28 Days Later

[Guy Meachin]

Purely out of curiosity, could someone explain why 28 Days Later and other films are shot on the XL1s and not a HD camera? Surely the quality of an HD is superior. Is it because the Mini35 cannot be connected to a HD camera?

 

Thanks

[Mitch Gross]

Good question. HD is superior in all ways with the simple exceptions of cheaper to shoot and physically smaller camera. In all other ways HD is most certainly vastly superior no matter which HD format you use (with the exception of the current JVC HDV camera). Instead of the Mini35 adaptor, there is a far superior Pro35 adaptor made for 2/3" B4 mount cameras, which is most professional video cameras including HD. But I don't believe this was available at the time they shot "28 Days Later." That movie used multiple cameras (sometimes six or seven I believe) to cover their scenes, especially the complicated ones and the one with limited shooting time (dawn in Picadilly Circus). So that would count towards a chunk of budget as well. But the budget scale was such that the movie could easily have been shot on 35mm film. In fact the production spent a fortune in video posting to massage the image up to acceptable quality and match footage shot to shot. That plus the burn back to 35mm film negated any savings from shooting in the format.

 

I guess some people like a challenge.

[harryprayiv]

I think they did really well. I really enjoyed the cinematography in 28 Days Later. However, I didn't get to see it projected in the theater, so I don't know what it would've looked like.

[Guy Meachin]

Just spoke to a freind who asked Mr Boyle my question as well, apparently it wasn't an issue of quality but he wanted to make the film using the camera most filmmakers can get their hands on to prove anyone can make a quality film with the right knowledge and determination. Those Mini35's ain't cheap though!

[Alex Ellerman]

You have to take into account that this was an aesthetic choice as well... the bleak future of the film was forecast by the bleak look of the camera... in that sense, it works really well... this is underscored by the decision to use film for the ending to give you a subconscious feeling that things are looking up.

 

The practical nature of the shoot (5 minutes and one take to get a multi camera shot on a crowded public place in London) also dictated the camera choice, as well as the ability to get really good glass on the XL1.

 

I love this movie. A great example of letting the film dictate the technology used.

 

theturnaround

[Guy Meachin]

I enjoyed 28 Days later, I think it looks fantastic with some great ideas. However I think it dips a bit at the end, though I havn't seen the alternate ending. I do think the acting is tres poor, but Brendan Gleeson was good.

[DanStewart]

I saw this movie on the Odeon leciester square for about 12-bloody-quid and it looked @!*&ing terrible. Mr Boyle's explanation is ridiculous - mini DV we've all got, the truckload of lights to make it look half good and the hundred grand in post work for the other half we haven't. Kodak should show this film on big screens to put the wind up the video crowd!

 

Actually my bile should be more directed at the UK marketing campaign (which avoided any images from the movie) and my own masochistic tendency to avoid all information regarding films I know I'm going to see (you'd have thought Episode 1 would have taught me that lesson).

 

Incidently they didn't use the mini 35, they fitted PL lenses straight to the camera.

[Luke Prendergast]

I saw this on the big screen just to see what DV could look like, and it was terrible. Can't imagine how bad it must have been before the post work. Walking through the empty London streets in a wide shot, Brendan Gleeson's hospital-gowned character just looked like a blob of turquoise. And the explosions had zero detail left after clipping 4 stops off the top. Dark, monochromatic scenes in the rain looked marvellous though, when the compression wasn't working as hard. In SD a 50Mb codec like Digibeta, DVCPRO50 or Digital-S would look quite reasonable I expect. The spatial resolution didn't seem to be the problem, more that it was sardined into 25Mb/S.

Another DV film I saw projected on film was Dancer In The Dark (DSR5xx and PD100s), quite a step up from 28 Days Later quality-wise, but there were still distracting compression artefacts.

Frankly I'd rather shoot SuperVHS or Hi8 if I was transferrring direct to a non-linear editor. A small lines-of-resolution deficit but no block noise and motion issues, no posterising of subtle gradations. SVHS has a higher luminance bandwidth than BetaSP too(!) but quite a bit less signal to noise. Not trying to sell you on these formats, but DV ain't all that.

[napali2]

I saw this on the big screen just to see what DV could look like, and it was terrible. Can't imagine how bad it must have been before the post work.

Last night on HBO I finally got to see 28 Days Later. On the small screen it looked quite nice for mini dv. I was amazed actually.

 

Were these awful theatre experiences digital or film projected. How many of you feel the terrible projections were due to the limitations of mini dv or the result of pop out multiplex prints?

 

Probably both I 'm sure.

 

I can't beleive that Mr. Boyle would stand up after a projected test screening and say, "See I told you. Doesn't it look wonderful."

 

 

Brian Bleak

[napali2]

I saw this on the big screen just to see what DV could look like, and it was terrible. Can't imagine how bad it must have been before the post work.

Last night on HBO I finally got to see 28 Days Later. On the small screen it looked quite nice for mini dv. I was amazed actually.

 

Were these awful theatre experiences digital or film projected. How many of you feel the terrible projections were due to the limitations of mini dv or the result of pop out multiplex prints?

 

Probably both I 'm sure.

 

I can't beleive that Mr. Boyle would stand up after a projected test screening and say, "See I told you. Doesn't it look wonderful."

 

 

Brian Bleak

[Mitch Gross]

I saw it at the AMC 25 Times Square theaters where I have always enjoyed excellent projection. They were one of the first houses in the world to install a Christie digital projector, although this particular movie I saw on 35mm projection. I thought it looked like, well it looked like standard crappy XL-1 MiniDV. I also saw lots of mismatched shots that they obviously tried to fix in post with mixed results. So while it didn't look like complete garbage, it certainly didn't look very good at all.

[Michael Nash]

Incidently they didn't use the mini 35, they fitted PL lenses straight to the camera.

I believe it was actually Canon 2/3" video lenses, with an Optex adapter. But still no Mini35.

[Mitch Gross]

Incidently they didn't use the mini 35, they fitted PL lenses straight to the camera.

I believe it was actually Canon 2/3" video lenses, with an Optex adapter. But still no Mini35.

Actually I recall reading about both. Perhaps this was because of the multiple cameras employed. Still for the concept of "shoot with the materials available to any person" it seems a bit of a cheat. As does using half a dozen cameras and getting scores or pretty PAs to hold back traffic so you can empty the streets of downtown London.

[Alvin Pingol]

...though I havn't seen the alternate ending.

Don't worry, you're not missing much. ;)

 

I'm a bit angry as I did not get to see this movie in theatres as I had originally planned, but rather on DVD. It didn't look too terrible, but of course, I was watching a PAL --> Film --> NTSC transfer.

 

I thought the film was "interesting." Dying to know what it could've looked like in anamorphic 35! :rolleyes:

[Rob Belics]

It was on HBO a couple of days ago. I don't like zombie movies so I found it quite a bore.

[Matt Wells]

...though I havn't seen the alternate ending.

Don't worry, you're not missing much. ;)

 

I'm a bit angry as I did not get to see this movie in theatres as I had originally planned, but rather on DVD. It didn't look too terrible, but of course, I was watching a PAL --> Film --> NTSC transfer.

 

I thought the film was "interesting." Dying to know what it could've looked like in anamorphic 35! :rolleyes:

When I saw the DVD I watched the alternate ending - and it looked identical to the original ending!

 

The alternative ending that was not alternative. I started to wonder whether it was like one of those 'spot the difference' puzzles. Mabey one of the actors had a different shoe on of something.

 

Was I missing something?

 

Matt

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I thought the film was "interesting." Dying to know what it could've looked like in

> anamorphic 35

 

Well, you'd have been able to see just how feeble and cheap-looking London actually is!

 

Phil

[harryprayiv]

...though I havn't seen the alternate ending.

Don't worry, you're not missing much. ;)

 

I'm a bit angry as I did not get to see this movie in theatres as I had originally planned, but rather on DVD. It didn't look too terrible, but of course, I was watching a PAL --> Film --> NTSC transfer.

 

I thought the film was "interesting." Dying to know what it could've looked like in anamorphic 35! :rolleyes:

When I saw the DVD I watched the alternate ending - and it looked identical to the original ending!

 

The alternative ending that was not alternative. I started to wonder whether it was like one of those 'spot the difference' puzzles. Mabey one of the actors had a different shoe on of something.

 

Was I missing something?

 

Matt

Hmmmm...the alternate endings are VERY different from the ending they chose, so maybe you thought you were watching an alternate ending and weren't actually.

[Alvin Pingol]

If I recall correctly, the only difference in the alternate ending is that the male actor (can't remember his name) died in the hospital and isn't there when the jets fly over and find the two girls.

 

The alternative ending was the one that didn't get past storyboards, right? Now that was interesting.

[Marty Hamrick]

I saw this movie on the Odeon leciester square for about 12-bloody-quid and it looked @!*&ing terrible.

I ran this movie and from the booth I had a difficult time getting it focused.It never looked sharp to me and it was very dim and lifeless on the big screen.When I saw it on DVD it was acceptible,but I'm still not convinved that this is any way to make a movie.

Marty

[Christopher Osborn]

Theturnaround is absolutely right, it was a choice of aesthetics. The film dictated the mediums used. Its not always about getting the best image, but getting the best type of image to tell your story. I thought it was a great choice, and a courageous one at that. He had a lot of people going against him on that miniDV move, but he stuck to his guns. I know a lot of people who love the look of 8mm, they don't pick it apart because of the lack of resolution, but embrace it for it's look. I love cinematography and crave the highest resolution i can get, but its important to keep in mind what its all about in the end, telling a story.

I saw the movie in theatres. I was a bit disappointed with the miniDV in the beginning with some of the wide london landscape shots, but as the story took off, i really got a feel for what Boyle was trying to do. I thought it was great.

;)

[Matt Wells]

Hmmmm...the alternate endings are VERY different from the ending they chose, so maybe you thought you were watching an alternate ending and weren't actually.

There must have been something wrong with the DVD.

 

I have to say I did like the concept of the film, but am sorry I did not get to see it on the big screen.

 

Rather like I would live to see Natural Born Killers on a big screen to have a look at the super8 footage. It looks superb on the DVD - beautiful, and works so well for the story.

 

Matt