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

John Hudson · March 31st, 2004, 05:57 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ben Gurvich : from the advertisment. -->>>

What advertisment?

Ben Gurvich · April 1st, 2004, 01:55 AM

you know the one with steven soderbergh, and hes like i couldnt have made full frontal without the xl1, (ITS PRETTY OLD)

Ed Hill · April 2nd, 2004, 07:10 AM

Hi,

28 Days was part of my research for the current docudrama we're shooting on HDV with JVC HD10. I read the article about how Dod Mantle (the DP) shot on the Canon using Canon lenses. I think the mention of ND filters and underexposure is very educational.

Here's a quote from the American Cinematographer magazine article. I think the article is worth reading because of the technical details they cover.

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

"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. Even though video-lens focal lengths are measured differently than those of 35mm lenses, traditional focus-wheel systems were mounted onto the rods for the assistants, who pulled by eye. Because the XL1's viewfinder is black-and-white, Dod Mantle composed shots by looking at 9" color monitors. "It's amazing, because this little consumer camera gets built up with matte boxes and transmitters for sound," he says. "But they were still streamlined and light compared to film cameras."

Dod Mantle shot as wide open as possible with ND filters to minimize DV's seemingly infinite depth of field, and he underexposed by one to two stops to get more information on tape. (The XL1 has an exposure value of about 320 ASA without altering the shutter speed.) "

Hope this is helpful.

Ed Hill

Ed Hill · April 2nd, 2004, 07:42 AM

Hi,

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/home.html

The Canon EC (Electronic Cinematography) lenses appear to be made for High Defintion video cameras.

Apparently these were the lenses that Dodd used on the Canon XL1 PAL camera.

For me I think the lighting, framing, composition and camera moves are bigger factors than just acquisition format that you use.

I look back and cringe with embarassment at a couple of the early commercials I shot years ago on 16mm film, 1" Type C video, or BetaCam and some news footage I shot on 3/4 Umatic ( a horrible format ). Even on "Pro" formats some of my work varied in quality and consistency. It wasn't the format. It was my early lack of skills 18 years ago.

I was lucky to work as a lighting grip and camera operator with some DPs, grips and videographers who were very good at lighting and shooting. So gradually I learned to do better lighting, shooting and editing. Some of the DPs or filmmakers I worked with took the same 16mm and 35mm film lighting & filter methods (for corporate and commercial film) and used that lighting on BetaCam or 1" Type C video. I don't know if it looked like film. But it did look like damn good video.

I believe that more of the "film look" and better video quality comes from learning and using film type techniques.

1) Like more control of light with lens filters, gels, diffusion, flags.

2) Better control of camera moves with tripods and dollies.

3) More use of shallow depth of field and rolling focus.

4) Composing your shots in depth with people and objects in front of your actor and behind your actor.

5) Framing your shots really tight so that only the most important action and most expressive facial features are in the shot.

I have thought about this a lot, and for me I think the way I shoot is a lot more crucial than which camera I use.

Hope this is helpful.

Ed Hill

Ken Hodson · May 3rd, 2004, 12:23 PM

So whats the point of all this Ben. If you shoot a movie on video you can't tranfer to film because thats cheating? How else are you going to get it in the theater? Its shot on a XL1 period. Thats the bottom line.

"Oh, and don't forget: sixty frame film is pretty much a dead issue. One reason being, it looks too much like video."

It looks amazing is what it looks. I personally can't wait for fully digitally projected 60fps movies in the theater. Slow mellow drama, sure give me 24fps. We are now in an era of super FX action packed movies in which every high motion scene is a jummpy blured mess because their tying to stuff it all in 24fps. It is stupid to think that 24fps is the be all end all of frame rates.
Ken

Ben Gurvich · May 3rd, 2004, 05:31 PM

As stated earlier, my Real beef was with Canon's advertising.

Rabi Syid · September 8th, 2004, 03:34 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube : Well it is *officially* official, this month's issue of AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER confirms that "28 Days Later" was shot with an XL1S with an OPTEX B4-XL adaptor and some CANON EC and EJ Hi-Def primes.

Gooooo CANON!!!

We are definitely getting together one night to see the film in Hollywood sometime between June 26-30, while we are at the Entertainment Technology Show (June 27-28). We are probably meeting first for a few rounds at a place yet to be determined. The more the merrier. Stop by at the Canon booth and say hello. Would like to meet any and all DVi Wranglers who will be in the area during that time.

