Following is more proof, actual footage of the DP and crew working with the XL1S!

Here is the link to the making of "28 Days Later"
http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/featurette_hi.html

Here's the preview: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/official_big.html

Here's one of the promos: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/official_big.html

Here's another video: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/seen_hi.html

Here's a spot: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/spot_hi.html

Check out all of the FILMMAKER INTERVIEWS here:
Danny Boyle: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/interviews/boyle_hi.html
Megan Burns: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/interviews/burns_hi.html
Christopher Eccleston: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/interviews/eccleston_hi.html
Brendon Gleeson: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/interviews/gleeson_hi.html
Nadmie Harris: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/interviews/harris_hi.html
Andrew Macdonald: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/interviews/macdonald_hi.html
Cillian Murphy: http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/video/interviews/murphy_hi.html

- don

Here's a review

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertainment/reviews.nsf/Movie/7815C1646DFE1D7486256D5100643F87?OpenDocument&Headline=+Post-apocalyptic+%2228+Days%22+adds+zombies+to+the+mix+

//Nonetheless, Boyle provides us with some subtextual meat - Selena and a rabid soldier who is kept chained for scientific observation are both black, whereas the malevolent major is distinctly Aryan - and the director's jittery, digital-video images amplify the fright factor. //

From the St. Louis Today review. Only in America will this subtext seem important. I highly doubt that Boyle or Garland was trying to play up any kind of race card. In Britain it's just more matter of fact that you might have a black leading lady.

More atypical is that the Naomie Harris character is the *leader* for most of the movie and the male protagonist is more the everyman who makes the stupid mistakes. That is a real reversal, not the race.

the director's jittery, digital-video images amplify the fright factor.

I have seen the 28 days later movie, I liked it, especially the "dead street-scenes". I watched it at vhs and I thought it looked very good. I have recently got the xm2 camera by the way, and so far I love it...

Anyone else see 28 Days Later? IMO it was truly brilliant. Not to mention disturbing & thought provoking. I only had 2 small problems with it.
(don't worry I won't spoil anything for anyone who hasn't seen it) There was a freeze frame shot which I felt did not work & I didn't like the ending. Otherwise it was amazing.
Anyone else with opinions??

Cool. How does it look blown up to 35mm on the big screen?

There's a slight loss of sharpness but it doesn't detract from the feel at all. It adds to it if anything. I don't know if the loss in sharpness/clarity was intentional or a result of the blowing up of the film though. It still looked better than 90% of the movies out there today. And the audio (both musical score & Sound FX) are perfect. Most of the film was apparently scored entirely with an electric guitar.

Not to start a war with you but I think the subtext idea has more "meat" to it especially when our hero comments on the way up the stairs to the apartment with the Xmas lights in the balcony: "what is it about tall blacks and shopping carts?" (where all those shopping carts are piled at the bottom of the stairwell)which apparently is some sort of wisecrack that Londoners would appreciate or so my buddy from London explained when we saw the movie on Friday.

Saw the movie on the big screen here in Toronto.

It was a bit soft - didn't have any issue with the DV look in terms of pixel noise (none apparent) - there is an interesting effect when video is transferred to film that daylight streaming through windows always seems blown out. The close up shot on our hero when he first opens his eye in the hospital 28 days later is case in point. The sequences shot at night or low light made the grade - the early scenes with a lot of long shots in daytime London looked more "video." It's ironic that the latter half of the film is mostly at night in darkness - the film looked better as it went on not so much because you got used to accepting DV but because it was more night interior close-up stuff vs. long, daytime exterior stuff.

When he wakes up at the end, that whole bit is 35mm film and you can tell (last 5 minutes) so maybe that's a trick to let audience think your DV movie looks better than it really does because of recency effect? Good psychology!

I liked the DV stuff - the 2nd half with them travelling in the taxi meeting the soldiers etc. - it all looked good. The night attacks looked awesome.

Later that night I saw Charlies Angels II digitally-projected and it got me thinking that 28 Days Later probably would have looked a bit better if not transferred to print....?

I was more entertained by 28 Days Later than I was by Matrix Reloaded (honest!) - there are moments in the film when you see the desolation and the carnage that you really believe this has actually happened - the subplot in the 2nd half is a great twist and the story is cool. Christopher Eccleston steals the show a bit as the army commander.

