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.

has anyone seen a digital projection on big screen?
 

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 new ending
 

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.