# Act Of Valor shot exclusively on 7D & 5DII



## lonelywhitelights (Feb 17, 2012)

really amazing looking production using DSLRs

http://youtu.be/TDWayZvNC54


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 17, 2012)

For the record, the tech specs on the IMDB page indicates they used Arriflex film cameras too. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/technical


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 18, 2012)

Here is more accurate information from a insider, and from Shane Himself.

75% 5D MK II, 25% film.

Canon long lenses, Zeiss wide lenses

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/02/26/zeiss-a-cinematic-journey-on-act-of-valor/


http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/02/26/zeiss-a-cinematic-journey-on-act-of-valor/


----------



## rmblack (Feb 18, 2012)

Definitely going to see this. Will it be in theaters?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 18, 2012)

rmblack said:


> Definitely going to see this. Will it be in theaters?



The link says wide release on president's day. This was a indie film picked up for a mere 13 million.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 18, 2012)

More reasons to go watch it when it comes out next week! (Here anyway...)

Was already planing to head to the premier =D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 18, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> More reasons to go watch it when it comes out next week! (Here anyway...)
> 
> Was already planing to head to the premier =D



Already happened, see the link above. The Seals parachuted down to the red carpet in front of the theatre.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 20, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > More reasons to go watch it when it comes out next week! (Here anyway...)
> ...



Yeah, that was your premier/worldwide premier, it only comes out Thursday here... we have our "premier" then


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 25, 2012)

Having watched the movie... If I hadn't read the article first I would have had no idea at ALL that it was shot on dSLRs... IQ was fantastic.

Movie was pretty good too, and included some Canon product placement... 20D, anybody? xD


----------



## SPG (Feb 25, 2012)

The 5D shots tended to look pretty good and blend in for the most part, but there were some that were obvious and IMO noticeably poor. Banding in the sky, jello effect, pixelation from the codec. When they were there, they were noticeable to the point that my wife commented on it too and she's not in this business at all. 
The movie itself? OMG it's awful! I get that the SEALS in the movie aren't actors, but then they shouldn't have tried to give them lines and make them try to act. It was unbearable to sit through their "acting" attempts.
I like action movies, I like war movies, but this one just wasn't a good movie at all. Go play Modern Warfare on Xbox instead. 
No offense to Shane Hurlbut as the camera work is fine, but the script and the acting just aren't good enough to carry anything more than a trailer.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 25, 2012)

SPG said:


> The 5D shots tended to look pretty good and blend in for the most part, but there were some that were obvious and IMO noticeably poor. Banding in the sky, jello effect, pixelation from the codec. When they were there, they were noticeable to the point that my wife commented on it too and she's not in this business at all.
> The movie itself? OMG it's awful! I get that the SEALS in the movie aren't actors, but then they shouldn't have tried to give them lines and make them try to act. It was unbearable to sit through their "acting" attempts.
> I like action movies, I like war movies, but this one just wasn't a good movie at all. Go play Modern Warfare on Xbox instead.
> No offense to Shane Hurlbut as the camera work is fine, but the script and the acting just aren't good enough to carry anything more than a trailer.



The critics are pretty down on the storyline, but it is going to make a lot of $$$ Low budget, high profit.

Its not my type of movie, so I won't be seeing it, but for a Indie film maker, its a big deal to get a film into wide distribution. The cost of advertising and distribution are likely much higher than the cost to make it.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 26, 2012)

I dunno though, it wasn't a great movie, thats for sure, but having just come off watching Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, I can say for sure the acting in Act of Valor is far superior to what was in Rider...


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 27, 2012)

Just because you didn't like it theres no use trying to bash others for liking it.

Could you tell which parts were shot on film and which parts were shot on the SLRs?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 27, 2012)

Apparently those who went this weekend liked it, it was #1 and ratings from movie goers were high. Its not likely to win an academy award, but movies are often popular and don't win awards, sometimes the theme is just right for the times.

In any event, it made more than it cost on just the first weekend, and few movies can say that.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Feb 27, 2012)

Plus, they used real bullets during the shooting sequences ... not sure if that is such a great idea (and I wonder if their insurance company knew about it lol!):

_It stars real, active-duty Navy SEALs, demonstrating (without compromising national security) how they do their jobs. The script is fictional and actors play the non-SEAL roles, but it’s all inspired by real incidents. And that’s live ammo in those weapons._ (Kansas CityStar)


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 27, 2012)

rocketdesigner said:


> Plus, they used real bullets during the shooting sequences ... not sure if that is such a great idea (and I wonder if their insurance company knew about it lol!):
> 
> _It stars real, active-duty Navy SEALs, demonstrating (without compromising national security) how they do their jobs. The script is fictional and actors play the non-SEAL roles, but it’s all inspired by real incidents. And that’s live ammo in those weapons._ (Kansas CityStar)



Well - they know now.

One thing about the not-compromising national security thing, one of my friends is a diver, and she commented on how the flippers used in movie were wrong - wrong type, inefficient, and inappropriate. Wonder if its due to this...


----------



## SPG (Feb 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Apparently those who went this weekend liked it, it was #1 and ratings from movie goers were high. Its not likely to win an academy award, but movies are often popular and don't win awards, sometimes the theme is just right for the times.
> 
> In any event, it made more than it cost on just the first weekend, and few movies can say that.



Judging by the appearance of the audience at the showing I went to, I'm not surprised that the people who went to see it liked it. A lot of guys with buzzcuts in that crowd. I'm glad they liked it, but that doesn't mean that the movie is actually good or will get the same review with a mass audience.
Also the live ammo part isn't for all the shots obviously, but more likely the training sequence and possibly some of the scenes where the trucks are getting shot up in the jungle. I wonder if it's cheaper to just lock down a camera and clear the set and really blast something instead of setting up dummy charges all over the place?
Again, the whole point of this movie to this forum is whether the 5D held up or not on the big screen. For the most part yes, but with caveats and anyone trying to do it in the future should be aware of those before they get too deep into the production. I'm glad that Shane Hurlbut and company did this, and from a technical perspective they knocked it out of the park, it's just the script and acting fell short of making this movie as good as it could have been.


----------



## cx1 (Feb 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Here is more accurate information from a insider, and from Shane Himself.
> 
> 75% 5D MK II, 25% film.
> 
> ...



Most of the pictures I see they are using Panavision lenses mounted on the Canons.

http://blog.planet5d.com/2012/02/act-of-valor-leap-of-faith/


----------



## funkboy (Feb 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The link says wide release on president's day. This was a indie film picked up for a mere 13 million.



Perhaps the lower budget was partially due to the Navy "lending" hardware to the film for promotional purposes.

I'd imagine the rental, insurance, & operation of all the military hardware in the movie (planes, guns, vehicles, etc) to a normal Hollywood production would come pretty close to 13 mil by itsself.

Apparently the acting budget wasn't too high either, judging from the reviews...


----------