I understand now when Boyle says "It's not a zombie movie - it's a war movie."

Wow. I just caught up with this thread. Very interesting. We already know this film is making a huge buz, that it was shot on XL1 PALs in frame mode without the mini35, that it cost 15 million and that it was finished on Inferno stations. But how was it edited? In which system? FCP, Media Composer, Fire or what? Maybe Simmon could shime in again and tell us that.

Thanks

Hello,

I have heard this film shot on DV.. Have not got to see the film.. I am wondering if anyone has info on waht cameras were used to shoot the film ?? Any more info on the technical specs would be interting to hear..

mike

Short answer:
XL1S Pal with an adaptor and several prime lenses.

Plus a few million dollars.

Long answer is, read this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6445&perpage=20&highlight=28%20days%20later&pagenumber=3

or pick up the current issue of American Cinematographer which has a good article on it.

Mark,

I think the line you referred to was actually "What is it about Tower Blocks and shopping carts" not "Tall blacks" the leading characters Irish accent may have confused you with that one. :)

John.

I went and saw this film last Friday afternoon and was very entertained and enjoyed the structure.

FYI - - Filmmaker Magazine and American Cinematographer has articles posted about this film.

I think choosing to shoot this on the XL1 Pal was an excellent artistic choice. The images were excellent despite the blown whites and some blurry (fuzziness) in the close up shots.

The story's plan-of-action flight moved nicely from scene to scene. I was completely involved and not thinking, "Oh, thats video, or Oh, I would have done it that way..." How are these people going to get out of this base situation they are in?

I found the lighting design non-distracting and the speeding up film of the 'Infecteds' quite disturbing.

There were touching moments when the main male character visits his parents who committed suicide. Trying to comprehend the new world that he has awakened in. Brilliantly, broken at the emotional peak and peak audience involvement and concentration by an Infected. BOO!

I was excited to see the XL1 used in this way, with lense modifications, filters, gradients, and thoughtful effective lighting.

Cheers!

Derrick

Just to clarify, the setup that DP Anthony Dod Mantle used was the PAL version of the older XL1 (not the newer XL1S), the Optex B4-XL mount adaptor http://www.xl1s.com/b4xl.htm and some CANON EC HD prime lenses in the 6-40mm range and some CANON EJ HD prime lenses in the 50-150mm range.
http://www.zgc.com/html/hd_and_ec_prime_lenses.html
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/pdf/HD-EC%202002%20Brochure.pdf
http://www.bexel.com/images/BexelPriceList2003.pdf


During some sections of the film, there were as many as eight (8) PAL XL1's shooting at the same time!

So it is once again shown that while the XL1 is now in it's seventh (7th) year of success, even amidst all of the newer and more "feature" laden DV cameras now being introduced, the XL1 is still the filmmaker's de facto standard camera platform of choice for low cost moviemaking. Remember, as many pro photogs and DP's will tell you: "It's all about the glass!"

- don

I saw 28 Days Later yesterday at my local stadium-style theatre. Production values were great. The stylized technique used to show the "infecteds" was frightning (reminiscent of the monsters from "Jacob's Ladder"). I was disappointed with the DV to 35 millimeter blowup, however. I expected more. The unclear, blurry, less sharp screen resolution kinda gave me a headache. I think the picture quality would have faired much better if it was kept and projected digital. Mini DV just doesn't blow up well to 35 millimeter. But the movie was scary, the acting fabulous and all in all, inspiring to know that with a little creativity and tenacity, the XL1s in the proper hands can make great entertainment.

I really don't think he used dv for the purpose of competing with film. With a $15m budget, he could have gotten film. From what I read and hear, the dv look helped with the fright factor somehow.

Point taken.

Again, more evidence to support my theory that the type of camera used is one of the least important parts in making a good movie.

Went to see it this past weekend. I absolutely loved it. I think what I really liked about it is they didn't seem to try to make it look like "film." The filmmakers did a bang-up job of creating strong, compelling images, but they played to video's strengths resulting in a very unique look for the film.

