28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
 

Did anyone else think 28 Days Later had a sub-par HiDef transfer?

I just finished watching it (onto 28 Weeks Later now, which looks much better) and couldn't help feeling underwelmed. The picture quality didn't have the "vivid crispness" I've gotten used to for HD transfers, and several times it looked like background objects had horizontal lines going through them. (the trash near the beginning of the movie when Jim is wandering around, the billboards in the background of the city shots.) Maybe too much edge enhancement or something?

Also, the DTS track seemed too far to the right. At times I got up and checked the left side just to make sure there WAS a left channel.

I'm playing it on a PS3 BTW.

-Jason

The way it was shot means it really can't look much better.
The only reason I bought it was it was $15 at CC and there was nothing else of interests.

HD Digest agrees with you calling it "an utter disappointment". However, the film was shot with an SD camcorder, so really, what can they do?

Yeah...there's no way this will ever look HD...it was filmed in SD.

The only reason this was even released on BD was as a promotional tie in with the sequel. It was filmed in a very low resolution and then intentionally manipulated and degraded.

What you're seeing may not look "pretty" or "HD", but it's what the filmmaker's intended. Honestly, I can't see any reason to pay BD prices for this... not when you can find the virtually-identical standard DVD for 7 bucks.

Yeah, still shocked they released this on blu-ray because it was shot in SD video...sure it was PAL video so you get a fraction more resolution than our NTSC dvd, but not enough to justify the sticker price...they should have put a warning on the disc indicating that it was shot on standard def DV.

There's nothing wrong with the transfer. It looks exactly the way it did in theatres.

Ahhhh... I forgot that was the way this was filmed. Thanks for reminding me guys. The transfer makes much more sense now.

I did do a comparison between the BD and DVD (upscaled with a Panasonic player) and the BD is indeed a better transfer, but not by much.

Would've bought it anyway since I also got 28 Weeks Later on BD (which looks damn good BTW and was a better flick than I expected.)

-Jason

There is one perceptible benefit to the BD--lossless audio. However, it's DTS-HD MA, which makes it a little less useful right now.

Also remember that the end of the movie was shot with film so that looks much better than the SD DVD too.

exactly. And now the ending looks MUCH more dramatic when it purposefully shifts to 35mm.

Actually, not even. The movie was shot with a consumer DV camera using a mode that only gets about 240 active lines of resolution. It doesn't even come close to the maximum potential of NTSC DVD.

The Blu-ray transfer is faithful to the way the movie is supposed to look. The real question is why Fox would issue a movie like this on Blu-ray in the first place.

OBVIOUSLY for the last 30 seconds shot on film! ;)

Actuallt the Canon XL1 was a pro-sumer camera. I was VERY close to getting one but wound up settling for the Sony VX2000 back when I shot industrials, weddings, bands etc...
They used the PAL version which has 576 lines in interlaced mode but they used a hybrid progressive scan format (shot in 25P) and the actual resolution was
432 lines (576/2 X 1.5) because of how the CCD chip captures the image.

The way it works, (this relates specifically to the NTSC version of the camera but you just adjust from 480 to 576 to get the PAL lines info...)
Adam Wilt covered the tech details in an article in DV Mag (www.dv.com). Frame is progressive, just not full or true progressive capture. Because it uses a technical trick, it grabs 360 lines each second rather than 480, but it eliminate the interlacing between to the 2 240 line fields. A true progressive scan CCD would capture 480 lines each second (as some low-end Canon 1-chips do) and of course the Cinealta etc. with 24P. That's why Canon does not called it progressive and put a 30P sticker on the XL-1. The manual also states 1.5X increase in field vertical resolution - not 2X.

So altogether, 432 lines of res. BUT then it was cropped to 16x9 as I don't think they used anamorphic lenses on the XL1. So after all is said and done, a bit over 300 approx... BUT, then the image was further degraded electronically to get the real harsh image they wanted. It WAS intentional. I have shot material on my vx2000 that looks MUCH better aesthetically but that was my aim.

:)

anyone have the firmware patch for the new 20th century films? which would include this film...

It tells me I need the update for this film.

It'll still play the film, only the sound cuts on and off...

I'm using the PS3

is someone has a copy that are disappointed in PM me....

I haven't updated my PS3 in a while and 28 Days Later played fine for me.

I loved this film when I saw it the first time, but I just wasn't as interested in it watching the BD. I got mine during the CC B1G1 fiasco, watched it once, and sold it on Ebay for a little profit.

I'm running with the 1.53....


Not good! :( lol

vcuram: If you have any of the Anchor Bay horror films that you purchased during the promo that your wanting to get rid of please let me know.

With the exception of Halloween.

:lol:

I just watched this movie on BD/PS3 for the first time ever last night (netflixed it) and couldn't BELIEVE how bad it looked. Glad to know now that it wasn't just a poorly done transfer.

*adds 28WL to netflix queue*

28 Weeks Later, having been shot on standard film, looks much better than 28 Days Later.

Unfortunately as a movie 28 Weeks Later is much worse than 28 Days Later.

I'm prepared for that, but I'll give it a shot. Then Sunshine comes up after that.

This movie on DVD already looks lower-res than DVD is capable of, so it's a given that it'll look low-res on Hi-Def.

(I like the movie, but that was a poor filmmaking choice, IMO)

That's wrong. That's the feel the director was going for, and it works quite well.

To make $$$ off people who didn't know any better and to play off the misconception that everything looks better in high-def.