"28 Weeks Later" Blu-ray

Chris Gerhard · 12-17-2007, 05:33 AM

I was surprised to like this film a lot, I only picked it up since I was running out of free titles I knew that I wanted. The original was one of my favorite recent horror films, I own the DVD but I start with the assumption that a sequel without the original director and major players will be crap. This one is a nice addition to the original. The film is dark and murky and doesn't result in a reference quality Blu-ray disc but without having seen the theatrical film, it looks to me to be a good representation of the filmmaker's intent. It beats my DVD of the original by a lot as far as video quality. I can still only listen to the 1.5Mbps DTS core and thought that was great as well. Not for the squeamish, but if you liked the first one, the chances are good you will like this one in my opinion.

Chris

GLOW · 12-17-2007, 08:54 AM

I really liked it as well. It was a worthy sequel to the great original. The PQ is about what I expected, preserving the director's intent. Your words "dark" and "murky" aptly describe the PQ, but there still HD clarity and pretty good detail for the most part. Audio was well-done, but from what I remember, I wasn't completely blown away by it.

Super XP · 12-17-2007, 08:58 AM

The PQ is really no good at all, and it has nothing to do with the Directors intent.
That is what you get for shooting the film on a SD video. If it was shot on film that would be a different story IMO.

GLOW · 12-17-2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super XP

The PQ is really no good at all, and it has nothing to do with the Directors intent.
That is what you get for shooting the film on a SD video. If it was shot on film that would be a different story IMO.

*sigh*

You are thinking of the original- 28 DAYS Later, which was shot almost entirely on SD DV and the director's intent WAS shooting on DV. It gave the movie a gritty "we're watching this on TV" look.

12-17-2007, 09:22 AM

According to the review at digest, "the film [28 weeks later]was shot on a variety of stocks, including Super 16, Super 35, and HD video."

There is an interesting link in the review as well:
http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/cinematog...le_16263.shtml

Super XP · 12-17-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLOW

*sigh*

You are thinking of the original- 28 DAYS Later, which was shot almost entirely on SD DV and the director's intent WAS shooting on DV. It gave the movie a gritty "we're watching this on TV" look.

O.K. my mistake

But who on earth would want to shoot on SD DV? They should stick with the old film technology or just move right into HD video.

GLOW · 12-17-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikopol

According to the review at digest, "the film [28 weeks later]was shot on a variety of stocks, including Super 16, Super 35, and HD video."

There is an interesting link in the review as well:
http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/cinematog...le_16263.shtml

Thanks.

Super 16 has a higher theoretical resolution than Full HD.

12-17-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super XP

O.K. my mistake

But who on earth would want to shoot on SD DV? They should stick with the old film technology or just move right into HD video.

From the link:

Quote:

Director Danny Boyle and Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle shot primarily in the Mini DV format with a Canon XL-1 and finished to film, giving the images a sort of rough-hewn quality and an immediacy that resembled the feeling of events captured on home video by a terrified witness.

GLOW · 12-17-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super XP

O.K. my mistake

But who on earth would want to shoot on SD DV? They should stick with the old film technology or just move right into HD video.

I agree and I'm upset that Fox even released the original on Blu-ray, but I guess it's good for completists.

MikeRox · 12-17-2007, 09:39 AM

This was the worst film I have seen in a very very long time and I truly loved the original, I guess thats what happens when you Americanize a Brit cult flick though.

GLOW · 12-17-2007, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRox

I guess thats what happens when you Americanize a Brit cult flick though.

Ouch.

Super XP · 12-17-2007, 09:46 AM

Here is that quote again:

Quote:

Director Danny Boyle and Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle shot primarily in the Mini DV format with a Canon XL-1 and finished to film, giving the images a sort of rough-hewn quality and an immediacy that resembled the feeling of events captured on home video by a terrified witness

I'm sorry but he made a very big mistake to even consider SD. They could have done a much better job if they used Hi Def to get that point accross. It would have made it seem like you were really there in the picture. You can always play around with extremely well shot film, but if the film looks like crap, it's difficult to to play with.

12-17-2007, 09:52 AM

Hmm, i don´t think there is much arguing with what a director thinks is best for his film. Ask Michael Bay...

All i can say about "28 days later" is, that it worked very well for me at the movies at the time. I knew it was shot on "digital" but nothing about resolutions and i didn´t think i saw a "home video". But the look of the film was quite rough, that much i remember.

KEEBS1984 · 12-17-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRox

This was the worst film I have seen in a very very long time and I truly loved the original, I guess thats what happens when you Americanize a Brit cult flick though.

That is the number one reason why I didn't go see 28 Weeks Later, and still refuse to do so.

I absolutely LOVED 28 days later, but then I noticed that 28 Weeks Later was Americanized all to hell. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Hollywood/American flicks. It's just that was not the style for 28 Days Later, and should not have been the style for 28 Weeks Later. This was a British film and should have remained so.

Once I saw the director was not Danny Boyle, I pretty much wrote this film off.

12-17-2007, 05:33 AM	#1
Chris Gerhard High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,789	"28 Weeks Later" Blu-ray I was surprised to like this film a lot, I only picked it up since I was running out of free titles I knew that I wanted. The original was one of my favorite recent horror films, I own the DVD but I start with the assumption that a sequel without the original director and major players will be crap. This one is a nice addition to the original. The film is dark and murky and doesn't result in a reference quality Blu-ray disc but without having seen the theatrical film, it looks to me to be a good representation of the filmmaker's intent. It beats my DVD of the original by a lot as far as video quality. I can still only listen to the 1.5Mbps DTS core and thought that was great as well. Not for the squeamish, but if you liked the first one, the chances are good you will like this one in my opinion. Chris

12-17-2007, 08:58 AM	#3
Super XP Tom Baker (1974-1981) Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Toronto, ON. Canada Posts: 5,983	The PQ is really no good at all, and it has nothing to do with the Directors intent. That is what you get for shooting the film on a SD video. If it was shot on film that would be a different story IMO. __________________ Toshiba REGZA 46" 1080p LCD HDTV (46RF350U) - (Living Room) Toshiba REGZA 47" 1080p 240Hz LCD HDTV (47ZV650U) - (Theatre Room) Toshiba HD-A35 / HD-A3 Patriot PBO CORE 1080p HD Media Player Panasonic DMP-BDT210(3D) w/ Wifi LG BD570C Blu-Ray Player w/ Wifi Bell HD Satellite Receiver (6131) x 2 Onkyo TX-SR605 7.1 TrueHD/DTS HD MA Precision Acoustics™ 8Ch. Hi Def Speakers DVD's = 129+ = 124+ = 59+

12-17-2007, 09:39 AM	#10
MikeRox Connoisseur of Fine Games Join Date: May 2007 Location: Huddersfield, United Kingdom Posts: 15,756	This was the worst film I have seen in a very very long time and I truly loved the original, I guess thats what happens when you Americanize a Brit cult flick though. __________________ Currently Playing: Xenoblade Chronicles, Ridge Racer 3D, DIRT 3

Similar Threads to "28 Weeks Later" Blu-ray
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why I think Blu Ray will win the Format War	venomxr8	High Definition Media	82	07-17-2009 06:10 PM
The Beginner's Guide to HDTV	mswoods1	The High Definition Lounge	19	04-28-2008 02:03 PM
If you didnt have a HD machine today, would you still buy a Blu Ray Player?	connerc_37	High Definition Media	54	02-20-2008 05:09 AM
What are all the differences between HD DVD and Blu Ray? Huh?	mswoods1	High Definition Media	75	01-17-2008 04:44 PM
Blu ray vs hd dvd blu ray a winner	lcjjm	Blu-Ray Players	56	12-18-2007 05:48 PM

12-17-2007, 08:54 AM	#2
GLOW High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Post-Empire America Posts: 10,015	I really liked it as well. It was a worthy sequel to the great original. The PQ is about what I expected, preserving the director's intent. Your words "dark" and "murky" aptly describe the PQ, but there still HD clarity and pretty good detail for the most part. Audio was well-done, but from what I remember, I wasn't completely blown away by it.

12-17-2007, 09:22 AM	#5
Nikopol Guest Posts: n/a	According to the review at digest, "the film [28 weeks later]was shot on a variety of stocks, including Super 16, Super 35, and HD video." There is an interesting link in the review as well: http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/cinematog...le_16263.shtml

12-17-2007, 09:52 AM	#13
Nikopol Guest Posts: n/a	Hmm, i don´t think there is much arguing with what a director thinks is best for his film. Ask Michael Bay... All i can say about "28 days later" is, that it worked very well for me at the movies at the time. I knew it was shot on "digital" but nothing about resolutions and i didn´t think i saw a "home video". But the look of the film was quite rough, that much i remember.