16mm on the big screen - 28 Weeks Later

Adam Thompson · May 12, 2007

I might be repeating myself here after seeing The Last King of Scotland a short while back and I know I'm starting to sound like I'm pro 16mm but - I just got back from 28 Weeks later and wow, I was impressed all over again. The film was shot on 16mm 7201 (50D) and 7205 (250D) mostly. A few efffect shots and day-for-night scenes were on 35mm. They used some of the new 6 and 8mm Arri "Ultra 16" lenses said the ASC article, and you can see where... it was quite cool. Just don't sit too close to the screen without some meds!

Enrique Chediak, the DP, said he overexposed the stocks 1/3. Says they tested HD and 35mm but thought 16mm was the best path to go. You can see, near the beginning of the movie, where he used the Aaton Minima in some very hectic handheld shots that would be tough to do another way since that cam is about the size of a DVX100. You can tell he held it at arms length while often, he says, not looking through a viewfinder.

I would swear it was 35mm much of the time if I hadn't read that it wasn't. The choices were perfect for this film, I think, and far better than the first one in all ways. 16mm is once again showing off it's modern day ability to carry a feature and surely in this case, was the best choice they could have gone with.

The only thing I'm wondering, as with a couple other 16mm films recently, is why they wouldn't use Aaton Prods instead of the Arri SR's? The SR is not a pleasure to handhold compared to the Prods and this film had a lot of hand work. Any ideas?

Martin Yernazian · May 12, 2007

Really? I thought this movie was shot on 35mm completely?

wow... I should check it out

Best

Pierre Vitoumane · May 13, 2007

and I know I'm starting to sound like I'm pro 16mm

whats wrong with being "pro 16mm" ? I'd rather shoot 16 than video any day.

They probably went with the SRs vs the Prod because of the high speed capabilities (especially the SR HS)

Chris Keth · May 13, 2007

Really? I thought this movie was shot on 35mm completely?
wow... I should check it out

Best

AC says it was all S16 except for day for night scenes (35 to reduce graininess), a scene they play in infrared (some Sony HD camera altered to pick up the IR spectrum), and effects shots (35 for clean comps)

Adam Thompson · May 13, 2007

Really? I thought this movie was shot on 35mm completely?
wow... I should check it out

Best

Yeah, you have to check it out! I think anyone on here would be pleased or surprised. (except for your average digital pusher) ;)

Adam Thompson · May 13, 2007

and I know I'm starting to sound like I'm pro 16mm
whats wrong with being "pro 16mm" ? I'd rather shoot 16 than video any day.

They probably went with the SRs vs the Prod because of the high speed capabilities (especially the SR HS)

Nothing is wrong with it of course! I just didn't want to sound like a broken record but I keep being amazed and I'm involved in a couple of 16mm projects so I guess it's encouraging too. Maybe I'm showing childish excitement.

Well I don't recall much slow-mo work so that's why I was wondering. I think they used the Minima a lot though. Even if I had some slow shots that were needed, I'd just use the SR that I'd be keeping as a back-up for that stuff. There must be some other reason too. ? The Prod's (or the new Xtera) seem to me to be the best 16mm cam out there by far. I'm hoping to use one more extensively soon.

Robert Glenn · May 13, 2007

does anybody know what lenses were used?

Zachary Vex · May 13, 2007

The article says Chediak is a devotee of Cooke S4 primes but decided to use Arri lenses for the S16 portions of the film because they had just introduced the 6mm, 8mm and 12mm wide-angle lenses.

Matt Wells · May 14, 2007

I'm really interested to see this film - when I saw the ads around for it I was wondering if they woudl have gone digitally again or gone for film - I'm can't wait to see it.

By the way - is the film any good?