Comments

JJKizak wrote on 5/10/2012, 3:04 PM
Would you believe they filmed part of that movie in Cleveland Ohio?
JJK
SuperG wrote on 5/10/2012, 9:13 PM
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.
John_Cline wrote on 5/10/2012, 10:22 PM
Hmmm, I didn't realize that there was another Albuquerque Vegas user here on the forum...
Byron K wrote on 5/11/2012, 1:31 AM
Interesting! Thanks for sharing Laurence!
deusx wrote on 5/11/2012, 2:15 AM
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.

A-Scott wrote on 5/11/2012, 12:23 PM
Long time Albuquerque user here too.
Laurence wrote on 5/11/2012, 1:23 PM
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!
PixelStuff wrote on 5/12/2012, 5:42 PM
I doubt they were paid to use the Canon cameras. They probably used the cameras because they worked, then were paid to talk about it.

Alternatively they were just so impressed with themselves for "breaking new ground" that they talk about it.

Then, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that at least some of the movie was shot at 2K or less resolution?
Gary James wrote on 5/13/2012, 7:23 AM
"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.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/13/2012, 2:19 PM
Then, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that at least some of the movie was shot at 2K or less resolution?

Yes, but the only reason I knew they would be using the cameras is because there was no way a full size camera would fit in those spots they were used in (IE in a flipping car, things like that).

Couldn't say I noticed the difference in footage though (I'd imagine someone was paid good $$ for that!). Very fun movie to watch. :)
Chienworks wrote on 5/13/2012, 8:55 PM
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.
mikelinton wrote on 5/14/2012, 2:15 PM
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.
Laurence wrote on 5/14/2012, 2:50 PM
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.
Terje wrote on 5/14/2012, 3:07 PM
>> Canon commercial, just like that House stunt

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.
farss wrote on 5/16/2012, 1:56 AM
Full story here.

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.

Bob.
deusx wrote on 5/16/2012, 5:50 AM
>>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.