Looking forward,

- don -->>>

hi

i have been searching the web for the EC and EJ lenses that were shot with 28 day later and i can find nothing. could somebody point me in the right direction. do you know how much it would be for a full set.

thanks

Rob Lohman · September 9th, 2004, 01:59 AM

You can see some EF lenses on the link below:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...categoryid=111

Jean-Philippe Archibald · September 9th, 2004, 07:03 AM

Rob,

I think we are talking about EC and EJ Primes here, not EF lenses...

Riley Harmon · March 20th, 2005, 02:00 AM

I found this on IMDB under the trivia for 28 Days Later and I don't think it's correct...

"Boyle used the Cannon XL2 MiniDV camera, which wasn't commercially available at the time."

I was under the impression that he used XL1s PAL shot in frame mode. Does anyone care to comment?

Mathieu Ghekiere · March 20th, 2005, 05:21 AM

it's not true I saw the xl1s in the making of

Chris Hurd · March 20th, 2005, 06:49 AM

Actually it was the XL1, not XL1S.

There was an extensive write-up on this in American Cinematography some time ago. See also all of the various "28 Days Later" threads over in our XL1 / XL1S forum.

Barry Green · March 20th, 2005, 09:33 PM

Chris is correct, it was the original XL1, not even the XL1s version. Shot on PAL in frame mode/16:9.

Ed Bicker · March 20th, 2005, 10:50 PM

Hello Barry,
What do you mean by Frame mode? Do you mean 24p as opposed to 60i?
Also, how significant of a difference is PAL mode? How do I know if I have PAL on my XL2?

Riley Harmon · March 20th, 2005, 10:55 PM

PAL is a video format. Mainly for European countries. I can almost guarantee you that your XL2 is NTSC. Frame mode is a specialty mode that mimicks the look look of 30p. And since they used a PAL XL1 (which has 25fps) they were shooting footage that looked 25p, and then all they had to do was do a slight time change to go to 24p for the final film output.

April 2nd, 2004, 07:10 AM	#138
Ed Hill Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Atlanta, GA, USA Posts: 104	Hi, 28 Days was part of my research for the current docudrama we're shooting on HDV with JVC HD10. I read the article about how Dod Mantle (the DP) shot on the Canon using Canon lenses. I think the mention of ND filters and underexposure is very educational. Here's a quote from the American Cinematographer magazine article. I think the article is worth reading because of the technical details they cover. http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/page2.html "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. Even though video-lens focal lengths are measured differently than those of 35mm lenses, traditional focus-wheel systems were mounted onto the rods for the assistants, who pulled by eye. Because the XL1's viewfinder is black-and-white, Dod Mantle composed shots by looking at 9" color monitors. "It's amazing, because this little consumer camera gets built up with matte boxes and transmitters for sound," he says. "But they were still streamlined and light compared to film cameras." Dod Mantle shot as wide open as possible with ND filters to minimize DV's seemingly infinite depth of field, and he underexposed by one to two stops to get more information on tape. (The XL1 has an exposure value of about 320 ASA without altering the shutter speed.) " Hope this is helpful. Ed Hill __________________ Ed Hill HighlyDef Productions, Atlanta, GA prblog.edhillpr.com Video and Online Advertising ed@highlydef.com

April 2nd, 2004, 07:42 AM	#139
Ed Hill Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Atlanta, GA, USA Posts: 104	Hi, http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/home.html The Canon EC (Electronic Cinematography) lenses appear to be made for High Defintion video cameras. Apparently these were the lenses that Dodd used on the Canon XL1 PAL camera. For me I think the lighting, framing, composition and camera moves are bigger factors than just acquisition format that you use. I look back and cringe with embarassment at a couple of the early commercials I shot years ago on 16mm film, 1" Type C video, or BetaCam and some news footage I shot on 3/4 Umatic ( a horrible format ). Even on "Pro" formats some of my work varied in quality and consistency. It wasn't the format. It was my early lack of skills 18 years ago. I was lucky to work as a lighting grip and camera operator with some DPs, grips and videographers who were very good at lighting and shooting. So gradually I learned to do better lighting, shooting and editing. Some of the DPs or filmmakers I worked with took the same 16mm and 35mm film lighting & filter methods (for corporate and commercial film) and used that lighting on BetaCam or 1" Type C video. I don't know if it looked like film. But it did look like damn good video. I believe that more of the "film look" and better video quality comes from learning and using film type techniques. 1) Like more control of light with lens filters, gels, diffusion, flags. 2) Better control of camera moves with tripods and dollies. 3) More use of shallow depth of field and rolling focus. 4) Composing your shots in depth with people and objects in front of your actor and behind your actor. 5) Framing your shots really tight so that only the most important action and most expressive facial features are in the shot. I have thought about this a lot, and for me I think the way I shoot is a lot more crucial than which camera I use. Hope this is helpful. Ed Hill __________________ Ed Hill HighlyDef Productions, Atlanta, GA prblog.edhillpr.com Video and Online Advertising ed@highlydef.com

