Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
  • 1 Post By P&Struefan
  • 1 Post By Ken Ross
  • 1 Post By P&Struefan
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 12 Old 12-06-2018, 02:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,696
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7028 Post(s)
Liked: 7657
The Possession of Hannah Grace

No, I didn't put this thread in the wrong section of AVS. So why am I bringing this movie to the attention of our little group? Well it was shot entirely, from start to finish, on a Sony A7Sii. I went to see it with a friend (my wife wanted no part in it) basically out of curiosity to see how it looked on the big screen.

I don't think anyone could have told that the film was shot on an inexpensive camera (for a Hollywood production) like the A7Sii. Of course some very expensive lenses were used in the production, but nonetheless the film was shot entirely on a camera with a FF sensor. The quality was excellent, including some wide screen cinematic shots of NYC, although most of the movie, as expected for this genre, utilized rather dark interior scenes.

Both my friend and I didn't think the movie was nearly as bad as some critics made it out to be.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/...he-sony-a7sii/
Ken Ross is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 Old 12-06-2018, 04:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 373 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Watched the trailer of this on my TV the other day and I agree it looked every bit as good as movies that are shot with real cinema cameras. However those anamorphic lenses they used to get 21:9 cinemascope aspect without cropping must have cost a pretty penny. Many times the camera I would guess. And as for the content, not my cup of tea.
P&Struefan is online now  
post #3 of 12 Old 12-06-2018, 11:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 5,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 738 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Well it was shot entirely, from start to finish, on a Sony A7Sii.
Ah, if it were shot on an iPhone... Although these movies exist too. Who cares, really. When it comes to real movies, not tourist-y shots and tests and "how can I use 480fps mode" gimmicks, then it is not about the camera. At all.

Quote:
“The Possession Of Hannah Grace” still had a budget of $9,500,000 USD (estimated), so they could have easily chosen to use any camera they wanted. Being a Sony picture, the company obviously had some say and influence over the equipment being used.
This is just a feature-length Sony ad.



Now this is a scary beast.

Last edited by Ungermann; 12-06-2018 at 11:06 PM.
Ungermann is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 12 Old 12-07-2018, 05:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,696
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7028 Post(s)
Liked: 7657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post
This is just a feature-length Sony ad.
I’d disagree with that. First, 99.999% of those that see this movie will be clueless as to what equipment was used in the production. If that’s ‘advertising’, then Sony needs to find a new Ad Agency. Second, I’ve seen countless Sony pictures and I can’t recall one where a Sony consumer camera was used and promoted as being an integral part of the production. Unless you happened to be aware of an obscure article like the one I linked, you wouldn’t be aware here either.

Sony has had unlimited opportunities to push their camera equipment in movies and, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t. Sure, we’ve seen ‘product placement’ used in movies and TV shows all the time from almost every manufacturer of every product you can think of. However this was very different, no evidence of a Sony camera anywhere.

No, rather I think was this was the choice of the Producer, a feasibility test, to see if he could achieve the same cinematic effect as high dollar Hollywood rigs, using a consumer camera. Having now seen the evidence, I’d say the answe was a most emphatic yes.

Now, how do I get hold of those lenses he used and people to carry them.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #5 of 12 Old 12-07-2018, 09:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 373 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Looking at the camera being buried away by the giant anamorphic zoom, rods and rails and God knows what else tethered to that setup I have a feeling all the producer or whoever that dictated the use of the camera for the production may not have actually wanted anything but the unique sensor of this camera. Full-frame look and having better light sensitivity than many Arri Alexa or Panavision super 35 cameras. He probably cared about nothing else. Poor AF? Don't give a damn. It would be all manual with all the needed focusing apparatus including a live focus puller. 4K 8-bit 4:2:0? Don't give a damn either as it would have all the recorders needed for proper RAW or ProRes recording. Bloated lens and all that stuff attached to the tiny camera? Doesn't matter as all that would be needed to keep the whole thing moving with Hollywood-caliber smoothness or remaining perfectly still would be provided within that $9.5 million budget. Would they have had any problem with the dimming, non-articulated 4K screen or eyecup-less viewfinder? Likely not as they should have all the monitors they ever needed.

At the end of the day it wouldn't have mattered what camera they used as long as the whole system was adequate to get the job done. The average viewer wouldn't notice. I myself couldn't have told either if they hadn't mentioned almost everywhere in the news about this unusual use of gear in the production.
Ungermann likes this.

Last edited by P&Struefan; 12-07-2018 at 09:34 PM.
P&Struefan is online now  
post #6 of 12 Old 12-07-2018, 11:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Roper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 4,471
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 421 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Sony has had unlimited opportunities to push their camera equipment in movies and, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t. Sure, we’ve seen ‘product placement’ used in movies and TV shows all the time from almost every manufacturer of every product you can think of. However this was very different, no evidence of a Sony camera anywhere.

No, rather I think was this was the choice of the Producer, a feasibility test, to see if he could achieve the same cinematic effect as high dollar Hollywood rigs, using a consumer camera. Having now seen the evidence, I’d say the answe was a most emphatic yes.
Skyfall is part of the Sony Pictures franchise but Deakins used the Arri Alexa so they must not be pushing product placement.

