Has anyone seen "28 days Later" directed by Danny Boyle

Laurence Maher · April 7th, 2005, 02:48 AM

By the way, was 28 days gross mentioned world wide gross or just u.s.

Mathieu Ghekiere · April 7th, 2005, 08:39 AM

Only the end was shot on 35mm, the epilogue with the plane.
If that helps you :-)

John Hudson · April 7th, 2005, 02:37 PM

I loved this film; and if I wanted to scrutinize the image quality; sure, I could say it is not impressive. But this is where "Content is King' comes into play; does it really matter? 5 Minutes into the film as the Monkeys attack and the young activist woman stares at the camera growling with red eyes and it doesnt matter cause I'm already hooked into the film.

Interesting point on the sound Lawrence; The Sound on this picture was excellent and AUDIO is something I concentrate on in my own attemts at filmmaking as I know all to well the importance.

I'll say one thing; when I found out it was shot on DV it reawakened my dream of filmmaking that I had almost completely given up on (I was 32 at the time). It also helped serve the revival of the undead genre; along with Resident Evil games of course.

The question at hand?

I don't think it was lame to shoot Mini DV on this picture. It does seem to work very well for the given subject matter. Sides; I might not have gotten back into filmmaking if it hadn't! ;) :O :)

Dylan Couper · April 7th, 2005, 07:56 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : By the way, was 28 days gross mentioned world wide gross or just u.s. -->>>

$35m international + $45m US, more or less. The link I posted above has more details.

K. Forman · April 7th, 2005, 08:01 PM

"Burt Wilson: I thought you said that if we destroyed the brain, it would die.
Frank: It worked in the movie.
Burt Wilson: Well it ain't working now Frank.
Freddy: You mean the movie lied?"

And what movie was this from?? And on a similar topic, I believe Shawn of the Dead was also shot on digital. Either way, it was great!

Dylan Couper · April 7th, 2005, 08:08 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : "Burt Wilson: I thought you said that if we destroyed the brain, it would die.
Frank: It worked in the movie.
Burt Wilson: Well it ain't working now Frank.
Freddy: You mean the movie lied?"

And what movie was this from?? And on a similar topic, I believe Shawn of the Dead was also shot on digital. Either way, it was great! -->>>

Oh too easy! Return Of The Living Dead. :)

K. Forman · April 7th, 2005, 08:12 PM

That just didn't sound familiar, and I'm pretty sure I saw it.

John Hudson · April 7th, 2005, 09:01 PM

LOL

One of my guilty pleasures.

SHAUN was shot Arri 35 from what I know?

Graeme Nattress · April 7th, 2005, 11:44 PM

What was wrong about 28days... being on DV was that they did it to intentionally make the picture quality bad. They say "edgy" - I just call a spade a spade (Anyone here from Yorkshire? - I'm not, but it's a very common saying there) and call it bad.

I've seen DV transferred to 35mm with the intention of making it look as good as possible, and it actually looks quite good. You do a number of things to help, and one of those is turn the sharpness down. In 28days... the sharpness was up full, making each and every pixel stand out on the cinema screen, and each and every character have a black or white halo of "unsharp mask" around them.

As someone who develops software to try and make DV look as good as possible, it pains me to see someone do everything possible to make DV look bad. 28days... was just the worst advert picture quality-wise for anyone wanting to make a DV feature.

Graeme

John Hudson · April 8th, 2005, 12:16 AM

I havent seen too many example of fine work theatrically when using DV; I am looking forward to NOVEMBER however.

Brandon Greenlee · April 8th, 2005, 12:18 PM

Thought this was interesting...

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Canon%20XL-1S

Barry Gribble · April 8th, 2005, 12:24 PM

I saw an interview when the movie came out... I am forgetting now if it was with the director or the DP, but one of them. They said (basically):

"We wanted the look of DV. We had the budget, we could have shot on film if we wanted it to look like film, but we didn't."

What could be lame about that?

Joshua Starnes · April 8th, 2005, 12:41 PM

To be fair, though, at the time they made the film there wasn't a lot known about the best way to go from DV to Film. They learned a lot of stuff as they went - they made some choices which, in hind sight weren't the best, but seemed like the best choices at the time.

On my 65" TV, the picture looks just fine. It looks like video, but it doesn't look bad. It's well lit, it's well composed, the camera movement is well designed. If it may not have the inherent picture quality of 35, it certainly doesn't suffer from it.

Graeme Nattress · April 8th, 2005, 12:59 PM

I'd completely disagree that people didn't know how to take DV to film!!! People have been taking SD PAL video to film for ages, especially commercials for cinemas and exactly the same rules apply about not applying objectionable sharpening in the SD video, but uprezzing to HD by a decent algorithm, and then, if necessary adding some sharpening. The look of that movie was intentionally bad.

Graeme

Laurence Maher · April 9th, 2005, 06:25 AM

Well it makes sense that it was the ending on 35mm. I DEFINITELY remember the scene coming up and going, "now this has to be a different format," and assumed 35. This was before I saw the commentary and it made me think that they didn't like the ending they origianaly have and re-shot a new one due to test audiences or something.

Barry . . .

You said that they said dv was the preferred look even though they admitted they had the budget to shoot on 35. Then you asked . . .

"What could be lame about that."

Answer:

They shot on dv when they had the budget for 35.

