28 Days Later (2002)

[CasualKiller]

Try this excerpt:

RES: What were other benefits of using digital cinematography for this film?

BOYLE: The biggest benefit, to be absolutely honest, was the London sequences, because we would not have been able to afford to do those on celluloid and not only that, they would have been, in their very nature, completely different. If we were working with a celluloid camera, with the number of people you need to operate that, it would have been either much less ambitious or staggeringly expensive, in which case the film would have been very different, in part because we would have had to have a star in it to pay for it.

RES: What about disadvantages?

Boyle: Picture quality, especially on wide shots. We were fortunate; on the whole we got away with it. When you dwell on a wide shot, the human eye is so extraordinary that it goes to where it is interested on that big screen and it zooms in, just like that zoom in on the video game. Halo! If the eye is interested in that picture and if the detail isn't there, it looks a bit shitty. Whereas on film, you can go in that close and there's enough detail there so it is still acceptable. That's the only major disadvantage. I am not sure if DV would work for period films as there is something completely modern about its feel and about it as a recording or capturing process. If you did a Jane Austin novel or great period piece, I don't know what it would look like; it might feel very odd.

[surfdude12]

yes, i agree with that excerpt: it would have been a "much less ambitious" flick without DV, as Boyle couldn't have shot the scenes the way he wanted to.

[Clark Kent]

Most of the film was shot using cameras that have no more native resolution than dvd. The Blu-ray is as good as this movie will ever look. The last scene is shot on traditional 35mm film and will look like what you have come to expect from movies on Blu-ray. There is nothing wrong with your Blu-ray.

[KingLeonidas300]

I understand that this film doesn't have the best looking eye candy for blu, but if you watch and except the film for what it is and the intent behind the making of it, it is a great movie. It was one of my first blu's into my collection and would never part with it.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

if you can ONLY get stereo 2.0 from it, it is NOT a blu-ray.
I own 28 Days and it is DTS-HD MA 5.1

Yes, the PQ isn't the best, but if you don't have the 5.1 DTS_HD MA, its not Blu, period.

No one can make that statement until the OP explains what BD player he is using, whether it is set to PCM/Bitstream, how it's connected to his receiver, what receiver he has and how the the receiver is set up. His settings/connections could all be incorrect.

[TheZoof]

The first time I watched this on blu... I was so dissapointed.

Then I watched it again... and I realized it looks just like I remember in theaters if not better.

It's a great BLU... the sound is awesome.

[Kynch]

*I iz poking your aiz in*

[Q?]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

Try this excerpt:

But the director just compromised and accepted the pro's and con's concerning dv versus celluloid camera, so all in all I believe it was the intend of the director. AND
he didn't want any famous actors, so the movie could be more believable and by that he wouldn't have realised his vision for the movie, if they had used the more expensive celluloid cameras it would have warranted famous
actors to accommodate the expences (if that makes sense). Like he said.

[VHS4Ever]

Originally Posted by CheapChildren

It received that rating because considering the source it looks exactly how it should.

That's how it looked in theaters..

The rating system is not based on how amazing the movie looks. It's based on how well the film is transferred and that's how it should be. If not every movie not made in the past two decades would be unfairly judged.

Actually a lot of old movies look good.
Casablanca, Blade Runner, Patton, etc.

It would helpful to really know how great the PQ actually is since this is on Blu-ray and it does cost money to upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray. If the PQ is only as great as the DVD version why I would want to upgrade.

If the PQ is rated base on the transfer alone, shouldn't there be a Transfer catagory?

[Q?]

Originally Posted by VHS4Ever

Actually a lot of old movies look good.
Casablanca, Blade Runner, Patton, etc.

It would helpful to really know how great the PQ actually is since this is on Blu-ray and it does cost money to upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray. If the PQ is only as great as the DVD version why I would want to upgrade.

Forgive me for imposing, but you should have just read the review:

"I am sure my rating here will draw the ire of many. No, this movie does not look good. But let’s not knock Fox or the disc for this. The bulk of the film was shot on a Canon DV camcorder. The picture is what it is and this disc represents it as well as you will ever see it." <---- this is an excerpt from the review, completely true and honest.

[Joon]

Skip to the very end of the movie and see what it looks like. The final 5 minutes or so are shot in HD and the picture quality is very good.

[mariners2010]

I loved this movie despite the quality.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by Joon

Skip to the very end of the movie and see what it looks like. The final 5 minutes or so are shot in HD and the picture quality is very good.

Not shot in HD. Shot on 35mm film.

[dcowboy7]

did it go "aaarrrg" when u opened it ?

[hamisht]

I have this film only on DVD. I think the picture quality is great!

[BStecke]

In regards to the audio . . . if you have a player that is decoding the audio, if the player is connected via optical it will convert the DTS signal to PCM and send that out via optical, but optical can only handle stereo PCM. Like Ricshoe said, a description of the setup would be helpful.

[MAPdead]

The Blu Ray transfer just sucks man mainly the PQ the SQ isnt too bad

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

No one can make that statement until the OP explains what BD player he is using, whether it is set to PCM/Bitstream, how it's connected to his receiver, what receiver he has and how the the receiver is set up. His settings/connections could all be incorrect.

you're right, good point. i presumed an HDMI connection and proper blu-player and receiver communication.

[richieb1971]

If you bought it from a bootleg market then it probably is. If you bought it from best buy, well its a silly question really.

[krylonman]

Originally Posted by VHS4Ever

It would helpful to really know how great the PQ actually is since this is on Blu-ray and it does cost money to upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray. If the PQ is only as great as the DVD version why I would want to upgrade.

If the PQ is rated base on the transfer alone, shouldn't there be a Transfer catagory?

Dude, they thoroughly explain the rating in the review. If you want to know about the picture quality, you've got to put in the effort of actually reading about it instead of just looking at the numerical score.


Edit: And I have to go through the effort of reading an entire thread. Someone already pointed this out. Heh. Irony?