Was the DVD of "28 Days Later" actually created from the film print? What a bizarre thing to do. Reminds of "Chuck and Buck." Great movie, but it looked abysmal in the theater, and just really God-awful terrible on video.

1: afaik, it was actually shot on (8) Canon XL1, not XL1S

2: the final look, for me, was actually pretty far from "film look." While there is grain, and a 1.85:1 aspect, in many scenes there is limited or no visible color correction. especially the scene where he first leaves the hospital and walks up to a billboard with tons of letters and photographs on it.. that scene just screams "video" to me.

3: a lot of the shiftiness in the film i believe is due not to 24p film jutter, but actually to a bad PAL to NTSC transfer. there was a lot of ghosting and shifting that is rather distracting.. the effect mimics what happens when you set the shutter less than the frame rate (i.e. 1/20th shutter on a 30fps camera).

4: this film wasnt even shot on top of the line gear.. if i recall, it was shot with standard pal XL1, and optex B4 converters. not a bad setup, but hardly mini35 with top of the line prime lenses either. for me, this is a pretty well done horror film, and a good example of using one's resources to their fullest. i loved the film.. $14 well spent.

5: i think people miss that being transferred to film, or even being 24/30p isn't the most signifigant factor of "film look." the latitude of color exposed onto film (the "s" curve) is what makes film look like it does, and the flatness of video color makes it look like video. film with good color correction looks like film because a proper stock is carefully chosen, and then a good colorist works his or her magic. simple running an XL1 onto a film print isn't going to produce the same results.. unless you really think it out.

Don't know if video-to-film gives a film look.
But film-to-video does not give a video look
-- it still looks like film.

the image was acquired digitally, therefore dv. it just so happens they telecined to film because of the theatre.
28 days rocks and i think a great triumph for dv.
i also would like to know if the dvd was straight like rodriguez does?????

<<<-- Originally posted by Adam Burtle : 5: i think people miss that being transferred to film, or even being 24/30p isn't the most signifigant factor of "film look." the latitude of color exposed onto film (the "s" curve) is what makes film look like it does, and the flatness of video color makes it look like video. -->>>

I'd have to disagree withh this point a bit. To me the single most important factor in filmlook is framerate. 24p looks like film; 60i does not. There's no going around it. If you tape the same shot using the exact same lighting, makeup, composition, and color correction, but one version is in 24p and another is in regular 60i interlaced video, you're going to end up with one looking like film and one looking like video. Someone in a previous thread said that "if you give a film camera to a 3-year-old,regardless of how poorly shot, it's footage would still look like film" (paraphrasing). I agree completely with that. The only way to fool an audience into thinking video is film is by altering the frame rate to 24p.

That said, professionally lit, composed, and color-corrected video footage will absolutely look decidedly superior to poor cinematography, no matter what the medium (film or video). I have yet to see 28 Days Later, but I'm sure it's image quality is the result of the Hollywood machine, which is very difficult to replicate on a home computer. They used professional lighting and post techniques to achieve a very specific look.

28 Days Later IS a "film shot on MiniDV with an XL1", regardless of how much post-production work, or which lenses were used. As stated above, it is a triumph for the medium of DV. Does it look as good as, say, Braveheart? Nope. But it's better than Blair Witch... ;)

Actually a lot of this ground has already been covered in several threads:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=6445
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=11394
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=11898
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=12507
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=16303

Piñero
 

Have you seen "Piñero"?

Shot on XL-1, I guess. I didn´t see the entire film, only some minutes, but it seemed much better in "film-look" than 28 Days Later.

"Don't know if video-to-film gives a film look."

Many years ago, before people worried about "film look," there was a documentary made entitled, "The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk," which was about the openly gay San Francisco Supervisor who was shot to death, along with Mayor Mascone, by a nut who was out of his mind on "Twinkies."

First of all, it is an absolutely riveting and highly entertaining documentary, but visually the thing that struck me was how it looked. Although the footage included virtually every acquisition format, including 16mm and 8mm film, along with videotape from early portable video cameras (think TK76) and 3/4" field recorders, along with 1" studio footage, everything blended seamlessly in the final film. This was the first time I was aware of the possibilities for video to film. (Earlier experiments with tape to film were pretty uninspired.) These filmmakers faced a monumenetal task of melding all this various footage and creating a film that visually flowed smoothly, and they did a remarkable job of color timing. I guess I would have to say the whole film looks like it was shot with a 16mm camera.

So, yes, video to film does create a film look. When handled properly.

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

Wayne Orr

lokoing at 28 days later on dvd (pal btw) its pretty damned obvious its off the neg, and why wouldnt you? your gaining 24p which exaplains why the whole thing moves like film.


anyway my original beef is with CANON really, they have Steven Soderberg doing these adds about the XL1 that i belive are false advertising,

If you watch the making of 28 days later you can see some footage that is edited but is straight has not been transferred to film, and it makes a big difference.

And those cars they have in the car commercials have been souped up and have professional drivers on a closed track. If you truly buy that car thinking you are going to be driving like in the car commercials without doing a thing to the car then the problem is with you as a buyer not with the marketing. Everything is marketed. It is your job as a buyer to sort out what is hype and what is not. Steve Soderberg did make a movie with the XL1. It was captured on an XL1. Every movie that ends up screened in the theatres is worked over in post. EVERY movie. To what extent and how much is up to the individual production. You have the same potential when you capture something on an XL1.

<<<-- You have the same potential when you capture something on an XL1. -->>>

Not when i dont have 35k for a transfer to film

You seriously thought Danny Boyle and Steven Soderbergh weren't going to spend at least that much money on post?

