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

Michael Gibbons · October 27th, 2003, 11:14 AM

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

Graeme Nattress · October 27th, 2003, 11:49 AM

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.

Michael Gibbons · October 27th, 2003, 01:38 PM

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

Matthew Groff · October 27th, 2003, 02:58 PM

Perhaps you could post the link here? Thanks

Alex Dunn · October 27th, 2003, 03:07 PM

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!

Michael Gibbons · October 27th, 2003, 04:34 PM

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

Boyd Ostroff · October 27th, 2003, 06:13 PM

<<<-- 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!

Dylan Couper · October 27th, 2003, 07:31 PM

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

John Gaspain · October 30th, 2003, 01:45 AM

Anybody know what they used for post?

Alex Dunn · October 30th, 2003, 08:52 AM

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.

Rob Lohman · November 11th, 2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

Graeme Nattress · November 11th, 2003, 02:53 PM

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.

Rob Belics · November 11th, 2003, 09:10 PM

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.

Graeme Nattress · November 12th, 2003, 05:32 AM

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.

Gints Klimanis · December 31st, 2003, 04:22 AM

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.

October 27th, 2003, 11:14 AM	#91
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	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 __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

October 27th, 2003, 11:49 AM	#92
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	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. __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

October 27th, 2003, 01:38 PM	#93
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	OOPS NEVERMIND... I changed my search pameters and found a link to the article in American cinematographer than answers my questions. Thanks... MG __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

October 27th, 2003, 04:34 PM	#96
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	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 __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

October 27th, 2003, 06:13 PM	#97
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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!

October 27th, 2003, 02:58 PM	#94
Matthew Groff Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 132	Perhaps you could post the link here? Thanks

October 27th, 2003, 03:07 PM	#95
Alex Dunn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 202	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!

October 27th, 2003, 07:31 PM	#98
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Yeah some of the raw footage found in the deleted scenes looks horrible. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

October 30th, 2003, 01:45 AM	#99
John Gaspain Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: WA-USA Posts: 371	Anybody know what they used for post? __________________ The glory of the World passes by.

October 30th, 2003, 08:52 AM	#100
Alex Dunn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 202	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.

November 11th, 2003, 02:53 PM	#102
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	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. __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

November 11th, 2003, 09:10 PM	#103
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	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.

November 12th, 2003, 05:32 AM	#104
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	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. __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

December 31st, 2003, 04:22 AM	#105
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	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.