a world where Kelly Clarkson, Lil Wayne, and the Jonas Bros. are gods, and where High School Musical and it's sequels are massively grossing films. So what lessons do we learn and how can we make any of our images commercially and aesthetically pleasing and 35mm film out worthy without the whole codec, and recording medium, and sensor size, and workstation babble?
 
If a film can be made using these cameras
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? They didn't try to just "make a film", they tried to make a live-action video game, taking advantage of the tiny size of the cameras to allow them to do things that had never been attempted or seen before... that's very different.

I don't know of any major production that's tried to use a palmcorder or handycam instead of a "real" camera (film or Red or VariCam or F900 or Viper etc), for conventional cinematography, other than "28 Days Later". And even then, part of what they were doing there was needing 8 cameras at a time, shutting down the streets of london and only getting a few minutes of filming time per day. (And besides, it looked awful in the theaters.)

Other than that, the things I can think of that used video cameras are primarily things like the Dogme films, or Open Water, or Cloverfield or Blair Witch, and now Crank 2... and none of them feature conventional cinematography. Sure, "Flags of our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" used HDV and HVX cameras for some battlefield coverage insert shots, but those weren't what I'd expect anyone could call conventional cinematography. And "The Departed" used an HVX for an insert shot, which was definitely conventional cinematography, but it was still only one shot. "November" used the DVX for semi-conventional cinematography, but that was no big-budget production, that was an InDigEnt film.

The Red One has been used to replace film cameras for conventional cinematography; "Knowing" is probably the most recent example, being (AFAIK) 100% shot on a Red One.

For today, it appears that the palmcorder/handycam cameras are being used for circumstances that a bigger camera simply wouldn't be practical for.

It's not necessarily that the image won't hold up on the big screen (using an HVX in "The Departed" should have answered that question!) It seems more that using little cameras won't give the "look" conventional cinematography demands unless you plump it up with an adapter, rods, mattebox, follow focus, prime lenses, and all that... and by that time, it's just as slow and inconvenient to use as film or a big camera, so why would any production with any sort of budget choose to go that route?

Crank 2 went a whole different way -- they zigged when most of DVXUser is trying to zag. Most of us seem to be determined to emulate the conventional cinematography look, with micro-budget tools. Crank 2 instead said "let's make something nobody's ever seen before." And the micro-sized cameras were the perfect tool to let them do that.
 
Barry_Green said:
Did you read the article? They didn't try to just "make a film", they tried to make a live-action video game, taking advantage of the tiny size of the cameras to allow them to do things that had never been attempted or seen before... that's very different...

...Crank 2 went a whole different way -- they zigged when most of DVXUser is trying to zag. Most of us seem to be determined to emulate the conventional cinematography look, with micro-budget tools. Crank 2 instead said "let's make something nobody's ever seen before." And the micro-sized cameras were the perfect tool to let them do that.
Click to expand...

May the flesh be torn from my blasphemous bones, but I don't agree with you on the first point (although the disagreement is just semantic). It is a "film"- or accurately, a movie. They absolutely set out to make a movie, a film that was a live-action video game, a statement that was stylish and brash and over the top, but a movie nonetheless. That is exactly what I am talking about when I say... "If a film can be made using these cameras." My intent needs to change, like theirs did, and although I might not go that far, change is good for our craft.

I realize that I am questioning a god here, but if we don't push the envelope and change our perspective on cinematography and directing to match the technology, and use the resources that you and others like you are putting out there for us (I bought the DVX book and live by your posts, just like everyone else), then innovation doesn't happen and the game gets stale and haven't you wasted you time as a teacher? I am a school teacher; I teach 5 subjects in a public school and have done so successfully for over almost a decade. I am the Barry Green of my particular school district, but the only thing that I care about is my students surpassing my expectations. Are we doing that here?

I have become a mega mashed head super bona-fide tech zombie chasing a look that I don't even want, because the gear head masses clamor for it and I don't want to look stupid in front of my peers, but your second quoted point cinches it. They zigged, I zag. I should be zigging more. So how do I zig, with my trusty HMC-150, and innovate instead of inundate with the same old tired, magic bullet encrusted looks? I know that's a largely personal (possibly rhetorical) question, but shouldn't our new wave of tools move us away from "conventional" cinematography into something more visceral and amorphously dynamic?
 
Last edited:
Okay, we're on the same page. That's what I was trying to say -- these tools make something NEW possible. Seems like everyone wants to just do what everyone else has always done, only on cheaper gear. But the size, price, form factor, everything about these new toys means that someone should be making some new art form. I mean, people may hate "Cloverfield" and "Blair Witch" but, aren't they pretty much a "new" type of movie (the "found footage" film)?

So, I'm totally on board, that was exactly my point behind bringing up this article in the first place!
 
OK. That's what I hoped.

But here comes the hard part- letting the old stuff go and pioneering innovation. I mean... it's like looking in a 100 million piece jigsaw puzzle box and trying to find the corner piece...

Daunting.

