The filmed a very large portion of it right here in my backyard - Albuquerque NM. It helps that ABQ has invested in the industry, we have studios, post production companies, casting, sound stages, crews based out here.
Although I'm sure that Canon DSLRs can produce great video, almost as good as my GH2, you do realize this is just another Canon commercial, just like that House stunt.
How much was really shot with those and how much ended up in the final cut who knows ( Hint: very little if any, and carefully reading that press release tells you that ), but people never just come out, out of the blue mentioning that they used Camera XYZ unless they were paid to do so or have something else to gain from such disclosures.
Apple would hand out mac book pros to caterers on movie sets to update their home-made videos, then they would claim how Final cut pro was used on that movie set. Technically true, but being used on a set and being used to edit an actual movie are two completely different things.
I have no doubt that you can shoot video with a number of relatively inexpensive cameras, including your GH2, my Nikon D5100, Sony's NEX7 and A65 and have good enough quality to fit in seamlessly with a high budget feature film. Kind of cool to be seeing somebody actually doing it though!
"Would you believe they filmed part of that movie in Cleveland Ohio?"
Sure, why not? Movies like "Christmas Story", "Major League", and "Happy Gilmore" were filmed in Cleveland. So were parts of "Air Force One", and "The Deer Hunter". Cleveland's diverse ethnic neighborhoods, downtown streets and sports arenas have the texture and inner city grit that movie producers can take advantage of at far less cost than filming in other cities.
Just got home from seeing it. I have to say, the absence of film grain was very noticeable.
Then, getting snacks in Applebee's afterward we saw "Once Upon A Time" on a few of the TVs there, and we were shocked and astounded at how terribly *awful* the camera work was. It seriously looked like a group of high school kids with pocket camcorders must have been in charge. We were far more entertained and far less put off by AFV on the other TV.
Yep, and the other 99% was shot on ARRI Alexa's and an ARRIFlex 435. They only used the DSLR's in areas that were too risky to use an Alexa, and to give them some additional shots very clost to the action/explosions etc. For $2500 a 5D is disposable on a shoot of that size, it's likely any more than a few seconds of footage ended up in the final film. With enough post processing, the right plug ins and futzing around they can splice it in to the Alexa footage and it would be seamless a few seconds at a time.
The action sequences are hardly a short add-on in a movie like this. The action sequences with all their multiple angles are a huge part of the success of a movie like this. My estimation is that all in all there are probably quite a few minutes, not just seconds, of these cameras featured quite prominently.
That was Seamus McGarvey first digital moive and all he talks about was how great the Alexa was to work with. They also used an Arriflex camera for much of the stunt work because at the time the Alexa didn't do high speed.
>>This seems to be getting a bit silly. No matter what DPs say, deusx has to insist that it cannot possibly be so. Shoulder + chip => infantile behavior.<<<<
Well, sorry I didn't know it was all because they all love those products so much. And Thor drinks Coca Cola because he loves it not because they paid for product placement. It really is infantile of me not to believe everything I see and read, especially on the internet. It's all true and snow white pure.
And all those actors doing the talk show circuit do it because they love it so, so much, not because, as I mistakenly thought, it says so in their contract.