I'm with ya Graeme. I'm with ya.

April 7th, 2005, 07:56 PM	#169
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : By the way, was 28 days gross mentioned world wide gross or just u.s. -->>> $35m international + $45m US, more or less. The link I posted above has more details. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 7th, 2005, 08:01 PM	#170
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	"Burt Wilson: I thought you said that if we destroyed the brain, it would die. Frank: It worked in the movie. Burt Wilson: Well it ain't working now Frank. Freddy: You mean the movie lied?" And what movie was this from?? And on a similar topic, I believe Shawn of the Dead was also shot on digital. Either way, it was great! __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

April 7th, 2005, 08:08 PM	#171
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : "Burt Wilson: I thought you said that if we destroyed the brain, it would die. Frank: It worked in the movie. Burt Wilson: Well it ain't working now Frank. Freddy: You mean the movie lied?" And what movie was this from?? And on a similar topic, I believe Shawn of the Dead was also shot on digital. Either way, it was great! -->>> Oh too easy! Return Of The Living Dead. :) __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 7th, 2005, 08:12 PM	#172
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	That just didn't sound familiar, and I'm pretty sure I saw it. __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

April 7th, 2005, 11:44 PM	#174
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	What was wrong about 28days... being on DV was that they did it to intentionally make the picture quality bad. They say "edgy" - I just call a spade a spade (Anyone here from Yorkshire? - I'm not, but it's a very common saying there) and call it bad. I've seen DV transferred to 35mm with the intention of making it look as good as possible, and it actually looks quite good. You do a number of things to help, and one of those is turn the sharpness down. In 28days... the sharpness was up full, making each and every pixel stand out on the cinema screen, and each and every character have a black or white halo of "unsharp mask" around them. As someone who develops software to try and make DV look as good as possible, it pains me to see someone do everything possible to make DV look bad. 28days... was just the worst advert picture quality-wise for anyone wanting to make a DV feature. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

April 7th, 2005, 02:48 AM	#166
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	By the way, was 28 days gross mentioned world wide gross or just u.s.

April 7th, 2005, 08:39 AM	#167
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Only the end was shot on 35mm, the epilogue with the plane. If that helps you :-)

April 7th, 2005, 02:37 PM	#168
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	I loved this film; and if I wanted to scrutinize the image quality; sure, I could say it is not impressive. But this is where "Content is King' comes into play; does it really matter? 5 Minutes into the film as the Monkeys attack and the young activist woman stares at the camera growling with red eyes and it doesnt matter cause I'm already hooked into the film. Interesting point on the sound Lawrence; The Sound on this picture was excellent and AUDIO is something I concentrate on in my own attemts at filmmaking as I know all to well the importance. I'll say one thing; when I found out it was shot on DV it reawakened my dream of filmmaking that I had almost completely given up on (I was 32 at the time). It also helped serve the revival of the undead genre; along with Resident Evil games of course. The question at hand? I don't think it was lame to shoot Mini DV on this picture. It does seem to work very well for the given subject matter. Sides; I might not have gotten back into filmmaking if it hadn't! ;) :O :)

April 7th, 2005, 09:01 PM	#173
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	LOL One of my guilty pleasures. SHAUN was shot Arri 35 from what I know?

April 8th, 2005, 12:16 AM	#175
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	I havent seen too many example of fine work theatrically when using DV; I am looking forward to NOVEMBER however.

April 8th, 2005, 12:18 PM	#176
Brandon Greenlee Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: North Alabama Posts: 242	Thought this was interesting... http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Canon%20XL-1S __________________ Brandon Greenlee

April 8th, 2005, 12:24 PM	#177
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	I saw an interview when the movie came out... I am forgetting now if it was with the director or the DP, but one of them. They said (basically): "We wanted the look of DV. We had the budget, we could have shot on film if we wanted it to look like film, but we didn't." What could be lame about that? __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

April 8th, 2005, 12:41 PM	#178
Joshua Starnes Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 356	To be fair, though, at the time they made the film there wasn't a lot known about the best way to go from DV to Film. They learned a lot of stuff as they went - they made some choices which, in hind sight weren't the best, but seemed like the best choices at the time. On my 65" TV, the picture looks just fine. It looks like video, but it doesn't look bad. It's well lit, it's well composed, the camera movement is well designed. If it may not have the inherent picture quality of 35, it certainly doesn't suffer from it.

April 8th, 2005, 12:59 PM	#179
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	I'd completely disagree that people didn't know how to take DV to film!!! People have been taking SD PAL video to film for ages, especially commercials for cinemas and exactly the same rules apply about not applying objectionable sharpening in the SD video, but uprezzing to HD by a decent algorithm, and then, if necessary adding some sharpening. The look of that movie was intentionally bad. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

April 9th, 2005, 06:25 AM	#180
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	Well it makes sense that it was the ending on 35mm. I DEFINITELY remember the scene coming up and going, "now this has to be a different format," and assumed 35. This was before I saw the commentary and it made me think that they didn't like the ending they origianaly have and re-shot a new one due to test audiences or something. Barry . . . You said that they said dv was the preferred look even though they admitted they had the budget to shoot on 35. Then you asked . . . "What could be lame about that." Answer: They shot on dv when they had the budget for 35. I'm with ya Graeme. I'm with ya.