Crank 2 - in HD Video Pro Magazine

Thanks for sharing the info Barry. I remember thinking that Crank 1 felt like a live action Grand Theft Auto when I first saw it. If a Grand Theft Auto movie is ever made, then Neveldine and Taylor should direct it.

As for Crank 2, I've seen the trailer both on the big screen and on a Blu-ray disc. The Blu-ray version looked freaking amazing. Not exactly like film, but as we know they were going for a different aesthetic.

The one projected at the theater looked very good, but not as crisp and dense as 35mm. Although, the trailer at the theater, if I didn't know what Crank 2 was shot on, I probably would of thought it was Super 16 or a much higher end HD motion picture camera and not an XH-A1. The same batch of trailers also had Michael Mann's digitally shot Public Enemies trailer as well. I thought that the Crank 2 trailer looked better and in a lot of shots more film-like too.

Makes me feel really good about owning an A1. I think it's still got a lot of life left in it, even though it is not the latest and greatest camera out there. Hopefully Canon will continue to develop the XH line like they have been doing all these years with the XL line. As HD cameras continue to move towards tapeless, larger sensors, better codecs, and interchangeable lenses an XH line camera has tons of future potential for this kind of run-n-gun filmmaking, as well as more traditional shooting styles as well.

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

I like to do my color correction and grading in post, because I have a blast messing around with the look, which in post there is less pressure and more time and flexibility than in camera. I've made some nice in-camera presets and use some of the ones others have made, so I can't say that I don't them. The A1 has a good range in terms of what you can do in camera.

I guess it depends on how controlled an environment or set I am shooting in. If I were out in the woods and didn't have the option of an external monitor and much control over the lighting, then I'd stick with a more neutral preset and finish the look off in post.
 
Nektonic said:
The one projected at the theater looked very good, but not as crisp and dense as 35mm. Although, the trailer at the theater, if I didn't know what Crank 2 was shot on, I probably would of thought it was Super 16 or a much higher end HD motion picture camera and not an XH-A1. The same batch of trailers also had Michael Mann's digitally shot Public Enemies trailer as well. I thought that the Crank 2 trailer looked better and in a lot of shots more film-like too.
.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this. The trailer for Crank 2 did look a lot better than the new Michael Mann movie. It's funny...I only recently found out Crank 1 was shot on video. I believe it was shot on the same cam Michael Mann is using for "Public Enemies." I could be wrong. But in any case....the A1 looked fantastic to me on the big screen. Michael Mann likes to use the slow 1/24 shutter especially in night scenes....and that just looks weird to me (in terms of motion). Other than that ..they both looked pretty darned good.
 
Yeah, Public Enemies still looked good though. I agree on the 1/24 shutter shots, those were the weakest aspects of it.

I think that Canon could really clean up if they came out with a 2/3 sensor XH-A2 that had the more robust than AVC-HD codec that the 5D mk2 is now using, and with both 1080 24p/60i and a 720 60p option.
 
I mean, people may hate "Cloverfield" and "Blair Witch" but, aren't they pretty much a "new" type of movie (the "found footage" film)?
Click to expand...

I would say Blair Witch, in particular, owes a great deal to the Deodato flick from 1980, Cannibal Holocaust. About half that film is found footage - and, in my opinion, is probably the most effective found footage I've seen in a fictional narrative.

There's also a strange film I saw a while back about a man who films his girlfriend while she's asleep, and kind of chases someone from a subway, and also simply speaking into the camera about his life. It's not quite found footage, but very similar. I can't remember the title though - might have been a short.

Both of those two films were done with portable 16MM cameras. I might add Cannibal Holocaust stretches believability a bit - their footage is found after a couple of months sitting in cans in the jungle, apparently with intact audio tapes and little negative damage. That's lucky.

But yeah, I'd still say on the whole, basically a new genre.

Getting back to Crank 2, it's certainly cool what they're doing - but the color correction from the original footage is HEAVY. Worth looking at the uncensored very early trailer. The color in the corrected look is similar to other big budget films, even if the DOF and movement and mounts are the opposite.

I might add Michael Mann to the mix when talking about this film. He also has used unusual shutters and lighting in his newest films, believing in embracing digital as a new aesthetic medium, rather than purely trying to make digital look like film. The first good example is Collateral, which was mostly shot digital. I think with a Viper? But yeah, he kept mostly to ambient light, and used unusual shutter speeds - very good look for Collateral.
 