May 3rd, 2004, 12:23 PM	#140
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	So whats the point of all this Ben. If you shoot a movie on video you can't tranfer to film because thats cheating? How else are you going to get it in the theater? Its shot on a XL1 period. Thats the bottom line. "Oh, and don't forget: sixty frame film is pretty much a dead issue. One reason being, it looks too much like video." It looks amazing is what it looks. I personally can't wait for fully digitally projected 60fps movies in the theater. Slow mellow drama, sure give me 24fps. We are now in an era of super FX action packed movies in which every high motion scene is a jummpy blured mess because their tying to stuff it all in 24fps. It is stupid to think that 24fps is the be all end all of frame rates. Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

September 8th, 2004, 03:34 PM	#142
Rabi Syid Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: location Posts: 68	Re: AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER confirms "28 Days Later" shot entirely in CanonDV <<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube : Well it is officially official, this month's issue of AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER confirms that "28 Days Later" was shot with an XL1S with an OPTEX B4-XL adaptor and some CANON EC and EJ Hi-Def primes. Gooooo CANON!!! We are definitely getting together one night to see the film in Hollywood sometime between June 26-30, while we are at the Entertainment Technology Show (June 27-28). We are probably meeting first for a few rounds at a place yet to be determined. The more the merrier. Stop by at the Canon booth and say hello. Would like to meet any and all DVi Wranglers who will be in the area during that time. Looking forward, - don -->>> hi i have been searching the web for the EC and EJ lenses that were shot with 28 day later and i can find nothing. could somebody point me in the right direction. do you know how much it would be for a full set. thanks

September 9th, 2004, 01:59 AM	#143
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	You can see some EF lenses on the link below: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...categoryid=111 __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 31st, 2004, 05:57 PM	#136
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	<<<-- Originally posted by Ben Gurvich : from the advertisment. -->>> What advertisment?

April 1st, 2004, 01:55 AM	#137
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	you know the one with steven soderbergh, and hes like i couldnt have made full frontal without the xl1, (ITS PRETTY OLD)

May 3rd, 2004, 05:31 PM	#141
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	As stated earlier, my Real beef was with Canon's advertising.

September 9th, 2004, 07:03 AM	#144
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	Rob, I think we are talking about EC and EJ Primes here, not EF lenses... __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

March 20th, 2005, 02:00 AM	#145
Riley Harmon Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 424	28 Days later I found this on IMDB under the trivia for 28 Days Later and I don't think it's correct... "Boyle used the Cannon XL2 MiniDV camera, which wasn't commercially available at the time." I was under the impression that he used XL1s PAL shot in frame mode. Does anyone care to comment?

March 20th, 2005, 05:21 AM	#146
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	it's not true I saw the xl1s in the making of

March 20th, 2005, 06:49 AM	#147
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Actually it was the XL1, not XL1S. There was an extensive write-up on this in American Cinematography some time ago. See also all of the various "28 Days Later" threads over in our XL1 / XL1S forum. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

March 20th, 2005, 09:33 PM	#148
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Chris is correct, it was the original XL1, not even the XL1s version. Shot on PAL in frame mode/16:9.

March 20th, 2005, 10:50 PM	#149
Ed Bicker Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oakdale, Pa Posts: 51	Hello Barry, What do you mean by Frame mode? Do you mean 24p as opposed to 60i? Also, how significant of a difference is PAL mode? How do I know if I have PAL on my XL2?

March 20th, 2005, 10:55 PM	#150
Riley Harmon Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 424	PAL is a video format. Mainly for European countries. I can almost guarantee you that your XL2 is NTSC. Frame mode is a specialty mode that mimicks the look look of 30p. And since they used a PAL XL1 (which has 25fps) they were shooting footage that looked 25p, and then all they had to do was do a slight time change to go to 24p for the final film output.