this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
165 points (93.7% liked)
movies
4208 readers
134 users here now
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the titleβs subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For real? Why?
28 Days Later also used one of the first digital-only production cameras Sony put out at the time. Itβs something the director does and itβs kinda neat. This is why thereβs no real high quality versions of 28 Days, but itβs also kinda why it has more charm.
I tried to watch it again recently and it looks like absolute trash. I appreciate directors being experimental but at least with old analog formats they scale pretty well with modern resolutions.
I enjoyed rewatching both first and second films recently and I think they hold up pretty well on my 4K TV. What specifically made them look like absolute trash to you?
The first was filmed with extremely low resolution, so it looks like it was filmed in extremely low resolution
I personally appreciate the aesthetic of the original. To each their own I guess π
I'm with you on that. Gives a rawness and out of sorts kind of feeling that Jim would have been experiencing.
But it's one of my favourite movies, so I'm biased. It's up there with Train to Busan for zombie-flicks for me.
Put some respect on the name: Danny freakinβ Boyle.
I read the article, and I understand their reasoning. But I hate movies that to that shaky camera effect. I don't want be there or feel I watching it from someone phone or hand camcorder. Sucks was looking forward to seeing this. But don't see it worth wasting my money and time in a theater to do so. Glad for article to warn me of the quality I am going get.
Did the article say it was shaky? Even if they didn't use the iPhone image stabilization, surely they could adjust it in post-production so it looks good.
Too bad there's no article that immediately explains why...
Price/performance ratio usually
Cheaper to get 20 iPhones on a custom rig vs some other solution
And you can just sell them for 80% of purchase value after π
It's literally explained in the article that 80% of commenters here clearly didn't read
IPhone ad.
It's used only in certain scenes, and he said the minor shifts in perspective will be used in editing to create certain effects.
Can't they use better cameras to achieve the same effect?
I'd assume they went this route for weight saving. Quite possibe that the end effect doesn't need cinema quality cameras either. I think he even mentioned this as like a mobile poor man's bullet time rig.
The original was shot on handycam video cameras to give it a raw feeling. Danny Boyle says he was shooting it all on iPhone to get a modern version of that.
yes
Thanks π
More expensive though.
Not really, you would need multiple cameras from multiple perspectives to do the same thing regardless. There is no camera of any quality that can take a picture from 5 feet to the left of where it's sitting.