This whole thread sounds very naive.

xl1 pal right? was it 50i or 25p? if it was proscan, the "24p" wouldnt add too much motion-wise, right? i dont know pal...

sidenote- i havent watched the dvd yet, werent some of the actions scenes shot with a gl1?


Wait, Hollywood over-hyping something only subjectively true?
Stop the presses! <sarcasm-meter off the chart>
can i start a thread about jarjar binks?

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : You seriously thought Danny Boyle and Steven Soderbergh weren't going to spend at least that much money on post?
-->>>

The point is the average person isnt gonna spend that much money, and wouldnt think they had too from the advertisment.

Does the average person really spend $4000US on a MiniDV camera?

I sweated bullets when I finally plunked down my $7000 Cdn for my Canon XL1S. And this is after reading every article and review I could get my hands on.

It's advertising. Advertising never tells the whole of the story. Caveat emptor. I bought my XL1S before Danny Boyle, before Soderburg. If I did see 28 Days Later and thought it was a big ad for Canon (I didn't know at the time that it was Canon) there's no way I'd run out to buy one just from seeing that film. However, I might read what Anthony Dodd Mantle had to say in American Cinematographer (paraphrased: "I hate DV") and also learn that he had millions of dollars worth of lighting, lenses, gels and other equipment at his disposal just so they could make it look like it did. And then maybe I would inhabit DVInfo for a long time and see other clips made with it.

The XL1S is priced (new) the same as a used car. I wouldn't buy a used car sight unseen.

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


What advertisment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can see some EF lenses on the link below:

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

Rob,

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : 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. -->>>

Indeed, I forgot it for a moment.

it was actually shot in 4:3, not 16:9 - read second paragraph in link:

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

check out the whole article if you have the time, it's the best i've read on 28 days later.

Someone should contact IMDB, because if they shot on the XL2 it would have ROCKED.

Remember when canon put out all those ads for Steven Sodenberg's next movie because he was using the XL1S, and then when the movie hit, they didnt realize he was going for the crappiest mini-dv look he could muster while still registering an image on the screen? They quitely stopped mention this movie after that. Too bad they didnt get behind promoting 28 Days more, because it was a great film that showed the strength of using these cameras.

Whether or not 28 Days Later being shot on mini-dv was good or bad
 

Ya kind of a silly topic, but I got into this discussion with several guys in another thread that had nothing to do with it. So I started this thread.

The lowdown . . .

I say it was lame for 28 Days Later to be shot on mini dv if the director had a budget that easily supported 35mm film.

Others disagree.

What's your opinion?

From the little bit of reading I did, it sounded like they needed a large number of cameras rolling at the same time to get certain shots. I.E. for the empty street scenes, they had to hire police to block London streets for a short period of time in the mornings, and roll video from 8 different cameras to get all the shots they needed. That's not to say it couldn't have been done with 35mm, but it would have been costly.

I also heard that there was a lot of post work to correct for irregularities.

I never did hear the bottom line- the cost of making the movie versis the gross earned from box office and rentals.

Jeff Patnaude
P.S.
I just read in an Aug 8th article on CNN.com that says the movie grossed $40.3 million. With a budget of $8 million- thats quite a chunk to put in your pocket.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/08/news/companies/28_days_later/

I think we as video people worry way too much about formats, resolutions, and just overall video technical issues.

I watched this movie before I was 'into video' and thought it was great. Me nor did any of my friends thought that something was weird about the way it looked. I think this is the way all of your audience will be except for an elite few who are actually into video or film.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't know their craft well or do the best work they can, but that we may fight over the little issues such as long gop editing versus intraframe compressions and two resolution standards ect ect when none of this even becomes apparent in the final viewing experience to the average person.

Sure the 35mm would have given him a much better picture and probably a better dof than the mini. It also would have entailed probably a cleaner overall production.

We can fight over formats, methods, resolutions, and compressions until we are blue in the face, but that will never change the fact that 99% of our end viewer's experience is based purely on content.

It was shot on MiniDV and I bet nobody in the theatre were thinking - "I wish this had been shot on 35mm".

"I think we as video people worry way too much about formats, resolutions, and just overall video technical issues."

Absolutely.

I read a great quote the other day:

If you know how to light, it doesn't matter what format you shoot on.
If you don't know how to light, it doesn't matter what format you shoot on.


Quality is really reliant on perception much more than raw specs.

Keeping in mind that I never saw it on the big screen, I still thought it looked pretty good. Not as good as say, What Dreams May Come, but better than some of the movies I've watched. It was a better movie than some, because it was put together well, regardless of the format. You need a good story and actors, more than camera format.

I think you might be missing a bigger picture. It shows that a very well recieved movie CAN be shot on miniDV. Ok... maybe not VERY well, but it made some money.

I think the movie was a (little?) hit.
My opinion is the DV look gave it a real distinct look, and I liked it, for that movie.
And also, when I saw it in theaters, I wasn't so very busy with resolution and video, I just knew it had been filmed on digital video, and I, and the others, didn't mind. Some people never noticed it, and found it to be the best movie they ever saw.
That's not my opinion, but it is a proof that if you know how to tell a story, you can do it with minidv, and it gives you maybe other options you wouldn't have if you shot on 35 mm.

But, that also, just my opinion, it's very subjective offcourse :-).

Laurence;

You made the point that you had stolen shots in the streets of Dallas. I'd say that is much harder, really impossible, to do in London, especially with a full shooting crew. Renting and shooting off 8 35mm cameras on a 3 million budget would have been really tough, especially because they new before hand they weren't going to get everything and were going to have to spend a bit of money removing things in post.

I have question, and you probably know the answer but I'm just wondering, can you spot the point in the film where it changes over from being shot on DV to being shot on 35?