Those early digital years were brutal. 28 Days Later looks worse with every passing year, probably never fixable (the cam’s resolution and quality was just too low).
Edit: Wow, it was shot in SD 480 for some reason (I thought the cam was capable of HD 720). Fantastic article, full of tech details.
I’m glad they mentioned the release dates in the article because for a second there I was about to look up when “28 Weeks Later” came out to see if this mad lad waited 28 years to make the next movie. It came out in 2007 so it’s been 17 years. For some reason I felt like it was so much older than I remember, but it would have come out when I was a toddler if they did release it 28 years ago.
Maybe? Depends on how it’s used and if it looks good. Maybe they chose it because it looks a bit shit.
The Creator garnered some attention because it looked great while being shot on a relatively inexpensive camera. I do think people would be really surprised at what you’d get with a gimbal mounted cellphone with a 360° camera in terms of special effects integration, but this might not be their route.
I looked at the article and it turns out the phones are in humongous housings with cine lenses. So not shot with phones in the way it might sound. Citizenfour (2013 best documentary Oscar) was mostly shot with a Sony FS-100 camcorder (2K HD I’m pretty sure) that the filmmaker carried in her purse.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Boyle is probably the biggest name to hop on the digital hype train early on, so this isn’t super shocking.
Those early digital years were brutal. 28 Days Later looks worse with every passing year, probably never fixable (the cam’s resolution and quality was just too low).
Edit: Wow, it was shot in SD 480 for some reason (I thought the cam was capable of HD 720). Fantastic article, full of tech details.
I’m glad they mentioned the release dates in the article because for a second there I was about to look up when “28 Weeks Later” came out to see if this mad lad waited 28 years to make the next movie. It came out in 2007 so it’s been 17 years. For some reason I felt like it was so much older than I remember, but it would have come out when I was a toddler if they did release it 28 years ago.
… Anyway. I’m stoked to see the movie.
Couldn’t even use a 16 Pro?
/s
Dude, read the article. Iphone 16 wasn’t even released 28 years ago, let alone the pro.
wooosh
??? reread it
Edit: I feel like this has a hostile tone when it was not meant to. If it helps, read it as “??? reread it :)”
Is this a big deal? Tons of movies have been shot with consumer camcorders which are probably worse than a modern phone camera.
Maybe? Depends on how it’s used and if it looks good. Maybe they chose it because it looks a bit shit.
The Creator garnered some attention because it looked great while being shot on a relatively inexpensive camera. I do think people would be really surprised at what you’d get with a gimbal mounted cellphone with a 360° camera in terms of special effects integration, but this might not be their route.
I looked at the article and it turns out the phones are in humongous housings with cine lenses. So not shot with phones in the way it might sound. Citizenfour (2013 best documentary Oscar) was mostly shot with a Sony FS-100 camcorder (2K HD I’m pretty sure) that the filmmaker carried in her purse.
That’s one way to guarantee I don’t watch your movie
But, why?