Posted 13 August 2007 - 12:08 PM
Does anyone know the facts? Any articles out there?
It looks like 500 speed 16mm with an HD DI. There were DI credits and strangely enough you can see a few digital artifacts in some of the shots where they were maybe trying to push a little. It looks like they didn't bother lighting even one shot in this film. Somehow for this material it worked well overall. It was all about the music.
Posted 13 August 2007 - 12:34 PM
Posted 13 August 2007 - 12:41 PM
With all the DI manipulation going on, it's hard to tell sometimes if something was purposely made to look more "gritty" or not. I know the last one I saw, 28 Weeks Later, looked 10 times as good and was S16mm. If once was S16 then the DI people was trying for a video look much of the time.
Whatever the case, it was not 35mm film and I'd bet my camera on that. Who fills out that IMDB crap anyway?
Posted 13 August 2007 - 12:45 PM
HDV blown up to 35mm. I cant remember if it was recorded in HDV or dvcam mode to be honest. Tim the DP visits here occasionaly - im sure he'll fill you in if he spots this thread.
Hey looks like you posted when I was writing my new post, sorry about that. So something was weird then... cool. You should mention to him about the IMDB tech posting though.
This explains all the artifacts I saw. Still a great movie though! ...dont get me wrong!