Jump to content

28 days later


Guest the love doc

Recommended Posts

Guest the love doc

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

Guest david west

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

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

...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

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

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

  • 3 weeks later...

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

  • Premium Member
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...