No, you have misunderstood how PAL and NTSC work.

The 4% speedup has nothing to do with PAL to NTSC conversion. It has to do with the conversion of film (24fps) to PAL (25fps). Because these numbers are so close, it was decided not to implement a complicated pulldown scheme to correct the running time (as is in place to convert film to 30fps NTSC). Therefore, a production shot on film at 24fps will run 4% too fast on PAL video.

The conversion of PAL to NTSC does not involve any sort of speedup because another pulldown scheme is used to do the conversion. A PAL transfer converted to NTSC runs at the exact same speed as the original PAL video (i.e. 4% faster than film).

28 Days Later was shot on PAL video. It is meant to run at 25fps. That is its proper speed and the audio was recorded to match. The PAL DVD runs at the correct speed, and when it is converted to NTSC that disc will run at the correct speed as well, but will have lower resolution.

Josh Z, if what I read is right from what you said. it's shot on PAL video but your forgetting it's made into FILM prints from video, 24 Frame. so having it on PAL dvd isn't going to make it the same as what it was shot at because they will be converting it to pal from Film. Unless films are 25 frames in the uk then you will be seeing the film at 24 frames the same as it is everywhere else in the world. then converted to what ever the local TV system uses.

I went ahead and took the plung, and ordered it from amazon.co.uk.

Thanks all for your responses!

jarryjayo beat me to it, but he's correct when he says that the fact that the movie was shot on PAL video is immaterial, since we're still talking about a 24fps film transfer. My bad for implying that the PAL-to-NTSC player conversion was at fault for the speed-up, but that's not what I meant to say. I'm starting to confuse myself here, but I think the end result is still as I stated above: The PAL disc will be sped up by 4% when you watch it on an NTSC player. To some people, this is readily noticeable and often distracting, particularly if you've seen the movie in the theater and are familiar with the soundtrack. I tend to notice these pitch changes myself, so I'm waiting for the NTSC disc.

For proof that there's no PAL speedup, look no further than the Fox Searchlight Pictures intro. The Fox fanfare plays at its normal pitch, unlike other Fox UK DVDs I have like the Buffy and Angel box sets.

I also have the R2 DVD for Coupling Season 2. That was shot on video and there's no PAL speedup there either. Josh Z is right on this, trust me.

That's interesting. How could they have avoided doing a film transfer when part of 28 Days Later was shot on 35mm? It seems like they would have had to have done the transfer from a film source.

You make a good point when you say that the DVD was probably transferred from a film print. In fact, I think I said something to that effect when I wrote my review. Maybe I should try being consistent, huh?

Anyway, there is no audible pitch problem on this disc, because even if it was sped up from the film run speed, the disc has been pitch-corrected.

The only problem I had with the movie over all is that the movie is WAY to slow when there are no action scene's are going on. My audience made fun of the guy who was in a maids uniform when I saw it.

I really like this movie RYpro, seen it two or three times already. I think it's one of the best movies so far this summer. You guys know what this new ending means right...

Movies in the future are going to have different endings to make you see the movie more then once. I can see it now. they sorta already do this but only by accident. but I can really see theaters showing two or more versions of the same movie. people will have to see it more then onces to see the version all of there friends are talking about.

This was ok and worth a rental but whatever you do AVOID SEEING THE TRAILER or else you seriously shouldn't bother with the actual movie. I agree it wasn't that scary - why are so few movies actually scary these days? Does that put off women?

Most of the fun is from wondering what's going to happen next, rather than actually seeing it happen. The characters were only mildly engaging and the story not that enthralling once it becomes clear where the whole thing is heading.

Yeah, that's been done...almost 20 years ago with Clue. Advertised with three different endings. I even remember the original newspaper ads listing theatres showing ending A, B or C. I think it had the opposite desired effect, though. People may have decided to skip the movie altogether rather than try to pick out which ending or have to sit through multiple viewings.

Mr. Sardonicus from 1961 was supposed to have multiple endings of which the audience voted for the outcome. This gimmick probably used the suggestion of multiple endings without actually having them, as no one can verify that any different ending existed.

Back to the original topic of the thread, I'm wondering if the R2 release might be better than the R1 release considering the Trainspotting: The Definitive Edition available in R2. Personally, I'm going to wait until the R1 release is out, compare and buy the better one.

