DV Info Net
Page 6 of 6 12345 6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Awake In The Dark (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/awake-dark/)
-   -   Has anyone seen "28 days Later" directed by Danny Boyle (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/awake-dark/6445-has-anyone-seen-28-days-later-directed-danny-boyle.html)

Matt Davis December 26th, 2005 02:25 PM
Zoomed...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
How do you think the movie would look? Any different? And why?
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...

Jim Giberti December 26th, 2005 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Papert
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).

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.

Charles Papert December 27th, 2005 04:44 PM
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.

Sean J. Manning May 23rd, 2007 07:27 AM
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.

Glenn Thomas May 23rd, 2007 07:52 AM
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.

Chris Hurd May 23rd, 2007 07:52 AM
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).

Jeremy Teman May 23rd, 2007 01:23 PM
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

Chris Hurd May 23rd, 2007 01:28 PM
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.

Marcus Marchesseault May 23rd, 2007 04:54 PM
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.

Mathieu Ghekiere May 24th, 2007 02:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault (Post 684978)
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).

Chris Hurd May 24th, 2007 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault (Post 684978)
The IMDB lists the XL1s, so maybe they had a model available early.
Nope, they did not have access to an XL1s. There were several cameras used in the production of 28 Days Later but all of them were XL1 models. As has been pointed out, the IMBD listing is in error. Hope this helps,

Marcus Marchesseault May 25th, 2007 02:22 AM
Are you saying the internet LIED to me?! You take that back! The internet wouldn't do that to me, would it?

We need to band together to come up with a number of references from the internet needed for something to start sounding credible.

I thought they did a good job with the XL1 footage. There were a couple of scenes where the lack of resolution jumped out at me, but for the most part it looked surprisingly good. I think one of the important things to learn about would be what they did in post to enhance the resolution and color for the film print. I don't think it was necessarily the camera, but how it was used and what was done to the footage in post.

Scott Delish July 23rd, 2007 09:54 AM
28 Days Later...
 
If any of you seen this movie then you know what I'm talking about... Does anyone know any of the settings they used for this movie? Let me know I'd appreciate it alot, thanks!


-Scott

Zack Birlew July 23rd, 2007 10:24 AM
You may want to do a search first, there's been TONS of threads on 28 Days Later. However, as far as specific settings goes, I don't believe I've ever read anything about it and I don't imagine you'll be able to find much anyway. The film was shot on a PAL-version of the Canon XL1 (not XL1S) in frame mode (would be 25p for PAL instead of 30p for the NTSC model). Anything else is basically unknown because the XL1 didn't offer much image control except for a few bars, exposure, and shutter speed. Other than that, they used a P+S Technik Mini35 adapter on it with some cinema-quality lenses.

Here's a link to the American Cinematographer online archives July 2003 issue that talks about it:

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html

Boyd Ostroff July 23rd, 2007 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Felis (Post 717130)
they used a P+S Technik Mini35 adapter on it with some cinema-quality lenses.
Are you sure about that? I don't think this is true. The article you cite implies that they just adapted the lenses directly to the camera without any kind of Mini 35 type unit:

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.

Scott Delish July 23rd, 2007 11:44 AM
Can anyone recommend what type of settings you think would achieve the look of this movie?

Ben Winter July 23rd, 2007 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Delish (Post 717186)
Can anyone recommend what type of settings you think would achieve the look of this movie?
Certainly nothing in-camera settings can do. Even programs like Magic Bullet are really not that helpful. 28 days later underwent extensive color and exposure control in a professional facility. Remember this may have been an XL1 but with tens of thousands of dollars of glass on the front of it and even more money behind the color correction process afterwards, probably in a colorspace and bitrate far beyond MiniDV.

The best advice I've seen is to shoot with high shutter speed, underexpose a little more than usual, and use the telephoto range of the lens.

And no, 28 Days Later did NOT use any P+S Technik adapter. I've been trying to squash that rumor for ages!

Chris Hurd November 28th, 2007 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Winter (Post 717497)
And no, 28 Days Later did NOT use any P+S Technik adapter. I've been trying to squash that rumor for ages!
And no, 28 Days Later did NOT use an XL1S or XL2. I've been trying to squash that rumor for ages!

They used several XL1 camcorders.

Frank Howard December 10th, 2007 02:14 PM
High shutter speeds? Are you sure?

I have always been told by the people who do film outs that you want to lock down at 60...

Bill Pryor December 11th, 2007 02:37 PM
In PAL-land they would have shot at 1/50.

Chris Hurd December 21st, 2007 02:13 PM
Here's the article from American Cinematographer:

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/page2.html


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:58 PM.
Page 6 of 6 12345 6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network