28 Days later PQ - Please explain

[CasualKiller]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Source please.

Edit: And I suppose if Spielberg had a bigger budget for Schindler's List, something closer to what he had for Jurassic Park, he would have shot the movie in color, right? Because obviously the black and white wasn't his intention, he just said it was.

Not even the same thing, 28 days was shot the way it was because of its budget, people started all these rumors saying "that's how it is supposed to look" and blah blah blah.

It was the best he could do with what he had to work with, bottom line, if he had Steven Spielbergs budget we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.


Start reading:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa...G=Search&meta=

[Dotpattern]

That link takes me to a google page with tons of websites. Where is your source where Danny Boyle states that if he had more money he would have shot the movie on film (or other format) other than DV?

Because right now we all agree the movie looks bad, but your claim is that it was not intentional but rather out of necessity due to budget limitations. Where is the source to support your claim?

My source is Danny Boyle's commentary track where he discusses at length the look he was going for and why he chose to shoot on DV for artistic intent, but I don't recall him saying anything about budget limitations.

[quirkmanly]

http://www.indiewire.com/people/people_030627boyle.html

Danny Boyle: "I'd just shot a few films on DV, and the only way to shoot London on our budget was to use the DV technology. The DV technology felt absolutely right for an apocalyptic setting.

There's also a very pretentious reason: this story felt like a circumstance in which a camera like this would work. If you could find batteries they would still operate. At one point [the character of Jim] was going to find a camera and look at it and look back at what had been recorded. He found one in the street. We didn't use it in the end. But that felt sort of appropriate, really. Besides which, it's very much an urban story, and our cities are full of these cameras.

And I think [DV is] extraordinary for urban stories, especially as the medium improves technically. They're progressing technically the whole time. I think more and more urban pictures will be done on it. I'm not sure it's right for all films."

The article is an interesting read.

[Dotpattern]

That is interesting, quirkmanly. It is contrary to what is stated in the making of and commentary tracks, but I'll stand corrected.

[X400]

actually that quote seems pretty similar to what was said on the commentary





anyway... a Canon XL1 was $4699 MSRP (with the standard lens) when it came out.... im sure for that price he could have gotten a better film camera? or used a tiny bit more cash for an awesome camera.... or even worked out a deal to use a low budget film camera for free that would still be better than that DV, blah blah blah

i really doubt he was pinching his pennies THAT much!, he wouldnt have bothered with extra scenes then and those alternate endings etc etc etc


point is given the choice between the 28days later dvd or blu-ray id get the blu.. even for the audio alone

[Rhoq]

For those with HD television service - 28 Days Later on Blu-ray is comparable to how standard definition looks when delivered through an HD feed. PQ is much better, with little no compression artifacts - but it's still a far cry from high def. This movie will never look better than what is presented on the BD.

[JaylisJayP]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

Unless you're a 28 ____ fanboy it's not even watchable. My wife is far from an HD buff and 3 minutes in she asked if we got a bad disc.

This quote receives my highest

No the PQ isn't any better than DVD, but the audio is fantastic, and the movie is one of the best in its genre in the past 25 years or more.

I wouldn't pay 30 bucks for it, but I'd definitely pay $15 (which I did during last year's Circuit City BOGO goof , just don't expect HD picture until the last 5 minutes of the movie.

Anyone who says it's not better than the DVD probably doesn't have access to HD audio.

[Clark Kent]

The Blu-ray looks closer to the actual master than any other movie released on the Blu-ray format. It can never be improved on due to the limitations of the source material.

[MAPdead]

I don't see how people can say this movie looks good. This was one of the first titles I got when I first started buying blus a few months ago and this is by far the worst looking movie I have. I am tempting to buy it back on dvd just to see if it looks the same.

[X400]

nobodies saying it looks "good" in comparison to whats out there... but for 28days later, it looks good

[cembros]

if anyone here is unhappy with their copy of 28 days later i will be more than happy to take it off your hands, just send me a pm

[krazeyeyez]

gotta agree with whats been said, if the blu is the closest it can be to the source, then its a success, if they have lossless audio, the dvd does not, then it it is leaps and bounds better then the former. in my circle the only ones that complain about these types of sub-reference blu's are my buddies that joined the format with ps3, don't understand that not all blu's will or even can look like superbad, and don't understand how bad and SOFT the dvd would look on their 50"+ tv's, but lets get back to the real issue, 300 and the grain.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by quirkmanly

http://www.indiewire.com/people/people_030627boyle.html

Danny Boyle: "I'd just shot a few films on DV, and the only way to shoot London on our budget was to use the DV technology. The DV technology felt absolutely right for an apocalyptic setting.

.

iW: How did you shoot the London sequence? Did they let you block off the streets?

Boyle: It is possible, usually big Hollywood movies, like "102 Dalmatians" can close off Westminster Bridge for a Sunday morning. With big bucks it can happen. With a film of this scale, you cannot do that, and you certainly cannot get permission to do that scale of work. So we said to the authorities, "We'd like to go in on six or seven sequential mornings and we will ask the traffic to stop" and because we've got the DV cameras, we can set up six to ten cameras looking at a very particular part of London and we'll just ask the traffic to stop and try to shoot for a minute or 10 minutes. It worked. We couldn't believe it ourselves.

**clearly, Boyle's reaons for using the DV's were logistical, not just financial. you can argue those are the same thing, but when you're dealing with the London Police and shutting down downtown London, you better have lots of cameras around. also, the style of the DV wasn't just in the image we see, but the DV itself (boyle emphasizes that deserted cities will have DV's laying around, Jim picks one up and looks at it, etc. **

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

Too funny, the original was shot on an SD hand cam. When they ported it over to blu ray they exposed every flaw and glitch in the movie.

The picture is absolutely horrible and pixelated, no amount of remastering or touch ups will ever make it look good.

Yes, the PQ is pretty bad.

[frogmort]

You're arguing with people that had a conversation that occured six years ago.

[Hek_qwerr]

Originally Posted by frogmort

You're arguing with people that had a conversation that occured six years ago.

Shhhhh let him have his moment

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by Hek_qwerr

Shhhhh let him have his moment

Is there a limit on the number of years a movie has been out that people can no longer discuss it? Might want to tell the folks in this thread how silly they are.

Double Indemnity (1944) & Touch of Evil (1958) - currently at 446 posts.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by DGates01

Is there a limit on the number of years a movie has been out that people can no longer discuss it?

No, but you look quite silly arguing with people who made those posts six years ago and have likely long since forgotten this thread.

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by benricci

No, but you look quite silly arguing with people who made those posts six years ago and have likely long since forgotten this thread.

Oh come on, people do that over at IMDB all the time.

[TylerDurden389]

Originally Posted by DGates01

Oh come on, people do that over at IMDB all the time.

You realize you just provided more evidence to the other side of the argument, right?