28 Weeks Later

Mark Bournes · May 21st, 2007, 09:40 AM

I thought it was on the same level as the 1st one. I loved both of them. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD. This is how horror movies should be made. I particularily liked the scene in the farm house with the family when he leaves his wife, that was brilliantly edited and paced. I know I was ready to start running... great movie all around a must see..

Jeremy Teman · May 21st, 2007, 01:47 PM

Ok, so what do some of you think about the fact that they announced they're going to make a third. Personally, I think if they do it and its called '28 months later' there would have already been way too much damage to the world by then. Almost two and a half years...hmm. Maybe they should call it 28 seconds later, and start where they left off if they actually go ahead with this.

Mark Bournes · May 21st, 2007, 02:03 PM

Totally agree, it shoud be 28 seconds later, and finish where they left off, I loved the last scene and because of that it should be the 1st shot in the 3rd one.

Sean Skube · May 21st, 2007, 03:00 PM

28 seconds? hmm. Maybe just call it "Another 28 Days Later"? Since it's only supposed to be 28 days after they took off? Or maybe, "4 Weeks Later"? :)
I gotta say, this movie was amazingly good, especially for a sequel. I loved it. Had me gripping the seat like I did the first time I saw Die Hard.

Chris C. Collins · May 22nd, 2007, 08:35 PM

I love this movie.

It just had such a disaster like feel to it. The way it was shot, the soundtrack, the cinematography was all great! The first zombie scene just had me begging for more, a real attention catcher and great opening sequence. I'm talking about the first zombie break-in and the field shots.

I just loved it so much, absolutely stunning experience and I actually look forward to "28 Months Later." Even if the title is as predictable as clockwork.

Alan James · May 28th, 2007, 01:02 AM

This isn’t the best place for this question but I’ll ask anyways.

While watching the movie I noticed the one scene involving the survivors running out of the city and being stopped by a sniper on a roof look like it was shot during the day. That section was obviously digital negative because it had no grain. So I was thinking they turned it into night time in the computer. Sure enough when I watched the trailer again it showed the raw shots with no color correction, or any effects on them. If anyone has noticed this can you tell me how they did it? It looked like more then just an alteration of the levels.

The original shots in the trailer start at 1:44 seconds in and go up to 1:48 seconds.

For those who brought up the partially completed visual effects, well thats just all they were. They have obviously been finished in the final print.

On a side note I thought the movie was GREAT and very suspenseful. It was a bit to shaky for my tastes and a few more steadicam and a few less handheld shots would have done well, but over all very good.

Jeremy Teman · May 29th, 2007, 05:08 AM

I don't remember that shot exactly, but my guess is that they brought down the levels then lowered the staturation and gave it a bluish tint or adjusted the white balance.

Here is a quick simple example.. http://www.aptosproductions.com/28example.html

One thing though, on some of the shots where you can see the sky, they may have masked out that area and changed it to black.

Alan James · May 29th, 2007, 09:35 AM

Yeah thats basically what they did, just brought the while level down a lot more. They did something else I'm just not sure what it was. Some shots had sky replacement. Thanx though

Jeremy Teman · May 29th, 2007, 09:45 AM

Actually, no. You want to bring down the blacks and mids and leave the whites where they are. Bringing down the whites would have the same effect as a fade to black.

Sean Skube · May 29th, 2007, 12:06 PM

I think the overall picture was darker, with less detectable color differences. Since the power was out, and the only light source was supposed to be the night sky.
I think it looked more like this.
And I also think they did sky replacements and matte paintings to help sell the illusion. Honestly, I didn't realize it until after the movie, when I remembered that "be my shadow" shot from the trailer was in the day time. I was completely engrossed in the movie.

Jeremy Teman · May 29th, 2007, 04:11 PM

Yeah, you're right. The power was out, so it would have been a less highlights for sure.

Alan James · May 29th, 2007, 04:18 PM

Yeah it was really convincing and well done. The only reason I noticed was because the previous scene was shot with a high ASA/ISO (whatever we call it now) film stock and had loads of grain. When film is digitized to add effects more times then not they remove the grain, and in this case they didn’t add it back.

So I didn’t notice the effect, I noticed the higher resolution digital print and lack of grain then thought… “Hey that looks like it was shot at day time.”

Marcus Marchesseault · May 29th, 2007, 06:56 PM

Are film prints done on different stock? I noticed a lot of grain when I watched it last night.

Overall, I liked the movie. I have two complaints; one already mentioned was "shaky cam". I don't like when it looks like a gorilla is abusing the camera AND the editor is doing .3 second cuts. It was just too much in a couple of scenes. They did such a good job on the action in most scenes that even the really wide shots had impact so I don't know why they resorted to parlor tricks. A couple of times I felt like reaching out and grabbing the camera operator by the back of the shirt and telling him to stand more than six inches from his subject and to tie his shoelaces so he stops tripping. I know this is part of the style of the movie and I mostly liked it, but a couple of times it got silly. Camera movements and guitar amplifiers shouldn't go past eleven.