Just saw this movie and it was over the top from start to finish... I think I laughed all the way through because of all the unbelievable stuff in it. You could tell some of the HF10 scenes from the A1 scenes (not all). Regardless the whole movie was clean...and suprisingly sharp. No macroblocking at all. The interior scenes in many instances looked like any film I've watched (unbelievable). The outdoor scenes were a little jarring at times (especially the beginning)...That had more to do with shutter speed than anything..but they were razor sharp and clean. I know there were some blowouts...but I didn't pick up on it...or in other words it never bothered me. This movie almost crosses the boundaries of it being rated R....I'd say it hovers just over rated X with all the sex, violence and gore. Also...I only saw one "Jello" scene (same as in the preview). SO the CMOS on the HF10 held up well. I think the HV20 could have held up even better.

Also...if you watch the out takes at the end...there was NO color grading on those shots. I thought the director stated that most of what he did was "in-cam?" You could see the low contrast look during those out takes. I thought those looked nice also...but the CC looked great.
 
I experienced Crank: High Voltage last night as well, and I pretty much agree with Ian-T on all points. First of all, it is a really fun and entertaining flick that doesn't let up. The A1 and HF10 held up extremely well on the big screen. As an A1 and HV20 owner, I am pleasantly surprised how good the film looked. Some outdoor shots looked more video like, but a lot of them were very film like. The indoor scenes looked more consistently film like overall. I think that since the directors were going for a more frenetic and non-traditional shooting style, that the film would have looked very different from the average film or TV show regardless of the camera used.

After seeing this on the big screen, I think that if one were to use an XH-A1, HMC150, EX1, etc... in a more traditional manner: 24p, more reserved shooting style, 1/48 shutter, and good color grading... that a really nice looking pro-level film could be made with any of the under $7K prosumer cameras, whether with or without a 35mm adapter.

Dare I say it, but I think that many of us have underestimated what can be done with these affordable cameras. With the Red One, all the drooling over Scarlet, and the coming wave of HD capable DSLR's (I'm as guilty as anyone), I think that we have lost sight of what can be accomplished with the currently available cameras out there. All this speculating about the next perfect camera has wasted a lot of time that could have been used making a kick-a** film with the cameras we have in our hands right now.

But in the meantime, Crank: High Voltage was a ton of fun. If you even remotely dig action films, then go see it because it is a blast.
 
well I went yesterday and it was fantastic the Gladiator preset (which has been discussed at length on this site) was all over the place,the REO Speedwagon scenes were a bit cliche-ish for my taste, the whole melee with opera build up kind of reminded me of Alex and his droogs vs. Georgie Boy and his mates. it seems as if the wide angle was used only on one of the A1 cameras great movie.
After that I went to Barnes and Noble to purchase HD Video Pro thanks Barry for pointing that article out.
I am now waiting for the box office results for this weekend and may I add that all that was reverberating on my head today was
"el Chev Chelios, Chev Chelios"
definitely shot with editing in mind.
 
Last edited:
:grin: plus it has the best tag line ever written to market a film

Crank 2:High Voltage
'He was dead ... but he got better.'
 

Attachments

  • crank-2-poster.jpg
    crank-2-poster.jpg
    157.3 KB · Views: 0
I saw this movie this weekend with my 14 yeara old. He loves Statham, he is also a normal 14yo that loves video games including all the Grand Theft Auto series. Aside from the filmmaking aspect and look to this flick. IT SUCKED, BIG TIME!!!!!
I cann't imagion Statham being talked into this mess. It was one of the worst flicks I've ever seen and my kid totally agrees with me. We walked out after really giving it a chance to grow on us. I'm sorry, but that's my reaction.
I loved the effects and after reading this post give the guys credit for giving it the look they were after. But really, looks could not help this flick.
 
DadinWestchester said:
I saw this movie this weekend with my 14 yeara old. He loves Statham, he is also a normal 14yo that loves video games including all the Grand Theft Auto series. Aside from the filmmaking aspect and look to this flick. IT SUCKED, BIG TIME!!!!!
I cann't imagion Statham being talked into this mess. It was one of the worst flicks I've ever seen and my kid totally agrees with me. We walked out after really giving it a chance to grow on us. I'm sorry, but that's my reaction.
I loved the effects and after reading this post give the guys credit for giving it the look they were after. But really, looks could not help this flick.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot more viewers are agreeing with you as the movie tanked at the box office.
 
I will definitely rent this just to see the visuals but a lot of the reviews talk about the endless really raunchy, degrading stuff that I just don't need to see. I don't mind sex and violence if the film is well written and the sex and violence is there for a storytelling purpose but when it is just something that should have been left on the cutting room floor but was put back in to try to appeal to some audience by some studio marketing genius, ughh, I am out.

Actually, the making of on the DVD would probably be a lot better for me than watching the film.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top