HDR Colorist and Conversions
INTO THE CAVE OF WONDERS
Directed by MANUEL BENITO DE VALLE Produced by PEDRO PABLO FIGUEROA
Cast MANUEL ANGEL REINA, CLAUDIA GARROTE
LOVETHEFRAME STORIES, SOUNDTRACKS AND FILMS
Tom Roper is offline  
post #7 of 12 Old 12-08-2018, 05:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,696
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7028 Post(s)
Liked: 7657
Quote:
Originally Posted by P&Struefan View Post
At the end of the day it wouldn't have mattered what camera they used as long as the whole system was adequate to get the job done.
That’s true, but you’ve now described every Hollywood production regardless of the camera used. So? The point is the A7Sii was the acquisition device, and that made the production truly unique. Of course all the other Hollywood paraphernalia necessary for production goes along with it, as it does with any camera used. Again, so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by P&Struefan View Post
I myself couldn't have told either if they hadn't mentioned almost everywhere in the news about this unusual use of gear in the production.
I don’t think this was mentioned “almost everywhere” in the news. Aside from some obscure techno-nerd articles that our group tends to see, I’d bet you almost anything that 99% of moviegoers had no clue about the equipment that was used. My friend had no idea what I was talking about when I explained what was done. He, like almost all moviegoers, didn’t care a bit.
jogiba likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #8 of 12 Old 12-12-2018, 12:18 AM
Preditor
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,485
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Sony has had unlimited opportunities to push their camera equipment in movies and, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t. Sure, we’ve seen ‘product placement’ used in movies and TV shows all the time from almost every manufacturer of every product you can think of. However this was very different, no evidence of a Sony camera anywhere.
Sony's consumer division will hype the A7 if the film is a success at trade events, and maybe targeted advertising in film magazines. But you're not going to pick up People or Time magazine or see a television ad hyping it. Wrong audience.

That said...

Sony does heavy Sony product placement in their films, albeit it's not as bad as it was when they acquired Sony Pictures (where "Last Action Hero" was less a movie and a giant commercial for every piece of Sony electronics..."synergy"). I worked at Sony from 91-2000, so have some familiarity with product placement there.

Panasonic did the same thing with Universal Pictures during that time (although I don't think it was as obvious as Sony).

I think, IIRC, there was an article that looked at Oscar nominated films last year, or maybe it was Emmy nominated films/shows (winners maybe?) and without a doubt, professional film makers, Arri Alexa was the top camera. Surprisingly Red cameras were the least used (I think after it was a tie between Sony and Canon)

-> No longer looking for Hi-Vision LDs <-

(I buried that format finally)

www.ispeedonthe405.com
Jet-X is offline  
post #9 of 12 Old 12-12-2018, 05:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,696
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7028 Post(s)
Liked: 7657
IMO the company that has the most prolific use of product placement is not Sony, but rather Apple. It’s hard to find a movie or TV show where the computer being used is not an Apple.

My point about the movie, The Possession of Hannah Grace and product placement, was that there was no evidence of a Sony camera or product anywhere in that particular movie. Has Sony used product placement in other movies? Of course, it’s a means of advertising. But nobody but nobody can touch Apple in that regard. Not even close.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #10 of 12 Old 12-12-2018, 09:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 5,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 738 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
But nobody but nobody can touch Apple in that regard. Not even close.
Ungermann is offline  
post #11 of 12 Old 12-13-2018, 07:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 373 Post(s)
Liked: 128
I don't know why this genre (horror, ghost) has been such a fertile ground for somebody experimenting with, or otherwise being forced financially to use, equipment with serious handicap for viewing on the big screens. The other two I have watched, The Blair Witch Project (shot with a combination of a Super 8 film and an analog tape palmcorder) and the original Paranormal Activity (shot with the Sony FX1 with a DoF adapter) are impressive in terms of plot and content. And it's obvious that in both cases it's the content that not only saved the movies but earned the producers critical acclaims as well as tons of money at the box office. Visually speaking both of those movies are crap and the average viewer could tell it unlike this Hannah Grace movie. However, once the sequels to both were made with many times the original's puny budgets and shot with proper cinematic gear hardly anyone thought they were even good anymore. They also earned much less at the box office. The originality and the surprises were gone.

More recently Steven Soderbergh tried experimenting with the iPhone with his feature length movie UNSANE and sure enough the visual even on my tablet screen is disappointing. I don't quite figure out why but this time unlike those two '80 and post millennium era horror movies, his iPhone videography is not even close to being worthy of the movie's excellent plot and acting. It just devalues the whole production. It could be a very good movie if only it had been shot with a proper camera.
markr041 likes this.
P&Struefan is online now  
post #12 of 12 Old 12-13-2018, 08:47 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,696
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7028 Post(s)
Liked: 7657
In the case of Hannah Grace though, the 'limitation' of the equipment used is really not visible. As I had originally said, I doubt that almost anyone would think that a sub-$2,500 camera was used (obviously exclusive of lenses) and the few city vistas that were shown, looked excellent on the big screen.
Ken Ross is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Camcorders



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off