Crank 2:High Voltage

I know that this was completely filmed with xh a1's and what not. How exactly do they get regular dvtape and get it to become 35mm?
 
They digitize the HDV footage to Final Cut Pro in the ProRes422 codec, at the end of their edit, the export to an UNCOMPRESSED QUICKTIME file.

That file is then taken to a a facility that allows them to take the individual uncompressed frames and they then laser-scan each frame out via a LASER to a film negative. Then it's processed and the video footage is magically now on actual film. They used to use a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube), but the LASER is much more precise.

They do a similar process for DI which is DIGITAL INTERMEDIATE, meaning they take film negative, scan it at 2K (meaning 2,000x2,000 pixels per frame), then the same process applies as above, but in most cases (and definitely in the case of CRANK 1 and 2), they color corrected the footage before outputting it to film negative.
 
corrections?

Is it more expansive to shoot it digital then blow it up to 35mm or shoot it in 15mm?

Expansive, as in size? 16mm film has a lot more resolution (depending on the ASA rating) than DV, and in most cases HDV, but full uncompressed HD (Varicam and Panavised Sony FDW-900, plus the RED camera) is fairly equal.

Expensive? Depends on how you do it. If you're doing a DI (again, Digital Intermediate) shooting on film has the initial costs, then the identical costs, but you will have a much higher resolution image to play with in the DI with a lot more color and tonal range, nonetheless contrast range.

There is the option of a traditional "blow up" from 16mm to 35mm film which is substantially less expensive than a Digital Intermediate.
 
So anyone can film with a digitial camerea then blow itup? if thats so why do people bother with such expensive cameras and what not? Why not just go cheap then blow it up wouldnt that come out the same as buying a real 35mm camera?
 
It is mainly to do with the glass. An expensive camera can handle cine lenses whereas something lower budget needs something like a Redrock mini in order to use them.

Other reasons include the fact that shooting on celluloid will always look different to shooting digitally and people may want that cine feel.

Also 'blowing' something up to 35mm film resolution is going to degrade the quality I think. From what I have read the approximate resolution for 35mm film is higher than that of a 1080 digital image, so therefore the quality is not as good as recording straight to 35mm film. I may be wrong on this however.

The high end HD digital cameras such as the RED and Panavision, cannot be called cheaper than their 35mm equivilents. Yes film is expensive but these cameras shoot fully uncompressed and can exceed the resolution of 35mm film. The amount of P2 cards and other storage would no doubt cost a huge amount.

I am fairly sure the XH A1 cameras used for Crank 2 will have used some sort of adapter and tens of thousands of dollars worth of HD cine lenses. I saw a bundle of 5 cine primes for around $50,000.

I think the camera bodies do not really matter, its all in the glass :D
 
Last edited:
So anyone can film with a digitial camerea then blow itup? if thats so why do people bother with such expensive cameras and what not? Why not just go cheap then blow it up wouldnt that come out the same as buying a real 35mm camera?

Yes, anyone can, but NO you're talking about 10% of the resolution of film. Resolution means detail and color information. 35mm film is still quite unsurpassed in terms of those (for the time being). There is contrast range, details, color, depth of field, and tons of other factors that a Mini DV simply does NOT have.

So, in no way does shooting on digital come out the same. You can put digital on film, but that does not magically create good looking footage. The frame is 35mm versus about 1/4" for a CCD chip or CMOS sensor.

It is mainly to do with the glass. An expensive camera can handle cine lenses whereas something lower budget needs something like a Redrock mini in order to use them.

No, it is NOT "mainly" about the glass. That is only aesthetically a part of it concerning DEPTH OF FIELD and emulating that aspect of the film look, but does not in any way address the lack of resolution, frame size, contrast, etc. The glass of the lens does factor in on detail, but if the target is a little tiny CMOS or CCD chip you can't compensate for what isn't there.


The RED camera has a 35mm CMOS sensor and it uses film lenses. It still does not have the contrast or color range of film and it can record up to 4K (that's 4,000x4,000 pixels). There are similar cameras in the PANAVISION GENESIS camera and the SONY HDW-900 series of cameras). These are amazing cameras that do great images and THESE tend to look good when they are transferred to 35mm film because they have the pixels and picture information that when "blown up" to film provide the level of detail you need to project on a big screen at a movie theater.
 
Cost saving would be on the front end right Sonnyboo? If you shoot digital, then you can remain digital all the way through the editing process down to the point of having prints made for distribution. No getting dailys printed, no telecining, no film stock, etc...

That being said, if I had the budget I'd shoot film (even 16mm) over digital any day of the week. Digital has some great benefits, but it's not film, and it never will be.
 
Last edited:
Cost saving would be on the front end right Sonnyboo?


Yes, there is cost savings from not having to buy film,pay for processing, and then telecine and the eventual DI or negative matchback, but the product will NOT be as valuable to the marketplace in many regards.

In the grand scheme of things, the format is NOT the most expensive item in the budget, at least not of productions like something with Jason Statham. For the microbudget, film is generally not a consideration because of cost, but on real movies, the format can be anything as long as they can market it with name stars. With the budget of a feature film from Hollywood (or most countries), the cost of shooting film is a very minor aspect of the budget.

95% of indie films today will NEVER see a film print, nor do they need to.
 
So say i were to make a movie on a xh a1 with a few lenses and an adapter. Say i end up making a fanstastic film using digital, could I with money shoot it up to 35mm? Cause I wouldnt waist money on film unless I make a great film, so if I end up making a great film wouldnt i do the smart thing and turn it into 35mm?
 
Back
Top