The plot and direction are fine, but the first movie epitomizes why I despise digital film, at least the early ones. That movie looks muddy and just terrible. It would have looked better on real film stock, especially the grainy 1970’s stock, if that’s the look the producers were aiming for.
I have to agree, this style of early/mid 00 filmmaking has aged poorly. The flashing images, quick cuts and fast forwards are annoying as hell and only shows poor skill at filming proper action.
share1080p HD is 2000k pixels. They used a 250k pixel camera which is for SD video so no wonder it looks bad.
shareThe look of the first made that first film close to unwatchable at times. It never made any sense to use standard-definition video when Panasonic VariCam professional video cameras that could shoot in high-definition 24-frames-per-second were available and were being used for Lucas' "Star Wars: Episode II" close to that time. 25 fps was used in Britain, but that could have been done too.
"28 Weeks Later" was shot on Super 16mm film. Thank heavens. Too many scenes that inexplicably take place in almost total darkness, though.
Danny Boyle is going back to low-end video again with "28 Years Later," this time using an Apple-modified iPhone with an adapter for cinema lenses.
A shot of the rig being used is on the right side of this image:
https://www.redsharknews.com/hs-fs/hubfs/28%20Years%20Later%20BTS.jpg?width=1280&height=856&name=28%20Years%20Later%20BTS.jpg
The MiniDV camera.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/dvc666.html
This article explains why they used DV instead of 35mm.
https://theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html
Still frames from the Blu-ray.
https://imgbox.com/IQkHpmFs
https://imgbox.com/l8cftgfM
https://imgbox.com/maEuVyYJ
https://imgbox.com/4udvYQKT
https://imgbox.com/O9v7d4nY
https://imgbox.com/k8zPyJ07
I read that article. But, they could have used Super 16mm or even regular 16mm as easily. Those Canons were a bit sizable and relatively heavy.
share