So it looks "bad" on purpose...

[@InCinematic]

Are you excited for 28 Years Later?

[@brucehewson555]

Me 28 years later is filmed with iphone 16 pro max 🎉🎉

[@Eon1an]

@@brucehewson555 LOL, with 10 or 30X much pricey optics and adapters

[@Stratmanable]

When the director is Danny Boyle, Sean Baker, Steven Soderbergh, or David Lynch, the price of the camera doesnt matter. It's the archer, not the arrow.

[@InCinematic]

This is a perfect explanation

[@verebellus]

i think that 28 years later is shot on the iphone because it can shoot in LOG and Prores, which is very helpful for cinematography. but it also still feels like phone footage, like if a global event is shared on social media. kinda like how in the original it felt like you were watching the events unfold on the news

[@InCinematic]

Absolutely. It's like an updated 28 Days. It won't be found-footage, but it will look "real"

[@mrcoal69]

the look of 28 days later gives me childhood nostalgia from the early 2000s I love it so much.

[@InCinematic]

It's like watching old home movies. Just with crazy infected people

[@lionheart4424]

28 Days Later is one of the most memorable movie theaters experience I ever had as a teen. Can't wait to see 28 Years Later.

[@InCinematic]

I remember my dad taking me when I was really young. I'll never forget it

[@ericclaptonsrobotpilot7276]

Thank you for not being pretentious like most of these film channels.

[@RedStarRogue]

6:06 fun fact, the very end scene of 28 Days was shot on film, which is why the footage you see suddenly looks way sharper the last 30-ish seconds of the movie. They had to ditch the original dark ending and re-shoot a happier scene of them signaling the plane. I guess they didn't have access to the Canon XL1 camcorders anymore or something.

[@InCinematic]

Yeah, I liked the ending, but it does feel a bit out of place. The film doesn't help

[@dfailsthemost]

I think the image quality did make the climax tricky to follow when I first saw the film.

[@AdmiralBison]

One day we'll have the 'First person camera' Actually first person view coming from the head that shows a person's arms, sides of their nose etc...

[@l.palacio9076]

Hmm actually we already got that, it's called Hardcore Henry. And it's a pretty decent movie, a lot of action and gore.

[@Asturev]

I feel like 28 years later is being shot on iphone because of apple marketing. If they wanted the iphone look they wouldnt have attached such an expensive lens with multiple converters and speedboosters. It also seems that the film its going to be expensier just because they have to adjust lighting, data recording, cooling and so many other things just to make the iphone work.

[@InCinematic]

I fear this, but I really hope it's not the case. I'm cautiously optimistic in Danny Boyle

[@Asturev]

@@InCinematic the news has already been working. a client saw my prosumer camera rig as an outdated tech while asking "why pay so much if I have a movie cam on my pocket". My friends are now poking fun of me saying they are now also videographers but this time I know they do kinda believe the own a hollywood camera because of the multiple 28 years later iphone news they post

[@alwinbenjamin]

😍

[@starfis20]

Ok, it adds to the atmosphere which don't need to be faked, but where goes that 100 million dollar budget when they are shooting it on mobiles? As I understand it, in the past, when the movie would be shot on actual film, it would be a large part of the budget. Does it mean that now, they use the 90% of money to pay the crew and actors, and actually close London when they can afford it so they don't need to do guerrilla shoot?

[@SmashyMcGee]

I remember buying a copy of 28 Days Later on DVD back in 2005, being somewhat aware of the movies reputation and fanbase, outside of that I knew nothing. I was deep in my edgy teenager horror film phase so I was excited, went in blind, and couldn't understand why the movie looked AND sounded so bad. I turned it off and some quick research explained a lot of the things you mentioned in this video. I can certainly appreciate the aesthetics behind it but I personally still can't watch something that takes itself so seriously when it looks and sounds like a student film. It's just awful to look at. But maybe it's my own student film trauma that stops me enjoying it.

[@InCinematic]

That could definitely be. I admit, my love for it could definitely be impacted by rose tinted glasses

[@alexalexis7899]

28 Days looks degraded, like a bad lo-fi copy, but it certainly does not look like a student film, anywhere on earth. All the grammar, blocking, tonal consistency, acting, editing and art direction are top notch. The lo-fi quality gives it a unique character.

[@flickeringgreenflame8493]

One of my favourites. I never had a problem with the visuals. But then, I sometimes shoot in 720p, out of principle. :)

[@InCinematic]

@@flickeringgreenflame8493 I see you're a person of taste

[@InCinematic]

@@alexalexis7899 Well said

[@DoctorDisco42]

dace

[@MumRah]

FIRST!!!

[@offline_2]

I absuletly hated how the film looked. It wasnt gritty or anything it was just ugly. Like you get an idea about what is the best way to shoot this scene for the narrative, and you do the exact opposite. it fact it was quite distracting and i couldnt even really follow the plot.

[@InCinematic]

It was the only way to film the beginning. Actually, to film most of it. They could have switched when they moved out of the city, but that would've looked weird IMO.

[@marchingham]

Curious as to when and how you watched it. Did you see it when it came out or years later?

[@fghdrdthtgfghjhdf2540]

define “ugly”. what does it mean? What does it signify?

[@pom_taul]

Great video, but personally I can't stand the way 28 Days Later looks! I struggle to get past how straight up ugly it is lol.

[@InCinematic]

It has definitely aged, but it has a weird charm about it to me.