Jump to content

28 days later was shot with this?????


Hrishikesh Jha

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

They sure did! Too bad the film looks like absolute garbage. They only used digital because they couldn't afford to rent 10 film cameras to do the coverage necessary for the big scenes. I personally think that excuse is crap, but meh what do I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The XL-1S was never a great camera. It used low resolution (270,000 pixel) imagers which were locked into interlaced scanning, so the camera was notorious for horrible interlacing and being very grainy even in the 30P mode. Canon did make an XL-2 which did 24p and had better quality imagers, but that was after 28 days later was made.

 

But yea, you'd be hard pressed to pay any money for a used LX-1S in todays market. Even the VERY exceptional Panasonic DVX100A, sells for a few hundred bux used and it blows the doors off anything Canon made during the DV days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-XL1-Digital-Camcorder-Kit/dp/B000050FA5

 

With a 500 dollar camera? That is all???

 

 

 

 

I believe the XL1 was around $3000USD or so when it came out.

 

Seriously, for most when the camera was new, not exactly pocket change for the indie filmmaker.

Edited by JD Hartman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still remember drooling over the XL-1 and GL-2 back in the day when I was using a sony Digital8 camera. Seeing 28 Days Later in theaters when it came out, I don't recall thinking anything of the image quality. Looking back at it now, yes, the quality is shite, but that may very well be because we've become accustomed to super high resolution imagery everywhere. In my opinion, it served the story, helping to create a bleak and distorted world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it the day it came out (of course some super-responsible parents brought a baby and sat right behind me...) and recall being impressed with the visual style of the film. At the time, I didn't know much about formats or cinematography as a whole, all I knew was that I liked it. Quality and resolution aside, Anthony Dod Mantle made some bold choices on that film, it definitely wouldn't have been as good with a DP that wasn't as willing to take risks. It also helped to have an original member of Dogma 95 at the helm of the visual department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You know I often always wonder why they didn't do 28days as the did 28 weeks, on S16mm-- though granted of course for some days you'd generally need a better op than a gaffer/producer as they mentioned in the ASC writeup, but I find it hard to believe they couldn't have had a few folks there ready to roll with deep enough DoF to not need ACs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the restrictions I don;t think they'd be using RED cameras, they're basically the same as 35mm in operating and set up terms

 

Andrj, please noyte that you have to use your full real name, it's one of the forum rukes. You'll have to contact Tim Tyler, the site's owner, to make the change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You know I often always wonder why they didn't do 28days as the did 28 weeks, on S16mm-- though granted of course for some days you'd generally need a better op than a gaffer/producer as they mentioned in the ASC writeup, but I find it hard to believe they couldn't have had a few folks there ready to roll with deep enough DoF to not need ACs.

In the documentary "Side By Side", Danny Boyle explained the decision was purely his interest in doing something different with smaller, more portable cameras. He said they looked at those bigger apocalyptic shots of London where they could only close down streets for a matter of minutes and realized video was going to be a lot easier. Plus, he felt the digital cameras ability to shoot dark scenes was better then the film stocks at the time. So he did have his reasons and they were logical. However if it were my film I would have shot all those scenes in 16mm and single camera stuff in 35 because there are no gains to shooting video when you're running one camera and have an 8 million dollar budget. The cost of stock, processing, transfer, camera rental, etc… it's not even 2% of the budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time a lot of big film directors felt left out while indie filmakers were exploring the possibilities of DV.

They wanted to have a go too which may seem silly now that shooting digital is so common but....

 

I think in the case of 28 days later the video sort of works because it is a zombie movie and it makes things more gritty.

 

It might have helped differentiate it a bit more from the original too.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
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...