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

Barry Gribble · April 9th, 2005, 07:59 AM

Laurence,

They made the film look like they wanted it to look.

When you make your films, you can make them look the way you want them to look.

Bono recorded an album using a $95 SM-58 microphone, because he wanted that sound.

People make their artistic choices, and for you to try to assess those choices as "good or bad" is just silly.

Laurence Maher · April 10th, 2005, 01:08 AM

Let's hear it for that $95 microphone. Hey, wait a minute . . . they didn't use THAT to record the video for 28 Days Later did they?

:)

. . . I'm still with ya Graeme, I'm still with ya . . .

Orestes Mita · October 29th, 2005, 07:25 AM

i think we all agree that that movie looked awesome, especially for a movie shot on XL1s, but what adapter did they use does anyone know? (i hope this wasnt already answered before)

Jean-Philippe Archibald · October 29th, 2005, 08:08 AM

This article http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html will answer all of your questions.

Specifically,

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Boyd Ostroff · October 29th, 2005, 10:39 AM

I saw that movie on the big screen and enjoyed it a lot. However they clearly we not going for a "film look" and they had a big enough budget to have shot it on film if they wanted to. They wanted it to look like DV.

Bill Porter · October 29th, 2005, 01:24 PM

I read in an interview that in order to get the illusion of a shallow depth of field, they moved the camera back as far as physically possible. Great camerawork and great editing in that movie.

Shannon Rawls · December 24th, 2005, 04:14 PM

Just imagine...
What if Danny Boyle (or you!) could remake the movie 28 Days Later with a bunch of XL-H1's in HDV and cut it in 24p and output that to Film and show it worldwide.

Nothing different. Same Cast, Same Script, Same Crew, Same Shots, EVERYthing the same except for the Camera.

How do you think the movie would look? Any different? And why?

- ShannonRawls.com

Michael Wisniewski · December 24th, 2005, 04:47 PM

Interesting thought. You'd probably notice the extra detail especially in the wide shots, the compositing might have been easier, and they may have gotten this guy Shannon Rawls to help produce the movie. But I don't think the newer technology would have made an appreciable difference to the content of the movie, except to us techno-geeks.

24p would have changed the look of the image, but Danny Boyle made an effort to use the more realistic look of a video camcorder, and further tweaked the look during the film processing, to give it an other-worldly look, half-in / half-out look.

Film cameras might have made a difference, because they wouldn't have been able to get those downtown London shots.

Bob Zimmerman · December 24th, 2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

Just imagine...
What if Danny Boyle (or you!) could remake the movie 28 Days Later with a bunch of XL-H1's in HDV and cut it in 24p and output that to Film and show it worldwide.

Nothing different. Same Cast, Same Script, Same Crew, Same Shots, EVERYthing the same except for the Camera.

How do you think the movie would look? Any different? And why?

- ShannonRawls.com

You seem to like this camera!!

Boyd Ostroff · December 24th, 2005, 05:36 PM

I read that he chose the XL-1 because he liked the rough video look. They had a budget of over a million dollars as I recall, and could have afforded to use film or HD.

Matthew Groff · December 24th, 2005, 05:44 PM

Apparently, from what I recall, the budget was $15 million. The prevailing wisdom is that they used a very large chunk of that on post-production to bring the imagery up to acceptable quality (acceptable being subjective, obviously).

mg

Darrell Essex · December 24th, 2005, 06:28 PM

yea, just think.
the effects i could of created, the color correction i would of been able to do.
the only limit would of been our imagination.
Darrell
FIRST CINEMA PICTURES

Bill Pryor · December 24th, 2005, 07:43 PM

I'd guess the shots with the HDV Canon would have been a little less soft than the XL1. Other than that, probably not much difference. But he could have shot with 2/3" chip video cameras if he had wanted a better image. He used what he did for the way it looked, and it contrasted very nicely with the 35mm stuff.

Bill Anderson · December 24th, 2005, 08:07 PM

Like they say, he had the money and it's not as if there wasn't anything out there to compete with todays XLH1. The answer might lie in ANOTHER 28 DAYS LATER or, if you prefer, 56 DAYS LATER.

