<<<-- 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.

28 Days Widescreen ?'s
 

I saw 28 days after on DVD this weekend. Watching some of the deleted scenes, I noticed that they were all in 4:3. this leads to some interesting questions- well one interesting question, anyway.
Did they shoot the whole thing in 4:3 (as opposed to using an anamorphic adaptor) and then change it to 16:9 in post?

Anybody know?

BTW, The answer to the question may have a direct bearing on my next camera purchase.

Anyway, I really liked the movie, aside from some extreemly large plot holes, it was very well done and quite enjoyable.

MG

Because they didn't care one jot about picture quality. That's the only reason I can think of. Why else does it look like the sharpness is turned up full? We all know that when taking DV to film you turn the sharpness right down. We also know to shoot true 16x9 or with an anamorphic adapter to miximize picture quality.

OOPS NEVERMIND...
 

I changed my search pameters and found a link to the article in American cinematographer than answers my questions.
Thanks...
MG

Perhaps you could post the link here? Thanks

The main emphasis on this thread is the cameras abilities, but you have to give kudos to the guys in post who made it look good and more filmic. If you watch the special features on the DVD, it shows some brief raw scenes, especially the scene where the head military guy is talking to the main character about the broadcast and what he expected. In that raw scene, which looks NOTHING like the final product, you really can tell it's video, and it looks interlaced to me.

I would really like to know more about what Simon and the guys in post did, rather than what lens was on every shot. After seeing that raw stuff, it's obvious that there's a lot more involved.

Great job!

the address.
 

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

I am cyber-stupid, and couldn't find the listing in the faq about how to post a live link. Sorry.
Hope this helps.
MG

Re: the address.
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Gibbons : I am cyber-stupid, and couldn't find the listing in the faq about how to post a live link. -->>>

That's not stupid! There's a short tutorial on using vB codes in your post to make clickable links and such. You can get to it using the "FAQ" button at the top right of your browser window. Then scroll down and click on the link "Are there any special codes". There you will find another link about vB code (yeah, it's pretty well buried ;-)

Or better yet, just click here!

Yeah some of the raw footage found in the deleted scenes looks horrible.

Anybody know what they used for post?

Close to the beginning of this Thread, Simon said briefly that it was a uncompressed Flame/Inferno system that was used (from Discreet - very expensive). He also listed some of the filters they used.

Discreet is up there with the online Avid systems. Frame of reference, they use Flame/Inferno to edit the show CSI: Miami which is HD.

I must disagree strongly with you here. Why do you say they
didn't care? How can most people making movies not care?
(especially these kind of movies, and I am talking about directors,
cinematographers and camera operaters here)

Personally I always shoot in 4:3 and then go 16:9 (masking)
in post. Why? Because I want to have the possability to move
the picture up and down underneath the bars in post.
In post with all the work being done (editing, effects etc.) you
can choose to do framing a bit different. Or sometimes it is hard
to frame 100% accuarate when filming.

I do agree mostly with your sharpness comment, but it ain't a
hard formula! It is still an asthetic thing. Some people like more
or less sharpness then others!

Also not everybody can afford anamorphic adaptors (I don't think
I know of one person here on the boards that has posted they
are using one) not to mention other troubles this introduces
(like zooming). Ofcourse they probably had the money to get
these on 28 days later, but it would be way more interesting to
get a mini35 setup with some good lenses attached then.

If I'm not mistaken the people who made 28 days later wanted
to have an in your face feel to which this all helped I can imagine.

If you shoot 4x3 and crop to 16x9 in post instead of shooting anamorphic 16x9 then you're sacrificing resolution for convenience.

If you want to apply sharpness, you'd get a better result by applying it after your DV gets up-rezzed rather than before. I've seen PAL and NTSC SD put onto 35mm and HD at an SMPTE conferance I attended in Toronto and the results were vastly superior to 28 days...

Although 28 days... was shot on DV it was by no means a low budget movie. They could certainly afforded to shoot on a higher quality format and still get the ease of use and quick setups they required to make London appear deserted. I could have understood the choice of using DV if it had looked as good as I know a DV blow up can look, but for it to look so bad as to remind me of a VHS rental tape is not clever and not funny. I could also have understood if the movie was low budget, but it wasn't.

DV was used to give it the look intentionally. It was heavily processed in post also. I thought it was the best dv could offer but that's the first I've heard that it had a vhs quality to it. Haven't seen it yet myself.

My major experience with what SD can look like when put onto film was at a SMPTE confererence I attended in Toronto. One of the major players in Toronto - Command Post & Transfer / Toybox, put on a set of demonstrations of HD v Film, with both film and HD projection. To establish a base-line they also showed examples of SD video transferred to film. The quality of the SD transfers ranged a fair bit, and they were showing how both resolution (PAL v NTSC) and frame rate (25, 30, 60) make a difference, and the various techniques (from speeding up the footage, to using motion interpolation).

That is why I don't think 28 days... is not an example of the best DV to film transfer, but rather one of the worst, in both terms of resolution, and the excessive sharpness made it almost un-watchable in the cinema. Rental VHS is renowned for having really bad sharpness lines around everything in the picture (to help it stand up to the abuse of rental so the 100th person can still sort of make out a picture) and is often very noisey. 28 days... had very bad sharpness lines and was very noisey.

