Barry Green wrote:
"I did see it on the big screen, and I was fairly disappointed."

(also about 28 days later) Same for me but what can you expect for a camera whose CCD has lower resolution than it's actual image. But it did deliver pretty well as far as the ambience is concerned. Not as much visible artefacts as I would have guessed.

Like I said, I saw it on the small screen in a divx 700mb no less, and was very impressed. The empty bridge scene looked great and made me sure it was film. I was looking for DV type artifacting but nothing ever poped out to my eye. They must have used some sort of cleaning program.
Ya its funny they chose those cameras. It must have been for the lens options. But why not even the S model? Maybe it was shot a while ago. Two years ago that might have been first choice.
I have a feeling it was borrow your buddies XL1 day and they ended up with 8.

They could have used whatever they wanted -- they had a $15,000,000 budget!

I don't really know why they chose the XL1. Obviously part of it was that they wanted to use Frame Mode, and the XL1 is one of the few cameras that could do it. Also they ditched the stock lens and used expensive Canon zooms, so they were surely trying to get the best quality they could. There was no DVX or SDX available, so frame mode was about it. Why they chose XL1 instead of XL1s is a question...

It is a question of look, a bad creepy, desolate world with a low res video image, highly contrasted and desaturated, then, in the end, as the world gets better and the zombies dies, the film is shot Hi-res, everything is clean and colorfull. it is a efficient method of getting us in the mood and it did indeed work fine. Keep in mind there are motives and there are means, they had the means, it was a conscient choice. This being said, I don't think we can compare transferring XL1 footage to 35mm and JVC to 35mm so I do not see where this discussion would lead us. I guess we should move forward to discussing about the JVC.

Low res
 

The only part in the film, when viewed on the big screen, that really seemed to call out for better resolution was the initial scene in abandoned London, where buildings in the distance had this really blurry out of focus look, and even an annoying little surrounding halo. Seems like such a waste when it must have cost a fortune to clear out so much of the city for shooting. Probably more than the cost of all the DV cameras x1000. I would have like to seen that part on film.

I saw 28 Days and I didn't even notice that it was DV until later on in the movie. I was watching it like everyone else in the theatre...watching the content!

At some point early on...I did notice the aspect ration. But, the stupid projectionist's never seem to get the movies right. You notice that? The edges always go off into the wall instead of on the damn screen!

Anyway, I said to myself..."Damn, I was ingrossed in the movie and didn't notice that it was shot in DV!" At the end, I did notice the difference in the ending...and I told my girlfriend afterwards about the technical change. She said, "I didn't notice anything different."

Soo...once again. It's not the camera it's the operator. (But, I'll still take my HD10U over any DV!)

Chris

I went to a free preview of 28 days..., not knowing it was shot on DV. Pretty much as soon as the movie started I noticed that it was shot on DV, although the picture quality was more akin to VHS, with the edge enhancement sharpness turned up to the full.

I've seen PAL and NTSC video converted onto film for an SMPTE conference, and even their worst example (they were demonstrating how, and how not to do it) was better looking than 28 days...

The fact is that they purposefully degraded the video. Everyone else knows that you turn the sharpness control to a minimum. The end result is a headache inducing, out of focus mess.

BTW, at the SMPTE conference, they had shot the some test scenes on HDCam and Film together (with the cameras next to each other) and projected the HD digitally, and converted to film, and the film as film. Obviously, the film prints were pristine because they'd not been through a theatrical distribution. There was a lot more shadow detail on the HD, although the film handled highlights better. Overall the HD projected digitally looked best.

Larry, if you read the link to the article you will understand that not being able to clear the streets is why they chose DV.
SD resolution is how 80% of everybody who watches this movie will view it. And it holds up, thanks to some crafty film work. I urge everyone who is into making their own movie with a HD10 to read the article, and learn from some of the techniques they used.
ken

I heard a key reason they shot 28 days digitally was that you can't shut down parts of London like you can shut down parts of other cities around the world - it's not permitted

Graham,

Do a search for 28 Days Later here at DV Info, and you'll get the scoop on it.

heath

>>I wouldn't make the assumption as so many did with the VX1000 that this is the end of development for this format. Sony, Sharp, JVC and Canon have all adopted the HDV MPEG 2 format as a new video standard. It will not surprise me in the least when at NAB 2004 we see a new 3 chip, switchable glass lens camera from either SONY or JVC (I'd bet on JVC) and a HD version of the PD150 and XL1s.<<

Check out DVInfo News.