Guest the love doc Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 i saw XLS1...as does wikipedia and other source however, all my film school friends say PD 150. who's right? also, were all the effects in 28 days later done in post production? is this the right forum to be posting this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Egan Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Canon. You can see it on the making of doc on the DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Otaviano Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted July 20, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted July 20, 2006 Specifically, they used the original XL-1 (not S) model, along with primarily the Canon 8-64mm zoom with an adaptor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddie bonfanti Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 exactly....kick ass lenses and adaptor. they wouldnve made it with just a random xl1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest david west Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 not sure, but if i remember correctly the xl1's that they used were the PAL version so they actually have a hgher res that the USA models.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 however, all my film school friends say PD 150. I used the Canon XL1 at undergraduate, and then later the PD150 for my MA. I much prefered the XL1, a much more confortable design - which has been given far more care and attention. For me the XL1 is a video-camera for movie making, the PD150 is just another video camera. The PD150 does have its advantages though, its smaller and lighter so you can appreciate its popularity with documentry filmmakers and 'on the road' productions (it was the camera for choice for Winterbottom's In This World). Also unlike the XL1 it has the options of miniDVCam recording, so if its been used by a number of others your not going to suffer from drop-out in the recording from their carelessness. Unfortunatly elelements of the design do let it down, the flip out screen and viewfinder can be misleading if used independently of each other, the focus ring goes on forever without stoping, and not to mention the XLR inputs are right down the front of the camera. And of course the XL1 gives you the option of attaching a variety of different lens set-ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Hanrahan Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 ...the XLR inputs are right down the front of the camera. I feel that the sound system on this camera is virtually unuseable. The poor placement of inputs, plastic housing for said inputs, as well as the terrible pre-amps suggest that the 150/170 is only good for recording scratch track. Unfotunately the sound system on the XL series isn't much better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 I feel that the sound system on this camera is virtually unuseable. The poor placement of inputs, plastic housing for said inputs, as well as the terrible pre-amps suggest that the 150/170 is only good for recording scratch track. Unfotunately the sound system on the XL series isn't much better... At least on the XL its at the back and relatively out of the way, with the PD150 its right near the lens, which makes accidents fatal - either ruining shots or loose connectors scratching the lens surface (if for some reason, like a wide angle attachment, you're not using a lens hood). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Hanrahan Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 I agree, the placement is way better on the XL -- as you mentioned earlier Canon's design was well thought out and actually innovative for the market it was in. I was really lamenting the overall state of sound recoding in the DV world. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember the XL's as not having the ability to record a line level signal. Regardless, I would take an XL2 over pretty much any DV camera (with the exception, of course, of the DVX). In fact, I own a GL2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bays Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 I don't think I've ever seen anything shot on the XL1S with it's native lense. Is it that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 there is something i often wondered about, it fits in this thread, so maybe i can get it answered here. what about dvd's of films that originated in digital, like 28days later? what does one get to see there, is the material taken from a digital master or telecined from a print? thanks in advance, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 12, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 12, 2006 there is something i often wondered about, it fits in this thread, so maybe i can get it answered here. what about dvd's of films that originated in digital, like 28days later? what does one get to see there, is the material taken from a digital master or telecined from a print? thanks in advance, For 24P HD movies, generally the DVD uses a downconversion from the HD master. For standard def DV movies, it just depends. If the movie was filmed-out and a 35mm master exists, then the filmmaker or studio may opt for a telecine transfer as a form of "film look" process or to use the original tape master and let it look more video-ish. I haven't seen many of these movies on DVD yet, but I suppose that since "28 Days Later" has some scenes in 35mm at the end, they may have decided to just telecine the whole 35mm master. I suppose a telecine transfer also has the effect of making PAL, NTSC, and HD versions more consistent with each other rather than deal with conversions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 what about dvd's of films that originated in digital, like 28days later? what does one get to see there,is the material taken from a digital master or telecined from a print? I think the NTSC DVD of 'In This World' was Xfered from a35mm I/P or I/N, wal the PAL DVD was Xfered from the video master. It was shot PAL DV. ---LV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Fowler Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 I spent a few days with Anthony, the DP for 28 days later. Nice guy. Liked him lots. He said that they had Canon change the ND 1 and 2 filters for diffusion, so they could flip up different level of diffusion. Kinda nifty. That's all I know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Grantham Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 In the AC article it implies they were happy with the results of shooting everything (except skies, those they composited) with the XL1. On the one hand this is encouraging, and on the other it could imply a limitation, as they say they used DV to impart a harsh look to the film. Anyone know of anything else released on 35mm from an XL? (by the way, David Lynch shot his upcoming "Inland Empire" on DV (a PD150). That's encouraging too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George White Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 On the one hand this is encouraging, and on the other it could imply a limitation, as they say they used DV to impart a harsh look to the film. Anyone know of anything else released on 35mm from an XL? Many -- One example: I've seen a couple of articles about the use of XL-2s for Wassup Rockers. On the one hand this is encouraging, and on the other it could imply a limitation, as they say they used DV to impart a harsh look to the film. Anyone know of anything else released on 35mm from an XL? In the last few months there have been multiple articles about the XL-2 use on Wassup Rockers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Hanrahan Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 David Lynch shot his upcoming "Inland Empire" on DV (a PD150). Supposedly the reason Lynch chose to do this was because he felt the softness of the blown-up image was comparable to the resolution of older stocks. I understand that there was a 35mm camera on standby though... as a prop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collier Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Speaking of using a filmout or a DV master for the DVD, I seam to remember 28days later had quite a bit of film grain from the print when I saw it. I would imagine they would want to preserve that on the DVD. It looked to me like they added a lot of grain. I am not quite sure, I watched the first half, and painstakingly ignored the last half. It wasnt the look that got me, I just didn't like the story. It seemed slow and to muted. The scene in the opening with the main charecter walking through a deserted london was awsome. Maybe I just got my hopes to high watching the first few minutes, the end seemed like a let-down. (and what was with the chick taking the drugs at the end? I mean I know the literal reason for it, but usually if you do something like that at the end of a film it serves some greater purpose. To me it almost seemed like it was for some kind of lame comic relief) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now