The other thing that bothered me as a movie watcher (and not as a picky wannabee filmmaker) was the always absurd helicopter blades slicing up the bad guys scene. It was done in a James Bond movie and it looked horrible. I've heard it was also done recently in "Grindhouse" which was INTENDED to be campy. 28 Weeks Later was the exact opposite of campy in every single scene that this shot really jumped out as ridiculous. It seems hard to make zombie movies not seem campy and the producers of 28 Days/Weeks Later accomplished a truly disturbing and seemingly realistic scenario that the campy action shot really didn't fit.

Those two little factors jumped out as bad, but there were some great shots that should be studied. I won't go into the good shots as I think people should watch this movie without being spoiled. For those of you that saw it, the scene where husband and wife are reunited seems like it should go into the horror movie hall of fame.

This movie combined the gruesome visuals with disturbing emotional situations brilliantly. Also, unlike most horror movies, the plot devices (how the infection came about) were well thought and fit into the themes nicely.

I also liked that it wasn't entirely predictable. Yes, the trailers show that Code Red is carried out, but everything behind it wasn't spoiled in advance. One thing I did know for sure in advance was that Dad's key card would help get them out of trouble.

Alan James · May 30th, 2007, 01:06 AM

This isnt the best place to talk about film stocks and digital prints but hey, what the heck you asked about it. There are probably better threads out there. Anyways the movie was mostly shot on super16mm but was also shot on super 35, normal 35mm and HDV. Most people scan the film in and then make digital prints. This movie was pretty dark so I assume they used a high ASA film, which has loads of grain. If that film is super 16mm blown up to 35mm, the grain will be about 5 times larger then they would if it were 35mm. Think of taking SD video and blowing it up to HD. That’s what blowing up 16mm to 35mm is essentially like. Grain is more noticeable. When visual effects are added to movies shot on film, the grain has to be removed, then added back in. I have noticed that some companies don’t add grain back into the digital negative, cause honestly it looks better, but it doesn’t match the other print.

Anyways the reason the grain was noticeable in this movie was because it was shot with a high ASA 16mm film stock.

I agree about the shaky camera, but I heard the monkeys from the first movie were the operators for this movie. That’s probably why it was so bad, I mean after all you can’t train rage infected monkeys to hold cameras steady really. They kinda do what they want….

May 21st, 2007, 09:40 AM	#16
Mark Bournes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 565	I thought it was on the same level as the 1st one. I loved both of them. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD. This is how horror movies should be made. I particularily liked the scene in the farm house with the family when he leaves his wife, that was brilliantly edited and paced. I know I was ready to start running... great movie all around a must see.. __________________ Mark www.sharkvp.com

May 21st, 2007, 02:03 PM	#18
Mark Bournes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 565	Totally agree, it shoud be 28 seconds later, and finish where they left off, I loved the last scene and because of that it should be the 1st shot in the 3rd one. __________________ Mark www.sharkvp.com

May 29th, 2007, 05:08 AM	#22
Jeremy Teman Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: CA Posts: 41	I don't remember that shot exactly, but my guess is that they brought down the levels then lowered the staturation and gave it a bluish tint or adjusted the white balance. Here is a quick simple example.. http://www.aptosproductions.com/28example.html One thing though, on some of the shots where you can see the sky, they may have masked out that area and changed it to black. Last edited by Jeremy Teman; May 29th, 2007 at 05:47 AM.

May 29th, 2007, 12:06 PM	#25
Sean Skube Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 156	I think the overall picture was darker, with less detectable color differences. Since the power was out, and the only light source was supposed to be the night sky. I think it looked more like this. And I also think they did sky replacements and matte paintings to help sell the illusion. Honestly, I didn't realize it until after the movie, when I remembered that "be my shadow" shot from the trailer was in the day time. I was completely engrossed in the movie. Attached Thumbnails

May 21st, 2007, 01:47 PM	#17
Jeremy Teman Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: CA Posts: 41	Ok, so what do some of you think about the fact that they announced they're going to make a third. Personally, I think if they do it and its called '28 months later' there would have already been way too much damage to the world by then. Almost two and a half years...hmm. Maybe they should call it 28 seconds later, and start where they left off if they actually go ahead with this.

May 21st, 2007, 03:00 PM	#19
Sean Skube Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 156	28 seconds? hmm. Maybe just call it "Another 28 Days Later"? Since it's only supposed to be 28 days after they took off? Or maybe, "4 Weeks Later"? :) I gotta say, this movie was amazingly good, especially for a sequel. I loved it. Had me gripping the seat like I did the first time I saw Die Hard.

May 22nd, 2007, 08:35 PM	#20
Chris C. Collins Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Muskegon, Michigan Posts: 75	I love this movie. It just had such a disaster like feel to it. The way it was shot, the soundtrack, the cinematography was all great! The first zombie scene just had me begging for more, a real attention catcher and great opening sequence. I'm talking about the first zombie break-in and the field shots. I just loved it so much, absolutely stunning experience and I actually look forward to "28 Months Later." Even if the title is as predictable as clockwork.

May 28th, 2007, 01:02 AM	#21
Alan James Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 261	This isn’t the best place for this question but I’ll ask anyways. While watching the movie I noticed the one scene involving the survivors running out of the city and being stopped by a sniper on a roof look like it was shot during the day. That section was obviously digital negative because it had no grain. So I was thinking they turned it into night time in the computer. Sure enough when I watched the trailer again it showed the raw shots with no color correction, or any effects on them. If anyone has noticed this can you tell me how they did it? It looked like more then just an alteration of the levels. The original shots in the trailer start at 1:44 seconds in and go up to 1:48 seconds. For those who brought up the partially completed visual effects, well thats just all they were. They have obviously been finished in the final print. On a side note I thought the movie was GREAT and very suspenseful. It was a bit to shaky for my tastes and a few more steadicam and a few less handheld shots would have done well, but over all very good.

May 29th, 2007, 09:35 AM	#23
Alan James Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 261	Yeah thats basically what they did, just brought the while level down a lot more. They did something else I'm just not sure what it was. Some shots had sky replacement. Thanx though

May 29th, 2007, 09:45 AM	#24
Jeremy Teman Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: CA Posts: 41	Actually, no. You want to bring down the blacks and mids and leave the whites where they are. Bringing down the whites would have the same effect as a fade to black.

May 29th, 2007, 04:11 PM	#26
Jeremy Teman Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: CA Posts: 41	Yeah, you're right. The power was out, so it would have been a less highlights for sure.

May 29th, 2007, 04:18 PM	#27
Alan James Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 261	Yeah it was really convincing and well done. The only reason I noticed was because the previous scene was shot with a high ASA/ISO (whatever we call it now) film stock and had loads of grain. When film is digitized to add effects more times then not they remove the grain, and in this case they didn’t add it back. So I didn’t notice the effect, I noticed the higher resolution digital print and lack of grain then thought… “Hey that looks like it was shot at day time.”

May 29th, 2007, 06:56 PM	#28
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	Are film prints done on different stock? I noticed a lot of grain when I watched it last night. Overall, I liked the movie. I have two complaints; one already mentioned was "shaky cam". I don't like when it looks like a gorilla is abusing the camera AND the editor is doing .3 second cuts. It was just too much in a couple of scenes. They did such a good job on the action in most scenes that even the really wide shots had impact so I don't know why they resorted to parlor tricks. A couple of times I felt like reaching out and grabbing the camera operator by the back of the shirt and telling him to stand more than six inches from his subject and to tie his shoelaces so he stops tripping. I know this is part of the style of the movie and I mostly liked it, but a couple of times it got silly. Camera movements and guitar amplifiers shouldn't go past eleven. The other thing that bothered me as a movie watcher (and not as a picky wannabee filmmaker) was the always absurd helicopter blades slicing up the bad guys scene. It was done in a James Bond movie and it looked horrible. I've heard it was also done recently in "Grindhouse" which was INTENDED to be campy. 28 Weeks Later was the exact opposite of campy in every single scene that this shot really jumped out as ridiculous. It seems hard to make zombie movies not seem campy and the producers of 28 Days/Weeks Later accomplished a truly disturbing and seemingly realistic scenario that the campy action shot really didn't fit. Those two little factors jumped out as bad, but there were some great shots that should be studied. I won't go into the good shots as I think people should watch this movie without being spoiled. For those of you that saw it, the scene where husband and wife are reunited seems like it should go into the horror movie hall of fame. This movie combined the gruesome visuals with disturbing emotional situations brilliantly. Also, unlike most horror movies, the plot devices (how the infection came about) were well thought and fit into the themes nicely. I also liked that it wasn't entirely predictable. Yes, the trailers show that Code Red is carried out, but everything behind it wasn't spoiled in advance. One thing I did know for sure in advance was that Dad's key card would help get them out of trouble.

May 30th, 2007, 01:06 AM	#29
Alan James Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 261	This isnt the best place to talk about film stocks and digital prints but hey, what the heck you asked about it. There are probably better threads out there. Anyways the movie was mostly shot on super16mm but was also shot on super 35, normal 35mm and HDV. Most people scan the film in and then make digital prints. This movie was pretty dark so I assume they used a high ASA film, which has loads of grain. If that film is super 16mm blown up to 35mm, the grain will be about 5 times larger then they would if it were 35mm. Think of taking SD video and blowing it up to HD. That’s what blowing up 16mm to 35mm is essentially like. Grain is more noticeable. When visual effects are added to movies shot on film, the grain has to be removed, then added back in. I have noticed that some companies don’t add grain back into the digital negative, cause honestly it looks better, but it doesn’t match the other print. Anyways the reason the grain was noticeable in this movie was because it was shot with a high ASA 16mm film stock. I agree about the shaky camera, but I heard the monkeys from the first movie were the operators for this movie. That’s probably why it was so bad, I mean after all you can’t train rage infected monkeys to hold cameras steady really. They kinda do what they want….