Michael Wisniewski · December 24th, 2005, 08:48 PM

I wonder if Danny Boyle would have still chosen the XL1 even with the XL H1 in production. After all he was going for that video look.

April 9th, 2005, 07:59 AM	#181
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	Laurence, They made the film look like they wanted it to look. When you make your films, you can make them look the way you want them to look. Bono recorded an album using a $95 SM-58 microphone, because he wanted that sound. People make their artistic choices, and for you to try to assess those choices as "good or bad" is just silly. __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

October 29th, 2005, 07:25 AM	#183
Orestes Mita New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 8	What adapter did they use for 28 days later? i think we all agree that that movie looked awesome, especially for a movie shot on XL1s, but what adapter did they use does anyone know? (i hope this wasnt already answered before)

December 24th, 2005, 04:14 PM	#187
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	28 Days Later (with an XL-H1 instead of an XL1) Just imagine... What if Danny Boyle (or you!) could remake the movie 28 Days Later with a bunch of XL-H1's in HDV and cut it in 24p and output that to Film and show it worldwide. Nothing different. Same Cast, Same Script, Same Crew, Same Shots, EVERYthing the same except for the Camera. How do you think the movie would look? Any different? And why? - ShannonRawls.com __________________ Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition.

December 24th, 2005, 04:47 PM	#188
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	Interesting thought. You'd probably notice the extra detail especially in the wide shots, the compositing might have been easier, and they may have gotten this guy Shannon Rawls to help produce the movie. But I don't think the newer technology would have made an appreciable difference to the content of the movie, except to us techno-geeks. 24p would have changed the look of the image, but Danny Boyle made an effort to use the more realistic look of a video camcorder, and further tweaked the look during the film processing, to give it an other-worldly look, half-in / half-out look. Film cameras might have made a difference, because they wouldn't have been able to get those downtown London shots. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

December 24th, 2005, 06:28 PM	#192
Darrell Essex Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: kelseyville, ca Posts: 123	yea, just think. the effects i could of created, the color correction i would of been able to do. the only limit would of been our imagination. Darrell FIRST CINEMA PICTURES __________________ darrell

April 10th, 2005, 01:08 AM	#182
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	Let's hear it for that $95 microphone. Hey, wait a minute . . . they didn't use THAT to record the video for 28 Days Later did they? :) . . . I'm still with ya Graeme, I'm still with ya . . .

October 29th, 2005, 10:39 AM	#185
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	I saw that movie on the big screen and enjoyed it a lot. However they clearly we not going for a "film look" and they had a big enough budget to have shot it on film if they wanted to. They wanted it to look like DV.

October 29th, 2005, 01:24 PM	#186
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	I read in an interview that in order to get the illusion of a shallow depth of field, they moved the camera back as far as physically possible. Great camerawork and great editing in that movie.

December 24th, 2005, 05:36 PM	#190
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	I read that he chose the XL-1 because he liked the rough video look. They had a budget of over a million dollars as I recall, and could have afforded to use film or HD.

December 24th, 2005, 05:44 PM	#191
Matthew Groff Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 132	Apparently, from what I recall, the budget was $15 million. The prevailing wisdom is that they used a very large chunk of that on post-production to bring the imagery up to acceptable quality (acceptable being subjective, obviously). mg

December 24th, 2005, 07:43 PM	#193
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I'd guess the shots with the HDV Canon would have been a little less soft than the XL1. Other than that, probably not much difference. But he could have shot with 2/3" chip video cameras if he had wanted a better image. He used what he did for the way it looked, and it contrasted very nicely with the 35mm stuff.

December 24th, 2005, 08:07 PM	#194
Bill Anderson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Ottawa. Canada Posts: 163	Like they say, he had the money and it's not as if there wasn't anything out there to compete with todays XLH1. The answer might lie in ANOTHER 28 DAYS LATER or, if you prefer, 56 DAYS LATER. __________________ Bill Anderson www.williamanderson.ca

December 24th, 2005, 08:48 PM	#195
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	I wonder if Danny Boyle would have still chosen the XL1 even with the XL H1 in production. After all he was going for that video look. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search