while reading a UK media magazine called creation (http://www.creationmag.com/) i saw an article about danny boyle's new film 28 days.

This was shot on MiniDV using only XL1s's (I beleive they may have used some film for effects shots but not sure), and is discussed several times on this forum

During the interview, danny says (quoting off the top of my head so apologies for any mistakes)
for one aerial shot of London we composited six individual shots together before adding effects. This was due to the limitations of Wide angle lenses available for video work.

What are these limitations? Is it simply that video lenses tend to be cheaper, and therefore lower quality than your average (if one exists!) 35 mm film camera lens?

I have to wonder why he didn't use a native widescreen camera such as DSR-570. He could then have had a much larger choice of lenses.

It's not on the website yet? I'd love to read more about it

wow, over a week and no info! I can't beleive I managed to stump the forum!

come on Guys, impress me! : )

Can't comment on the availability of acceptable wide-angle lens for DV cams but here is the URL where you probably ready the comment about "28 Days Later" wide-angle shots:

www.animationartist.com/2002/11_nov/news/realviz1104.htm

It appears to be an announcement from REALVIZ that, and I quote, "Due to the limitations of wide-angle lenses available for the DV camera, Clear [Clear Ltd, a SFX compositing and animation company in London's Soho] used REALVIZ Stitcher to piece together six live action plates, from six different cameras, to create the city-wide shots required by Boyle."

It appears that Clear Ltd produced all of the 155 visual effect shots in the film.

There are quite a number of reviews on the web for "28 Days Later". Most seem good, but Nev Pierce of BBC Films Review had this to say, "But, despite Boyle's decision to shoot on digital video (an ugly medium), the zippy, brutal action sequences are gripping, the violence sometimes shocking."


Well, at least this is a little more info on the subject.

Cheers, Nick

I tried to go and see the film the day before going snowboarding for a week, and found the cinema had decided to show lord of the rings instead because of increased demand!

I was so screwing! to think they took away a film that needed to make money and they replaced it with one that would make millions in profit regardless!

I guess thats just the way it goes....

There are no single wide angle lenses that are wide enough to do the panoramics. Images from several cameras are then stiched together to create one image. The limitation was not the quality, but rather the limited angle of view. No matter what camera he used he probably would have had to composite the image together.

Jeff

http://www.theimagingfactory.com/

have a product called debarrelizer which works inside photoshop/after effects


i use this with my Optex hemispheric to produce stunning wide angle shots (160 degree FOV useable!!!)

it pulls out the Spherical and Chromatic Aberrations found in lenses costing less than a billion dollars and makes even a cheap lens look the part

give it a whirl