And by the way... the sound DVD is awesome! Thanks.
 
timbook2 said:
I understand your point but when I saw crank1 by chance on tv here I had to switch channel because the character and story were so gruesomely weak and dumb, I just couldnt stand it....but I understand your point anyway :beer:

I really like to read stories about how small cams are used for their positive features in big Hollywood style films!!! It makes all this pixel/DOF talk so relative.....
Click to expand...

If you say so. I think Crank is one of the best action films around, pure adrenaline, a great film. I love watching it. It gives me the biggest jolt of any action film I can think of.
 
Barry_Green said:
other than "28 Days Later". And even then, part of what they were doing there was needing 8 cameras at a time, shutting down the streets of london and only getting a few minutes of filming time per day. (And besides, it looked awful in the theaters.)
Click to expand...

If you say so. I saw it in theaters and didn't know until years later it wasn't shot using film. It looked fantastic to me.

Awful in theaters was Full Frontal, that movie looked like a piece of crap. 28 Days Later looked like film.
 
JonathanLB said:
If you say so. I saw it in theaters and didn't know until years later it wasn't shot using film. It looked fantastic to me.

Awful in theaters was Full Frontal, that movie looked like a piece of crap. 28 Days Later looked like film.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. I think I found out "after" the fact that it was digital. I just went in to enjoy a movie. I couldn't tell it was too soft at that time (which it was) because I approached it like any other movie. Today, because of hanging out in forums like this, I would have a more critical eye when watching a movie like that. But I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. I liked the movie also but if I were to watch it today the softness that everyone talks about would stand out more for me and would have probably ruined my experience. Then again...the story usually draws me in...and I forget about what my original intentions were. This happened the other day when I went to see "Knowing." I ended up enjoying a good movie...but my intention was to see how the Red One camera held up. My conclusion: Eventually, like compact discs to vinyl records, film will go the way of the dinasour.
 
skinny! said:
i'll be getting this issue for sure. as an XH-A1 owner.....though, initial rumors or twists on the story were that they did all color in cam, to minimize post-color....guess it aint true haha great nod to the Canons, and thanks for bringing it up Barry!

Chris
www.vimeo.com/chrislight
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, are you guys saying that they did all their colour in post? From this artical (http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7771/tcid/1) it seems they did as much in camera stuff as possible.

"Mark: It’s something actually we develop in camera. We’re shooting for the last 7 years. We love the fast digital shutter and lots of geeky things that you don’t care about, but like shooting with negative 3 gain and we do an in-camera look that is very aggressive and that scares everybody, but we filmed it out and we tested it and it works and it looks amazing on the screen. I remember Jason Statham said on day one, he said “wow, this looks like Crank 1 but better.” That’s what we’re shooting for.
Brian: We do almost everything in camera. We’ve never been a big fan of trying to make the look in post.

What do you guys think of working on the colours in camera?
 
Grix said:
What do you guys think of working on the colours in camera?
Click to expand...

Again...

conventionally, I am against it because the codified rules of digital engagement and the status quo tell me not to, and strangely enough, that's all I did before I learned "better." There have been hundreds of threads about this same thing, but none have ever resolved it to my satisfaction. Part of me says stick with what works, but that's following convention; the other part of me says, "revolution," but that again is following convention- jumping on a bandwagon immediately just because someone else tried something new and it worked for them! I think that one should evaluate your project, know what you can afford to try and what you can't and build innovation into your schedule. Give yourself time to try new things, and test extensively before you get on set. Time and necessity are creativity's greatest allies and worst enemies- learn to use both without abusing either and get what you want. But I could be wrong. Either way, what ever you do, don't just do it to do it... know the reason and motivate the effect... but again, I could be full of it and not know it :)
 
According to the HDV Pro article they only tweaked the sharpness and detail settings. Everything else was zero and they used Cine for Gamma and Color Matrix. Does not say whether it was Cine 1 or Cine 2. They also used a 1/1000 or 1/2000 shutter speed to get the staccato look. The filmmakers also mention transferring the footage to HDCAM so there post house Riot! could work with it. They obviously did a lot of color correction, because I saw some of the early trailers and they did not look as good as the current crop of Crank 2 trailers making the rounds. It's a cool look none the less.

As a side note, I cooked up a quick and dirty XH-A1 preset to mimic the look in Crank 2. I call it Cranked because everything is cranked to maximum and as a nod to the film title. I did it by eye but I think it looks pretty close. I used the settings gleaned from the article and added a little bit extra to it. It's probably not a setting you want to use if you are shooting a wedding. Try it out and tell me what you think.

GAM= Cine1
KNE= High
BLK= Press
PED= -9
SHP= 9
HDF=High
DHV= 9
COR= 9
CMX= Cine2
CGN= 20

Everything else is zero. Shoot at 24f, 1/500th shutter speed (1/500th gives about the same look as 1/1000 and needs less light), -3db gain, and over-expose approx. 1 stop. Add a fisheye lens and Jason Statham for added authenticity.
 
holy crap...i'm gonna film my family a bit at a pre-easter party tomorrow...dare i use this setting? haha...i should grab my cam and dial these settings in...SHP 9, COR 9...i'll be making "Crank 3: Egg Hunt".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top