I'm glad they mentioned the release dates in the article because for a second there I was about to look up when "28 Weeks Later" came out to see if this mad lad waited 28 years to make the next movie. It came out in 2007 so it's been 17 years. For some reason I felt like it was so much older than I remember, but it would have come out when I was a toddler if they did release it 28 years ago.
... Anyway. I'm stoked to see the movie.
The first in the series, 28 Days Later, came out in 2002 actually
True. I was comparing it to the second for some reason. But still, only 22 years and I'm just dumb. :)
But, why?
Because Apple is releasing the film.
Sounds like a weird "we'll finance you but you're going to have to agree to our wacko conditions" kind of deal.
Odd that he found nobody else. Or maybe he found the challenge interesting.
I wonder if it's because 28 Days Later was shot on a handful of Canon XL-1's, which was a breakthrough as they were one of the first prosumer cameras that could pull off a film like that.
Kind of a nod and a wink at the heritage of the story to shoot on consumer hardware.
Crap. If I hope this doesn't mean motion sickness inducing shaky cam filming
With the gear on the picture in the article it seems like they stabilized the iPhone like you would any ordinary camera too.
... but there was also mention of action cameras strapped to farm animals, so I'm a bit torn.
That was exactly my first thought too
Next summer’s horror blockbuster is the biggest release yet to be shot with iPhones—and not even Apple’s latest model.
But iPhone 15 is the latest model? The 16 Series is still the future model, until people can actually get them. And they even say that principal filming has wrapped in August further down.
wait was the 15 the one that was made of titanium and that was it
Boyle is probably the biggest name to hop on the digital hype train early on, so this isn't super shocking.
Those early digital years were brutal. 28 Days Later looks worse with every passing year, probably never fixable (the cam's resolution and quality was just too low).
Edit: Wow, it was shot in SD 480 for some reason (I thought the cam was capable of HD 720). Fantastic article, full of tech details.
But it was cheap, they even could afford the Oppenheimer actor back then.
Is this a big deal? Tons of movies have been shot with consumer camcorders which are probably worse than a modern phone camera.
Maybe? Depends on how it's used and if it looks good. Maybe they chose it because it looks a bit shit.
The Creator garnered some attention because it looked great while being shot on a relatively inexpensive camera. I do think people would be really surprised at what you'd get with a gimbal mounted cellphone with a 360° camera in terms of special effects integration, but this might not be their route.
I looked at the article and it turns out the phones are in humongous housings with cine lenses. So not shot with phones in the way it might sound. Citizenfour (2013 best documentary Oscar) was mostly shot with a Sony FS-100 camcorder (2K HD I'm pretty sure) that the filmmaker carried in her purse.
Couldn't even use a 16 Pro?
/s
Dude, read the article. Iphone 16 wasn't even released 28 years ago, let alone the pro.
For anyone curious:
the particular model used to shoot was the iPhone 15 Pro Max. (Evidently, filming took place too early for Boyle and Mantle to get their hands on the new iPhone 16 series.)
It was a joke
Why is there no 28 Months Later?
Because they didn't make one.
And the reason this one isn't 28 months later is because it's heck of a lot easier to make the 48 year old Cillian Murphy look like a convincing 54-year old than a 28 year old.
Because it wasn't filmed by an Instagram mom with a toddler.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