Define "scary". What movies do you think are scary?

It's next to impossible to make truly scary movies anymore, because audiences have seen everything by now and are too jaded to be scared.


The director may be the same, but the studio is completely different. Fox owns this movie in both regions, and will probably release pretty much the same disc here.

However, the region 1 DVD is almost certain to include the alternate ending seen in theaters, which is different than the deleted scene on the region 2 DVD, in that the theatrical version has a completed sound mix with music and effects, and the DVD has only raw dialogue.

I am not disappointed in the R2. Watched it and the movie for the first time Saturday and thought it was a great update on a tired genre.

I for one will wait for the R1 as it may indeed be taken directly from the original "digital" master rather than from the film print exhibited in theatres. The film transfer was weak, thus a digital to digital version will present 28 DAYS LATER in the light that the filmmakers originally intended. Theatres here in the states didn't get a DLP version of the film. I have no idea if it was released digitally to theatres in Europe. This is a remarkable film and it derseves a pristine DVD transfer. The only problem is that Fox hasn't said "for sure" if they will use the original HD master or not for the R1 release. My fingers are crossed....

I'm betting the US DVD will also be a film to DVD transfer just like the UK DVD. Why? Here are some reasons, none definitive:

1. Nothing I've read or heard about this film from Danny Boyle leads me to believe digital was the intended medium of showing it. I've got the R2 disc. In the commentary Boyle doesn't address it exactly, but he does hit all around it. Among things he mentions how he likes the look of it once it was transferred to film, and talks a little about the process. It leads me to believe he knew this was how the movie was going to come out, and the studio had nothing to do with it.

2. The film is not shot in digital like George Lucas uses, it was shot on DV, (Digital Video) like Uncle Larry uses to video the family on his vacation to the shore. There's a big difference between the two, and the 2nd doesn't call for a digital projector.

3. The movie wasn't entirely shot on DV either, the ending is good old 35mm film. The ending is shot differently to change the tone of the movie. Again, according to Boyle, digitizing that would've flattened it and would not have had the same effect he was going for, while transferring the digital video to film only intensified the look/feel of that part of the movie.

Take all of that for what it's worth. I've read some reviews of the UK DVD and theatrical release trashing the studio for screwing up the film completely by not showing it digitally in theaters and then for doing a film to digital transfer on the DVD. I think it stems mainly from them not understanding the difference between digital and digital video. Boyle has actually addressed that in interviews I've read and stated he's quite happy with the result and it looks exactly like he wanted it to. I have to believe the filmmaker knows what he's talking about.

My only gripe wth the picture was the DV issue and not having utilized 24p, HD filmmaking. Point taken, renaldow.

The movie is not meant to look pristine. In addition to shooting on standard-def video, he manipulated the image quality in post production to make it look more grungy. Getting a "clean" version of this movie would defeat the point.

per dvdfile, Even more gory thrills can be had a week later on October 21st when Fox unleashes the British zombie sleeper 28 Days Later. Available in separate anamorphic widescreen and full screen flavors both with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround tracks, extras include audio commentary with director danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland, not one but three alternate endings, deleted Scenes, the "Pure Rage" featurette, two still galleries, storyboards, a music video and theatrical and teaser trailers.

I bought it from CD-Wow shipped for $20.95 for R2. The lowest R1 price for November so far is $19.95 (before shipping).

A very nice disc. There possibly can't be anything extra to throw on the R1 and I bet it won't have the keen red case either

I just found a good read at CNN.

If anyone is interested I have done a review of the R2 DVD. It is pretty good and I would certainly recommend it. Anyway the review can be found here

I have the R2 PAL release.. Must have been pitch corrected, I would've have noticed ANY type of high pitching having seen the movie so many times at the theater as well as listening to the OST.

However, the picture quality does leave a lot to be desired.. I understand the film is supposed to look "gritty" but I don't think it was intended to look artifacty.

Yes, it is supposed to look exactly the way it looks. The movie was shot with consumer-grade digital video cameras, and then additionally run through all sorts of processing software to intentionally degrade the image quality.

Try watching the movie in a theater. You'll see that the film print looks exactly the same as the R2 DVD.

It WILL however have three alternate endings according to the ad in Video Store magazine.

Which..are on the.....R2 version.