28 Days later was shot for I think ?8 million.
Technical aspects of 28days later thanks to imdb
Printable View
28 Days later was shot for I think ?8 million.
Technical aspects of 28days later thanks to imdb
Hey there.
It was shot on the Mini Dv Cannon XL1S with a 35mm lense attatched. Like the other guy said. Im sure the last five minutes were 35mm. But that's it.
I'm sure many of the pictures you have seen are actual production still taken on a good quality 35mm still camera by the production photographer.
It certainly wasnt a "low budget" movie. Anyone have any idea where the finacing came from?
Despin out.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 24, 2003 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Despin ]</font>
I thought 28 days later was an excellent film, but back to the point of the topic.
It was obvious watching it at the cinema that it was shot on DV of some kind but as the movie went on I didn't notice this anymore. By then end I never noticed the last shots were on film. I supposed I must have been completely engrossed in the movie.
Nothing like a good audio track to keep a movie engrossing.
Using film stills to show shots of a digital movie is the kind of thing that Kodak shoots themselves in the foot with everyday.
I guarantee that 90% or more of the people who look at the link I provided will assume the stills are from the digital movie itself. Kodak should request that they be given a credit under the photo saying the stills were shot in film.
Might be good to have a "28 Days", Fiction or Fact topic so we can post what we've heard about the movie, and whether anyone else knows if it's fiction or fact.
"28 days" was shot in DV-CAM for between 8-12 million dollars?
The movie DOES use film in it.
The 28 Days Movie Review that I read has stills from the movie that look real nice, although they are quite small thumbnails.
Were these thumbnails taken from actual frames from the movie, or recorded in some different manner and than used in the review?
Well, I have questions, not much in the way of answers.
i though the only film part in it is at the end, - SPOILERS! TURN BACK NOW...................................At the end when its back in the countryside and everything is happy again, so it shows that 35mm is happy and DV is a horror film
First off, I'm neither pro dv or pro film. I use both.
I don't know where you dug up that review Alex. but it's way off the mark. How could anyone say it looked bad?! I don't even like horror films and I enjoyed 28 days.
"It was obvious watching it at the cinema that it was shot on DV of some kind..."
Only to people like us! You ask any regular cinema punter and they won't have a clue what you're on about! No one I attended the screening with said anything about shoddy visuals.
Having researched the film in some detail for college, I've never heard that any film was used in its production. Theres also nothing to suggest the stills were taken with a film camera beyond your own speculation.
Danny Boyle never mentioned the alledged use of film in any of the interviews he gave surrounding 28 days. Neither does the cinematographer.
The movie was shot on MINI-DV (not dv-cam) for 10 million.
If on the other hand you wanna see a dv film that looks krap, I'd point you to Soderbergh's "Full Frontal."
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 25, 2003 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Generic Skinhead ]</font>
well to be honest, i know just about nothing about film making and my thoughts upon reading this thread were actually along the lines of....
watching a movie i'd not have a clue about what was used to film it or how it was filmed - though I was second guessing all you lot would, so I never said anything before.
Hey there.
I would say the last few shot of that movie (all the ones set in the countryside) are clearly shot on 35mm.
Despin out.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I just did a Google keyword search, honest.Quote:
Originally posted by Generic Skinhead:
I don't know where you dug up that review Alex. but it's way off the mark.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, a good soundtrack goes along way in that regard. Blair Witch anyone?Quote:
Originally posted by Generic Skinhead:
Only to people like us! You ask any regular cinema punter and they won't have a clue what you're on about! No one I attended the screening with said anything about shoddy visuals.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Beyone your own speculation", as in singular? At least two of us are wondering about it? That's why this topic post is called, fact or fiction, to see if anyone knows. You may have researched the film, but did you bother to look and see if film permeated any aspect of the production?Quote:
Originally posted by Generic Skinhead:
Having researched the film in some detail for college, I've never heard that any film was used in its production. There's also nothing to suggest the stills were taken with a film camera beyond your own speculation.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Once again, if there was real film used at the end of the film, it's Kodak dropping the PR ball again. There seems to be some consensus that the last image or two of the film was shot in 35mm.Quote:
Originally posted by Generic Skinhead:
Danny Boyle never mentioned the alleged use of film in any of the interviews he gave surrounding 28 days. Neither does the cinematographer.
Surely it would have been in Kodak's best interest to encourage the mention of their product on a supposedly completely digital production.