My guess on the "sped up" look of the infected is a faster shutter speed. You can get a similar look on film with a short shutter (see the opening battle seen of "Gladiator"). It is de riguer for video cameras, but not so for film cameras which need a modified shutter. I think it also is what gave the crisp look of the rain in the scenes following Jim's escape.

I was interested to learn that the video was sent through a de-interlacing routine in post. This does make sense. I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I have never been all that impressed with the Frame mode on the XL1 - I have found it too stacatto especially if the camera pans or tilts. For my money I say go with a 1/30th shutter setting - but I digress.

Anyway, if you haven't seen "28 Days Later...", run, don't walk, to the cineplex. Even if you have no interest in digital filmmaking (not likely if you are reading this) it is still a tight, tense movie worthy of your time and attention. if you are interested in digital filmmaking - this is a tremendous example of what can be accomplished by knowing your equipment and working with instead of fighting against it's basic nature.

Catch you on the filp,
Justin

Saw it the other day... flesh-eating zombie flicks are perhaps my next-least favorite genre (vampire movies being number one on my hate list), but of all flesh-eating zombie flicks I've ever had to endure, this one gets my vote as head and shoulders above the rest. Very, very well done, and a great story to boot. I was let down by the look of the city scenes through DV, but the second half of the movie (after it got out of London) looked absolutely grand. Definitely goes onto my must-have list of DVD's. This is the one Canon should have promoted instead of Soderbergh's little home movie.

Chris, I'm with you all the way on those comments; just saw the film last night. I too avoid this genre as a rule, and generally dislike any sort of blood and gore films. But I was pleasantly surprised by how the film concentrated on the suspense and didn't dwell on the gore. It was more suggestive than explicit, often in dim lighting.

There did appear to be some sequences shot on film where the resolution was noticeably better, for example the ending sequence with the flyover and a few others that I can't put my finger on.

Most of the time the DV looked surprisingly good though and gave the movie a very distinctive "look". It obviously wasn't some little production shot on a beer budget though. But the quality of the DV blowup encouraged me that perhaps one really can shoot movies on DV and release on film.

Like you said, it reaffirmed what we already knew about DV's lack of resolution and its compression problems in scenes with lots of small detail. The cityscapes, outdoor scenes with trees, the wall with posters all had this problem. Also, does anyone know how they acheived the 16:9 (actually imdb says 1.85:1) aspect ratio? From what I've read here it was cropped. I suppose the additional resolution of PAL makes this more practical, but it looked damn good.

Thanks to everybody around here that made me aware of this gem! :-)

There's a really good article in American Cinematographer about this movie http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html which answers a number of the questions raised in this thread.

For example:
MPC believed the best results occurred with footage shot in the 4x3 aspect ratio but matted for 16x9 by the PAL XL1 (625 lines of resolution, 900,000 effective pixels over three 1/3" CCDs) in Frame Movie Mode, its pseudo-progressive-scan method, which is performed electronically within the camera.
----------------------
Dod Mantle helped matters by securing the higher-resolving Canon EC (6-40mm) and Canon EJ (50-150mm) prime lenses to the camera bodies with Optex adapters. Even though video-lens focal lengths are measured differently than those of 35mm lenses, traditional focus-wheel systems were mounted onto the rods for the assistants, who pulled by eye.
------------------------
Dod Mantle shot as wide open as possible with ND filters to minimize DV's seemingly infinite depth of field, and he underexposed by one to two stops to get more information on tape. (The XL1 has an exposure value of about 320 ASA without altering the shutter speed.) For daylight-exterior shots that featured prominent skies, which present difficulties in DV, grad filters were thrown into the mix.
------------------------
All footage was upconverted to D-1 tapes (125 in all) by Clear Ltd., who also handled the visual effects. D-1 provides YUV 4:4:2 uncompressed PAL images. (The PAL Canon XL1 is 4:2:0.) After editing and conforming, the seven D-1 masters were handed off to MPC, where Dod Mantle spent almost a month in tape-to-tape grading with colorist Jean Clement Sorret, who used a Pogle Platinum and a Cintel DSX with the PiXi secondary color corrector. The graded masters were captured onto a digital disk recorder for treatment on a Linux Shake workstation. Running through MPC's proprietary FilmTel software, the 16x9 images were enhanced and interpolated to 2K files, blown up slightly to 1.85:1, then recorded onto grain-free Kodak Vision Color Intermediate 5242 stock via the Arrilaser.