So, the DVD of "28 Days Later" is now available. I watched it and paid attention to the image quality. As many of you commented before, the edges looked funny. Is the DVD a DV->film->DVD transfer or DV->DVD ? If it's DV->DVD, is the film grain simulation done in post? It didn't seem particularly consistent from scene to scene. Sometimes it looked good, but overall, it seemed artificial.

Overall, I haven't seen many good film grain simulations. I'm
thinking about experimenting with coding this sort of image processing.

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Because they didn't care one jot about picture quality. -->>>

What?

The deal is, they were going after a particular kind of look. The end result doesn't jive with everyone's idea of a high quality image, that's what Graeme is saying, at least not in his opinion.

I thought 28 Days looked sketchy on the big screen in the theaters, but looks fine on the small screen from my DVD player. Just my own opinion, though.

I agree Chris. On the big screen it was very grainy and saturated. They also shot with a high shutter speed.

On my DVD layer it looks amazing.

I saw the film in a theatre and really liked it, have not seen the DVD. I think Chris sums it up pretty well though, they wanted (for whatever reason) a certain "look". But I also find this kind of ironic. Much of the talk around here centers on how to make DV look more like film. In this case I feel they wanted to make film look more like DV! They had a large enough budget to shoot on film if desired, or they could have shot on HD, or even with better quality 16:9 DV. But for artistic reasons they chose to use the XL-1. It was a pretty gutsy thing to do, gave the film a very distinctive appearance, and I applaud them for having the nerve to pull it off!

I recently saw the movie on DVD and thought it looked very nice.
Didn't notice much video look at all.

Im annoyed
 

Just watched 28 days later on DVD as i have been hanging out on it for ages, because its shot on XL1s. But the end result is not xl1s- its xl1s on 35mm.

Its almost like "reverse AGUS 35" (not really but you no what i mean).

Im annoyed because they always claim its shot on DV, same with Full frontal, but its almost as if your putting an xl1 on the end of a panavision.

All this bs marketing in the magazines about it, what they dont tell is the 35mm part, and im sure if you bought the cam on the promise of this ,(without any knowledge of DV) and then shot the film and didnt look like "full frontal" , you could sue the ASS of canon! (well atleast in america maybe).

Anyway,i think they should say "shot on dv35" or something like that instead of saying DV because it aint.


I Welcome any responses on this subject,( and i understand about magic bullet etc et,)

CHeers,
Ben Gurvich

I'm a bit confused as to what point you have a problem with.
Wasn't it shot on XL1S with the 35mm adapter? If so it is still
shot on DV. Only with a different lens system. To the best of
my knowledge it was still SD resolution and all.

Can you elaborate a bit better and stick to facts (instead of
emotion)? I'm confused.

yes but when u transfer it to film, it becomes film, and the dvd tranfer is off the negative right, so it takes on the motion of film and grain.


so in the end it looks like film becuase it is on film.

The bigger difference is a lot of time/money/effort was spent in post-processing of the xl1s image. Transferring to 35mm should not be a complaint.

I wish people would get over this 'grain' thing with film. It's like saying you need to add noise and artifacts for an image to be video.

Regardless of what you want to call it, the image was ultimately captured on a DV tape...shot on DV...end of story. This has nothing to do with the lenses used on the camera or how the final product is being projected.

The picture, in the film you are describing looks the way it does due to better quality of lenses and professional lighting.

The transfer to film does not add the almighty "film look". If you went out into your back yard and shot with a standard, out of the box, Canon XL-1s package and transfered it to film, that is exactly what you are going to get.

The transfer to 35mm is needed because the huge majority of theaters across the country are still projecting film, not video. It would be silly for a Director or Studio to refuse to transfer to film as it would severely affect the almighty PROFIT MARGIN.

So, take a deep breath, and enjoy the movie!

RB

dont u feel once its transferred onto film, it take on the film like moving qualites of the shot?

also id be very interested to seeing the online edit before going out 35mm.


(the good thing about rodriguez is he gives u the HD file not the 35mm print transferred onto film. so u can really see how good HD is)

I was impressed as all hell with the end result.

It really showed what you could do with DV and specifically the XL1s.

that it was transfered over onto film is a minor point to me.

It was made on a "consumer" DV camera, not a 4:2:2 high end DV camera and it was made for, in what hollywood would consider, a low budget.

28 Days Later had some funky DV artifacting and soft wide shots in the first half (the city scenes) when I saw it on the big screen, but I was still impressed with what standard-def DV could accomplish. The point is, the aquisition was all DV. Thankfully it didn't look anything like the DV parts of Full Frontal -- Soderbergh really dumbed it down, it looked horrible, kind of like VHS-C especially compared to the other 65% of the scenes shot in Panavision.

28 Days Later was not made with Panavision glass nor did they use the P+S Technik Mini35. Still thought it looked great for what it was, though.

28 days later moves like film. Magic bullet is good but i reckon coming of 35mm telecine adds the motion fixing to it, infact i know it helps cause i have seen it myself, in my own experience. Also transferring to 35mm makes it 24p more film like motion.

I challenge someone to post something on the xl1s that looks as good as "28 days later",

The examples on here ive seen are close, infact there pretty damn good. The best i can think of is "Precursor", but it still moved like video

I'd say that I'd challenge someone to make DV look as BAD as 28days later. Look at the massive amounts of edge enhancement. Look at how badly the scaling up to film was handled - just very basic interpolation - nothing special. The quality was deliberately dirtied before transfer to 35mm to give it a "gritty" feel.

I've seen some SD to film transfers which look much superior to 28 days. To me, 28 days shows how not to transfer DV to film!

Graeme