Danny Boyle did also have the best DV D.O.P. in the business, Anthony Dod Mantle. Might have made a difference.
I know it ha been mentioned but they were using some serious shit hot lenses and other kit.
think it was miker who said, that tat alex guy f*cked up with the beach so all they let him film with is DV these days
one of the guys who wasa in 28 days later is in my film btw,
Danny Boyle did also have the best DV D.O.P. in the business, Anthony Dod Mantle. Might have made a difference.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never saw 28 days on the cinema screen, but on DVD on my 32" TV it just looks really really soft and diffuse, with various gradients applied. It makes a mockery of the claim they used DV to represent realism when they have obviously spent so much time to not make it look like DV. Never have I been more agawp at a film look since seeing the sepia overtones in Lock Stock ...Originally posted by andyblaa:
Danny Boyle did also have the best DV D.O.P. in the business, Anthony Dod Mantle. Might have made a difference.
I thought 28 days was okay though, once I got past the 'look'.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, for guerilla filmmakers, that's the reality of budget constraints. But that's short-term thinking. Movies last forever.I thought part of the point of shooting DV was its speed, cheapness, mobility and ease of editing.
Is it wise to get in the habit of <u>sacrificing quality</u> and cutting corners when you dont have to?
Digital technology, while I appreciate it, respect it, and acknowledge it's positive impact on life in general, is undeniably making many people soft and lazy.
Remember when you had to go the library to look something up? Anyone here know what a card catalog is? I know...it's a tough one.
Don't worry about it.
Like everything else these days, it's just a fad. Anybody remember Dogme 95?
Didn't seem to have as much lasting value as we predicted, apparently.
George Lucas' predictions of DV conquering Hollywood within a few years have failed to materialize.
I feel the same way about DVD's. Undeniably love them, but it seems so evident that people seem to think image quality is more important than the quality of the movie itself.
Whenever I go to the library, they never seem to have anything I'm looking for, whether I use the catalog or not. Plus the books are downright filthy.
Hey there.
"one of the guys who wasa in 28 days later is in my film btw,"
Really? Which one? Sooty or Sweep?
Despin out.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think it would have looked better because instead of shooting DV then making it look like film, it would have been film to begin with.Originally posted by MatJimMood:
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.
Once you start using HMI's and can light as you want, the Super-8 would have given them a bigger bang for their buck. It's just that it would not have been hip to say it was shot on Super-8, but it was hip to say it was shot on mini-dv.
Primarily for the reasons GWE pointed out.
I wouldn't say it has anything to do with being hip. Its more that its an interesting experiment, filmmakers will be interested in what sort of results they could get from a mini dv camera. Like i said it can only help develop the technology. Hopefully in a few years time DV cameras will be as good quality as film cameras.
It reminds me of the change from studio to location shooting when filmmakers were using early handheld documentary film cameras to shoot outside. The films looked rough and were often lit poorly but if the cameras had never been used in that way the development in the technology might have slowed down. Its maybe not completely comparable but i hope it clarifies what i'm trying to say.
I think everyone saying that they shot on DV but used expensive lenses to make it look better is completely irrelevant. It was the intention to make DV look as good as possible so why shouldn't they use expensive lenses that are used on film cameras.
BTW i'm not a big fan of the film. It was alright but i think what the filmmakers were trying to do is important. In ten or twenty years time it will probably be one of the films refered to as an important set in the development of cinema.
I Agree with Matjimmood.
In years to come, wether you like this film or not, the look, whatever, 28 days later will be seen as a watershed film, that paved the way - it already has done - and brought high release DV awareness to many many people.
It does have an indy feel and look to it, its not
huge glamourous gorgeous photography, never the less its a big impact successful general release DV film, which can only make it easier in the future for Indy film makers to use and sell on this format.
As far as super8 is concerned, as much as I like super8, it would hardly have the same impact.
Part of the point is that it is a modern film, super8 is a nostalgic format, that looks dated.
DV is a modern format, which allows the look of the film to match and enhance the mood of the story.
Sure they used this as a selling point, probably with a little help from Sony (or Canon) - if you like its one big advert for Digital Technology, but isnt everything an advert for one thing or another somehow. Tough.
Besides where the money comes from and the intentions, they got the money, they got the film amde, and personally I think its damn good.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like I said, it was HIP to use mini-dv.Originally posted by eidde:
As far as super8 is concerned, as much as I like super8, it would hardly have the same impact.
Part of the point is that it is a modern film, super8 is a nostalgic format, that looks dated.
DV is a modern format, which allows the look of the film to match and enhance the mood of the story.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks