Lowry Digital

[Robert Sanders]

Even though Fincher and Cronenweth shot "The Social Network" with MX sensor, I wonder why they chose to still run the film through the Lowry Digital process? Shouldn't the images already be extremely noise and artifact free?

I can understand why the Viper footage was scrubbed on "Zodiac" and "Benjamin Button". But it seems almost gratuitous to scrub the MX footage.

Or were there still problems with the noise floor?

 

[Paul Leeming]

No doubt there are people on this forum closely associated with the production who can answer this better, but my guess would be to have control over all aspects of the image including grain consistency and look.

After all, depending on individual shots etc, how much one pushed in to crop etc, grain could look quite different and thus distracting to an audience. Best way to mitigate that would be to get rid of individual shot grain, then once in the final colour correction process, add a consistent grain pattern that harmonises the shots and doesn't disrupt the visual flow.

Just my opinion, I could be very wrong!

HTH

Paul

 

[Deanan]

I don't have permission to say but wouldn't assume that it was for noise.

 

[christopher witzke]

It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect.

 

[Kim Frank]

wooooo guys...
That's what I call cryptic.
I'm really interested in this aswell.
Maybe you could point to something that sheds some light?
At least this is what the ASC Magazine wrote:
" After the color timing was complete, the picture underwent a noise-and-grain-reduction sweep at Reliance MediaWorks’ Lowry Digital."
So they are wrong?

 

[paul engstrom]

Yes and no.

Michael Cioni described the process in elsewhere on the forum. Here's at least one link. Basically, the people that have developed the best noise reduction tools have also developed the best "texture" tools -- a host of things that can make all of the different footage in a film (including FX) look consistent and organic. Sometimes that's actually adding grain...or something like grain, for example.

Anyways, Cioni and LightIron did the DI on this -- search his posts.

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36564&highlight=social+network&page=24

Regards,
P

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not usual for a movie shot on film or digital to have some visual inconsistencies in noise or grain, or sharpness, etc. due to various factors. I think this is just a case of Fincher wanting to add a layer of textural consistency to the entire movie from start to finish rather than accepting the typical inconsistency of texture that most movies will have.

 

[christopher witzke]

Chasing the paradigm.

Or would it be trailing the paradigm?

Apparently, by hiding technology behind a vail of what the viewer is used to allows for a less distracting viewing experience and helps the viewer "connect" with the story.

Just how long will we use the term "filmic"?

Personally, the only reason I add grain or noise is to minimalize the banding that can happen with compression for web delivery. It's an old offset printing trick. The downside is that compression hates noise.... And the file ends up larger.

 

[Ian Vertovec]

Zodiac and Button were shot on Viper with a 2/3 inch sensor and they had very deep focus. So for TSN they shot master primes wide open at all times for the shallowest possible depth of field.

Even with some of the best focus pullers working today, you're gonna have some issues at a 1.3. So we had to sharpen for purely optical reasons.

None of the deposition scenes were sent for extra processing. So they are pure MX plus color.

 

[Tom Gough]

Thanks Ian for sharing this... What you guys have created in TSN is truly stunning and have set the bar for digitally acquired features. Awesome stuff :thumbsup:

All the best,

 

[Marc Wielage]

There have been quite a few films that have publicly credited Lowry Digital for grain reduction and image enhancement. The biggest one is Avatar, but there are also a few others that are low key (or unannounced), including projects shot on film, shot on Red, and a variety of other cameras. Lowry -- now known as Reliance Mediaworks -- has some proprietary, non-real-time processes that can't be equalled by anybody else in the world. Check out the Bond films and the classic Disney animated films on Blu-ray to get an idea of what they do in the film restoration world.

There are always problems with noise in any digital capture system, especially if it's uneven due to lighting inconsistencies, weather problems, exposure issues, and so on. It's not always a case of noise reduction per se; it's a question of getting the grain (and noise) consistent shot to shot, so that nothing jumps out at the viewer. There are also issues with bad pixels that have to be digitally erased, noise patterns, and a host of other problems that Lowry can either eliminate or minimize. They also do terrific work in re-aligning 3D images after the fact, particularly when the 3D rigs have non-linear focus and optical issues.

I agree, Social Network is a beautiful-looking film -- even more so when you consider there's a thousand visual effects in the film, plus some terrific color-timing by Light Iron. It's easily among the best-looking films I've seen all year, and deserves all its acclaim.