And then they started editing. Jeez! A hell of a lot of work.

Just returned from my second viewing tonight.

I really like the blend of social commentary/standard horror fare. I've always thought that the first real commercial DV feature was going to be in the horror genre (I'm not counting Blair Witch). Sure, we've all seen art-house fare in the past...but I'm thinking about something that reaches the multiplexes of middle america.

In addition to the horror stuff, I get a Lord of the Flies feeling from it...especially the last half and the very end. I liked the sequences in the house, very surreal with a gothic tinge...as well as frantic energy. It reminded me of the Twin Peaks red room stuff in a couple of places.

The print I saw tonight had a lot more artifacting (digital glitches, etc.) in it than the first one (a different theater in another part of the country)...which is weird. I was looking hard for film scenes integrated into the bulk of the film (excluding the end) but I don't think there are any.

Thankfully this piece of work will put to rest the old "how to I acheive that Saving Private Ryan effect on DV" MB topic. Sorry, that was a small attempt at humour on my part.

The audio work as well as the soundtrack/score are awesome as well. I still can't believe Godspeed You Black Emperor! authorized a piece of music for use in the film (in the beginning empty street sequences for those that saw it and remember).

The very end looked like film to me, too. You could see much more detail in the characters' faces, and everyone looked less fuzzy, crisper.

My girlfriend said the same about all the zombie scenes, that night stuff.


It makes sense in that I read Boyle shot it on DV for the convenience--clearing out large parts of London took less time when shooting video than it would have on film.

I still don't see why'd you mix the two, though. Pick one and stick with it.

28 days later had some of the most beautifull footage ive ever seen shot on film....so you must acknowledge my astonishment when i found out it was shot on DV.

I think this begs the question - what if 28 Days Later was shown digitally instead of transferred to film? How much degradation of DV happens in going to a final 35 mm print?

I'm really curious to see the DVD - I'm tempted to order from amazon.co.uk but I'd only be able to watch it on my computer DVD-ROM since it's Region 2... Can some UK members again comment on the DVD they're watching? PAL has more lines than NTSC so if it looks good on your tv's there, then the NTSC DVD would look amazing, no?

On DVD, does it look like it was shot on video?

Chris Hurd, I agree that the "worst" shots seemed to be of abandoned London in the beginning - it looks so video - but they do outdoor stuff later in the film (and I'm not talking about last 5 minutes shot on 35 mm) so I'm wondering if just because they were tight for time with the constraints or something? The part where they camp by the ruins with the horses in the country looks great - or maybe I was getting accustomed to the look...?

Most beautiful shot on film? But it wasn't shot on film.

If it was projected digitally it would not improve the picture since you can't improve on something that's not there. Most quality projectors are in the 1200pixel line range and the xl1 can't record that high.

There had to be an artistic reason for putting the last 5 minutes on film. To visually change the mood of the story.

Mark,

I've got the 28days later DVD and it doesn't look like it was shot on video. You can obviously see that the detail is down on a DVD from a 35mm feature but it definately looks damn good on my 42" plasma. The bigger the screen the less forgiving it tends to be on bad quality DVD's but 28days later really does look good.

John.

<<<-- Originally posted by Adam Lawrence : 28 days later had some of the most beautifull footage ive ever seen shot on film....so you must acknowledge my astonishment when i found out it was shot on DV. -->>>

Wow, that is a rather bold statement considering. Granted it had a great edgy feeling to it, which added to the film. As has been stated before by others, I agree that this is not my cup of tea. It was well worth seeing on many accounts. Just the simple fact that Boyle shot with a mixture of media really piqued my interest.

The story line also worked for me. It was kind of funny watching Gangs of New York this last weekend and seeing the "Dad" from 28 Days Later as a character in the movie. Kind of cool

yes bold i agree..

I first concluded that he worked with 16mm of some sort and
gave it that "washed out" grey-ish look. I thought that was the perfect visual undertone for the feel of the movie... later i found out it was shot on DV which explains the look of the movie. the footage reminds me of old Hitchcock films, well composed still shots with minimal color attributes. A single frame from any point within the film can make a beautiful peice of still photography.
It was definatly my "cup of tea"

28 days will be re-released at least here in ny with a new ending..is this the future for movies on the big screen what do you guys think....

