Shot on 35 or HD?

Yes, I confess. I only picked this movie up because of the history of the filmmaker, starting out as Andrew Nelson on some Mats-Helge C-movies and then his WarDogs and his most famous, the Johan Falk Thrilogy. Well, it wasn't what I thought and for that I'm glad. Darn good flick!

The question then. Just as The Star Wars Prelogy, part two (livvakterna) and three (tredje vågen/third wave) of his thrilogy about Jakob Eklunds Cop on a crusade was shot in "24P" 1080P 24fps with the same kind of equipment as ol' Lucas. And like an increasing number of american directors he openly stated that he loved it. Then I read in here at the Technical Specs section that this film was shot in old fashion 35... this pussled me. I like 35 mm films it's not that. I just wondered what made him go back...

Now I have seen it, and I'll be damned if it wasn't shot with HD... It bears the trademark deep focus and everything. And the little of the actual cameras I saw in the hour long featurette made me more certain. No big bulgy magazine for the negative in sight. But I was pleased to notice that the ugly "videoflow" from Livvakterna and Third Wave was gone, and left was a stunningly beautifull DVD-transfer of the image.

Now, does anyone know? I know that imdb have got a tendency to just put 35mm when not sure. But a confirmation would be nice.

Oh, And just go see it. As usual with Anders Nilsson even the swedish DVD's come with english subs. So there's no reason not to see it if given chance!