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

John Hudson · December 31st, 2003, 12:38 PM

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

What?

Chris Hurd · December 31st, 2003, 01:47 PM

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.

John Hudson · December 31st, 2003, 02:29 PM

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.

Boyd Ostroff · December 31st, 2003, 04:38 PM

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!

Rob Lohman · January 1st, 2004, 03:11 PM

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

Ben Gurvich · March 24th, 2004, 07:32 AM

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

Rob Lohman · March 24th, 2004, 08:14 AM

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.

Ben Gurvich · March 24th, 2004, 08:25 AM

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.

Rob Belics · March 24th, 2004, 08:49 AM

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.

Rick Bravo · March 24th, 2004, 09:03 AM

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

Ben Gurvich · March 24th, 2004, 09:05 AM

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)

Kevin Burnfield · March 24th, 2004, 09:06 AM

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.

Chris Hurd · March 24th, 2004, 09:32 AM

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.

Ben Gurvich · March 24th, 2004, 09:38 AM

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

Graeme Nattress · March 24th, 2004, 10:14 AM

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

December 31st, 2003, 01:47 PM	#107
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	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. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 1st, 2004, 03:11 PM	#110
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I recently saw the movie on DVD and thought it looked very nice. Didn't notice much video look at all. __________________ 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 24th, 2004, 07:32 AM	#111
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	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

March 24th, 2004, 08:14 AM	#112
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	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. __________________ 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 24th, 2004, 09:03 AM	#115
Rick Bravo Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 574	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 __________________ "The future ain't what it used to be." Yogi Berra. www.rbravo.com

December 31st, 2003, 12:38 PM	#106
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Because they didn't care one jot about picture quality. -->>> What?

December 31st, 2003, 02:29 PM	#108
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	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.

December 31st, 2003, 04:38 PM	#109
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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!

March 24th, 2004, 08:25 AM	#113
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	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.

March 24th, 2004, 08:49 AM	#114
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	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.

March 24th, 2004, 09:05 AM	#116
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	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)

March 24th, 2004, 09:06 AM	#117
Kevin Burnfield Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 363	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.

March 24th, 2004, 09:32 AM	#118
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	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. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

March 24th, 2004, 09:38 AM	#119
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	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

March 24th, 2004, 10:14 AM	#120
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	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 __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP