It would look better, not only because of the camera but also improved transfer techniques (I'm assuming). But if Boyle was concerned about image quality he would have moved to film. It would have been cool to have it in super 16mm

I think the point of the movie (look-wise) was to have a harsh video tone, but not be too blurry on the bigscreen. What I saw in the theaters was still pretty blurry, but again, content and sound mattered more. I recorded an HD version of it on Showtime, and it looked better on my home 720p projector 12 ft. wide.

The final scene of the movie was beautiful 35mm, obviously highlighting the triumph of the survivors, and the emergence from the nightmare.

I definitely think it would've been enhanced by shooting H1.

Actually in this case "acceptable" isn't really subjective accept frpm the peanut gallery <g>.

In the real world of film making, budgets, distribution and return on investment, there is no question that his approach was acceptable.
99.999% of the hundreds of thousands of people who paid to see it had absolutely no clue or care as to whether it was shot on an XL1 or 35mm film.

Very true, Jim, I was with friends who didn't care about technology, jusst went to see the movie. They didn't say anything about picture quality, didn't notice anything too.

The period of "legitimate" filmmakers working in the DV medium is mostly on the way out. Starting with the Dogma '95 movement, DV became the "flavor of the month" look for many filmmakers, but like all trends, new things come in to replace it. For many, the compact size of the cameras allowed a certain spontaneity and were minimally invasive to the actors; the same is true of the HDV and upcoming cameras like the HVX200 but obviously without the resolution hit that DV presents on the big screen. There will be exceptions to the rule (David Lynch's upcoming "Inland Empire", shot on PD-150's, for instance) but I think it safe to say that Danny Boyle and his team would likely have selected a different camera than the XL1 if they were making "28 Days" at the current time, considering the hoops that they had to go through back then (stitching multiple camera images together for wide shots to increase resolution, etc).

Zoomed...
 

Perhaps - just perhaps - there may have been some zooms in it. I haven't checked my DVD copy yet, but if memory serves me right, it was shot on primes.

Perhaps more watts on the sets? ;-)

Maybe less whip-pans? Less steadicam? *

It would have probably looked very much like it looks now, if only a little more so. Some scenes had 30 mins to set up, shoot and get out - some once-only-never-again scenes make video very reassuring to work with, and very cost effective to saturate with cameras.

I guess they were wringing every last drop from their XL1s - they'd do the same for the XL1H...

Enviously, ;)
M.

* BTW, how's the Jury with HDV on a steadicam? In some respects it sounds like a recipie for disaster - slowly moving backgrounds with fast foreground action...

But wouldn't you agree Charles, that the definition of "legitimate" is changing as fast as nearly everything else in our world today?

Nothing shy of 35mm or 16mm would have fallen into that category 10 years ago. Today quality work is being done on everything from HD to DVX 100s, there's the Mini 35 and other similar technology as well as what will probably have the biggest impacc - affordable HD cameras.

My point that shooting 28 Days in DV was acceptable because it was successful, is pretty indisputable in in an industry where success, defines legitmacy and where success is easily tracked in Variety.

I think the point I was trying to make was not whether DV work is or was legitimate or acceptable, it was more that those filmmakers who may have dabbled in it as an alternative to 35mm or 16mm are less likely to do so now, however I do see HDV or small format HD as being the next logical step as the resolution increase will solve some problems. Certainly good work will still be made in regular old DV for some time to come, I just don't see a certain level of filmmaker opting for that format for the look over the newer offerings.

28 Days Later
 

IMDB says that it was shot with

Canon XL-1S, Canon EC and EJ Prime Lenses with Optex adapter

in 2002.

Does anyone have any more info on the process of making this movie? It seems to be one of the best examples of a film shot in DV.

They decided to shoot it on DV mostly for the simplicity of setting up the shots. Like around some of the normally busy locations they had to clear, they needed to get the shot done in a matter of minutes. By using inexpensive cameras such as the XL1s, they could easily have them set up all over the place for multiples from a single take.

That's about all I know, but yes, it's definitely my favourite film that was shot using any kind of DV camera.

I have no idea what they used to shoot the new one though.

It was not shot on an XL1S. Instead it was an original XL1.

See these discussions about 28 Days Later (there are several others though):

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=41465

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=23450

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=6445

Please post any replies directly to one of the existing threads.

Thanks in advance (the sequel was shot on 35mm film by the way).

Actually, Chris, I believe they had some use of HDV in there. The Sony HVR-Z1E. Also, I think they shot a lot with a s16 Arri SR3 as well

Ah, so! Thanks for that (referring to the sequel "28 Weeks Later" here), details at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463854/technical -- my bad, looks like it was mostly 16mm, not 35mm -- perhaps we can look forward to a reading a production write-up in American Cinematographer, as they did before with 28 Days.

The title of this post is "28 DAYS Later" which refers to the original movie shot before the Z1, or any HDV camera, existed. I'm not even sure the XL1s was even available at the time it was shot. The IMDB lists the XL1s, so maybe they had a model available early. There isn't a great deal of difference between the two cameras, so it doesn't really matter that much.

It was an XL1. But on imdb you often see mistakes, although it keeps being a very big site with loads of information. A pity there message boards are worth nothing. (but that's off-topic)

I thought 28 days Later looked great in the cinemas. I saw it with non-technic friends, and they never noticed. They loved the film (I thought it was just okay).