The alternate ending is only 22 seconds long! Sort of like the trailer for Matrix 3 at the end of Matrix 2. Personally, I think they should have just kept it as a special feature on the DVD, there's not much to it other than a cool final shot.

OK, not to spoil it for anyone else, but what happens in the new ending? Does he wake up and realize that it was all only a dream and everything is back to normal? ;-)

I think this is becoming another method of extending the cash intake. Star Wars was re- released with new scenes and a remix. Lord of the Rings came out on DVD, then was re-released with all the extra scenes added. I guess the logic is, "Bleed the public for all it's worth... then re-release it and get some more!"

The second rule would be, "If it made money, make a sequel."

Well, that and a lot of people being dissatisfied with the original ending. Like me, for one.

They may also be seeing some data from people buying the import DVD. And reading the boards on the Internet.

Of course, 28 Days Later has been popping up very regularly on the download sites. It may even be marketing to get some of that lost dough back.

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : Well, that and a lot of people being dissatisfied with the original ending. Like me, for one. -->>>

I agree with Keith. It was a great flick up until the end.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : OK, not to spoil it for anyone else, but what happens in the new ending? Does he wake up and realize that it was all only a dream and everything is back to normal? ;-) -->>>

**** SPOILER ****

No, he dies in the hospital after the car crash. In the "happy ending" you see quick cuts of this scene mixed in with the 35mm stuff before he wakes up.

Fox Searchlight are the folks that brought you One Hour Photo and The Good Girl, so the decision to change the film's ending before its release must have come from the filmmakers themselves - Danny Boyle, Andrew MacDonald, and Alex Garland - and not studio pressure.

To fill in a little more information on the shoot itself, they used the Optex B4 to XL adapter to attach the Canon HiDef primes.

I saw 28 days after on DVD this weekend. Watching some of the deleted scenes, I noticed that they were all in 4:3. this leads to some interesting questions- well one interesting question, anyway.
Did they shoot the whole thing in 4:3 (as opposed to using an anamorphic adaptor) and then change it to 16:9 in post?

Anybody know?

BTW, The answer to the question may have a direct bearing on my next camera purchase.

Anyway, I really liked the movie, aside from some extreemly large plot holes, it was very well done and quite enjoyable.

MG

Because they didn't care one jot about picture quality. That's the only reason I can think of. Why else does it look like the sharpness is turned up full? We all know that when taking DV to film you turn the sharpness right down. We also know to shoot true 16x9 or with an anamorphic adapter to miximize picture quality.

I changed my search pameters and found a link to the article in American cinematographer than answers my questions.
Thanks...
MG

Perhaps you could post the link here? Thanks

The main emphasis on this thread is the cameras abilities, but you have to give kudos to the guys in post who made it look good and more filmic. If you watch the special features on the DVD, it shows some brief raw scenes, especially the scene where the head military guy is talking to the main character about the broadcast and what he expected. In that raw scene, which looks NOTHING like the final product, you really can tell it's video, and it looks interlaced to me.

I would really like to know more about what Simon and the guys in post did, rather than what lens was on every shot. After seeing that raw stuff, it's obvious that there's a lot more involved.

Great job!

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html

I am cyber-stupid, and couldn't find the listing in the faq about how to post a live link. Sorry.
Hope this helps.
MG

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Gibbons : I am cyber-stupid, and couldn't find the listing in the faq about how to post a live link. -->>>

That's not stupid! There's a short tutorial on using vB codes in your post to make clickable links and such. You can get to it using the "FAQ" button at the top right of your browser window. Then scroll down and click on the link "Are there any special codes". There you will find another link about vB code (yeah, it's pretty well buried ;-)

Or better yet, just click here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/misc.php?s=&action=bbcode)!

Yeah some of the raw footage found in the deleted scenes looks horrible.

Anybody know what they used for post?

Close to the beginning of this Thread, Simon said briefly that it was a uncompressed Flame/Inferno system that was used (from Discreet - very expensive). He also listed some of the filters they used.

Discreet is up there with the online Avid systems. Frame of reference, they use Flame/Inferno to edit the show CSI: Miami which is HD.