i know that most of 28 days later was filmed with a cannon xl1 and i was just wondering if anyone knew if the did any thing special with the film in order to get it looking so good (ie cinema quality) or was it just good lighting?
Im not certain.But my guess is that the fact they used that camera is decieving.
They probably spent hundreds of thousands on technology to make it as clear as it is.
I thimk they used that camera to give it a more realistic effect.
It worked out:the film was fucking amazing
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With the best lighting in the world you'll never get mini-DV to look like film.or was it just good lighting?
The film was shot with an XL1, but they had a budget of over ?6m. The digital print went through a SHIT load of post-production grading and altering to get it to look the way it does.
Each camera was equipped with a ?20,000 lens.
Maybe that had something to do with it...
This might tie-into the questions Tatorhead was asking about frame speed & "action look" several weeks ago. Y'know, the hyperkinetic clear dirt sprays when the infected attack. Sharp yet disjointed motions.
why not just use a really good beta-cam for the price they paid for an xl-1 and a 20,000 lens?
a guy called len
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What a logical question.Originally posted by charles bronson:
why not just use a really good beta-cam for the price they paid for an xl-1 and a 20,000 lens?
I guess they wanted the zaniness of a small handheld camera??? Also to hype the mini-dv camera and keep sales strong for that format, yep, a product placement tie in. I guarantee that film could have been shot in Super-8 for half the money and it would have looked better than the mini-dv, but there is no money to be made in Super-8 for the corporations, and Kodak would rather everyone shoot 16mm and 35mm.
And I believe the budget was 15 million, not 6 million as was mentioned above.
I thought part of the point of shooting DV was its speed, cheapness, mobility and ease of editing.
I think Alex is being a bit cynical. Movies are an industry,they exist because they make money. Besides its not really a product placement tie in. The majority of the audience who saw the film probably never realised or cared that the film was shot on DV cameras.
I'd rather think that the filmmakers were promoting DV filmmaking as a way of helping to encourage development of the technology.
Shooting on super8 wouldn't of looked better, just different.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 20, 2004 05:56 AM: Message edited by: MatJimMood ]</font>
for the london scenes they said dv was the only way for the speed of shoot they required.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks