It's literally unwatchable.

>>211782264 (OP)
Parts of the film were shot on a handycam because they didn't have the budget to empty out public spaces and had to resort to just filming around people hoping they wouldn't end up on camera, which wasn't possible with typical cinema filming equipment
So, no.

>>211782264 (OP)
That's a stylistic choice. Notice how he changes from digital to film for the final sequence.

MY MEN HAVE GONE TWENTY EIGHT DAYS WITHOUT SEX

>>211782401
>>211782413
So was it a stylistic choice or a budgetary necessity?

>>211782430
>this was considered an outrageously long time to be without sex in 2002

>>211782545
Yes. A lot of films, like the Dogme 95 wave, in the mid90s to early 00s were shor with cheap camcorders for stylistical choices.

>>211782545
STYLISTIC NECESSITY

>>211782413
That wasn't his decision apparently. They ran out of money and had to get money from a new distributer to shoot the last scene and they were having none of the camcorder shit (despite agreeing to sell a movie that's shot entirely on camcorders up to this point but okay).
I've heard Danny Boyle say they needed to be able to shoot fast to get the empty London stuff and they couldn't do that on film but I'm calling bullshit on that. I think it was 100% a choice.

>>211782430
Can we agree that all this crap with incel soliders was violently retarded and boring?
Garland the male femenist was just shoehorning in the men le bad bullshit and justifying the mansion setting cause he played Resident Evil and went "WTF I CAN DO THAT TOO" except he couldn't.

>>211782687
Huh that's interesting. In any case the digital photography gave it a sort of dreamlike quality and them changing to film after he wakes up in the cottage makes sense. I love the way digital photography of that time looks, same with Lynch's Inland Empire, very eerie.

>>211782264 (OP)
What's the problem, you don't have a CRT display?

>>211782264 (OP)
No. Apart from a few minutes shot on film, almost all of it was shot with a digital camera from 1998.
I heard a rumour that they were going to try for an AI upscale, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that and it would probably look godawful anyway.

I would just watch it on a smaller screen (or from a further distance) than normal.

>>211782413
>>211782545
It was played off as a stylistic choice and I'm sure they made the best of it, but let's be honest. If better cameras had been available with the same practicality and within budget, they would have used those. They could always have degraded the image in post if they wanted.

>>211782845
I think the film would have been worse off for it.

why cant we ever get a actual zombie movie the one where the main characters are actual cut throats that will do anything to live

>>211782430
won't they just get post nut clarity?

>>211782545
Boyle has a hardon for using small cameras to the point where it's a gimmick. 28 Years was shot on iPhones. And yes it is retarded because there's absolutely better cameras he could have used at the time with the same size. Also geared up iPhone isn't going to give you a tangible difference vs just using a Alexa Mini.

>>211782264 (OP)
Your best hope is an AI remaster in the future. When you shoot movies with a shitty camera, nothing including a 4K upscale of the original print, can save the shit quality that comes from shooting it on a fucking shit camera.

>>211783025
Samsung has the better camera. He didn't even use the best phone

28 Years Later looks like dogshit except for the scenes where they are using drones.

Fucking shame really, it would have been a decent film otherwise

>>211782890
>the main characters are actual cut throats that will do anything to live
Like what?

28 Days Later is anti-White

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3qxr6VVqtM&ab_channel=WyattStagg

>>211783853

>>211783853
Take this corny shit back to /pol/ man Jesus wept

>>211782264 (OP)
Sometimes I record old movies back to vhs with wdtv and watch them directly from vhs tape for the feels.