Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Social Network...

You're not crazy, Lee. You're totally right, but the easiest way to explain it (and I know there are ways to drastically over-complicate this) is that DI is pretty much synonymous with color correction. While it was a literal description of a process, it is now a colloquial short-form for color correction with non-linear digital tools. In fact, DI now is far more advanced than it ever was upon it's invention about 10 years ago - and with meta-data rich files like R3Ds, DI is able to do a lot more than just color. In fact, DI to my team means color, conforming, compositing, painting, blemish removal, sky replacements, tracking, keying and even titles are all part of what we call "digital intermediate." While it's no longer literal, it is used as a verb to describe the process of finishing a film. This is to say that TV shows that shoot digitally and air digitally technically can go through a type of color-correction and mastering process that is often considered "DI."
Go figure!
m
 
Michael Cioni said:
You're not crazy, Lee. You're totally right, but the easiest way to explain it (and I know there are ways to drastically over-complicate this) is that DI is pretty much synonymous with color correction. While it was a literal description of a process, it is now a colloquial short-form for color correction with non-linear digital tools. In fact, DI now is far more advanced than it ever was upon it's invention about 10 years ago - and with meta-data rich files like R3Ds, DI is able to do a lot more than just color. In fact, DI to my team means color, conforming, compositing, painting, blemish removal, sky replacements, tracking, keying and even titles are all part of what we call "digital intermediate." While it's no longer literal, it is used as a verb to describe the process of finishing a film. This is to say that TV shows that shoot digitally and air digitally technically can go through a type of color-correction and mastering process that is often considered "DI."
Go figure!
m
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer, man. I guess DI is as good a name as any for the entire post production process!
 
Just saw this at an advanced screening. Beautiful, looked as good as anything i've ever seen on film bar none.

Oh and i got to meet Sorkin and Eisenberg :)
 
thats cool. Eisenberg is great. loved him in squid and the whale. he has some absolute classic lines in that film.
 
I was fortunate enough to see an advanced screening of this film. It is truly inspiring to see what this camera can do in the hands of some very skilled individuals. IT LOOKED FANTASTIC!!! This film really ignited my perception of cinematography and realizing the ability to achieve such splendor will always be a goal of mine. Congrats to Red and everyone at Light Iron Digital. A lot of people are gonna talk about this film....
 
Did anybody get the sense that one shot, very early in the film, used some post panning? It is a shot of Zuckerberg walking back to his dorm from the bar. It is a sort of overhead shot looking down on...maybe a courtyard (sorry, having a tough time remembering all the details). It seemed like there was some really unnatural movement there, as though they were zoomed in on the glorious 4K and panning around the shot.

It also looked a little bit fuzzy relative to the rest of the film.
 
I just saw an advanced screening of this film and all I can say is WOW! This is certainly one of the best films of the year. Fincher is a master filmmaker and this film certainly is one of his best. I also want to give a shout out to Red. The low light scenes were stunning and the camera did a great job capturing the feel of the environments which ranged from dimly lit pubs and dorm rooms to colorful nightclubs and office buildings. This is also the first time I have seen tilt-shift Red footage (I am sure others have done it but it was perfect in this film). I give it 5 out of 5 stars, go see it as soon as it comes out. This is a Best Picture contender for sure.
 
Hey! They got the camera right!

Article here: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/09/ff_thesocialnetwork/
ff_thesocialnetwork_f.jpg
 
BTW, watch out for all the sneaky VFX in this film. For example, there's a lot of very interesting face replacement with the one actor playing twins (like in a shot in one of the rowing scenes). There's some amazing stuff going on in the background that most people will never notice. Really flawless work.
 
Andrew Thomas said:
Did anybody get the sense that one shot, very early in the film, used some post panning? It is a shot of Zuckerberg walking back to his dorm from the bar. It is a sort of overhead shot looking down on...maybe a courtyard (sorry, having a tough time remembering all the details). It seemed like there was some really unnatural movement there, as though they were zoomed in on the glorious 4K and panning around the shot.

It also looked a little bit fuzzy relative to the rest of the film.
Click to expand...

I saw a screening in NYC yesterday, and Jeff Cronenweth explained that Harvard wouldn't grant them access to shoot on campus, so they had to stitch shots together and create those pans digitally. So you are correct. I didn't notice it at all while watching. Also, the editors talked about how the tilt shift stuff was created in post. It looked great though. And I had no idea that those twins were played by one actor until I just read that. So the face replacement was obviously pretty seamless. Very cool.

The entire film looked fantastic. I'm not sure if we were watching a 2K or 4K projection. I'm guessing 4k. And just very very well done overall. Best showcase of Red footage I've seen.
 
2K or 4K

2K or 4K

Paris Remillard said:
The entire film looked fantastic. I'm not sure if we were watching a 2K or 4K projection. I'm guessing 4k. And just very very well done overall. Best showcase of Red footage I've seen.
Click to expand...

The Social Network was onlined, vis-effected, DI'd, and mastered in 2K based on number of factors. 4K is becoming a serious discussion point for a lot of films, which is really encouraging. And most of the studio meetings I attend routinely have a "what about 4K?" discussion. -So even though 4K distribution is not here yet, I can testify that from a studio perspective, it is on everyone's radar.

Speaking specifically about this film, Paris makes an interesting implication: -That it was not clear whether or not the film was projected in 2K or 4K. Here's another question for you, Paris- do you know that it was a digital projection? Or could it have been a print?

The flattering implication is that the projection was good enough to possibly exhibit 4K qualities, even though it was not. But that statement may also support claims that 4K is unnecessary and, perhaps, invisible. But consider this: Even high-resolution images that are evaluated up-close seem to lack resolution. Think of the film Ferris Bueller's Day Off when Cameron views George Seurat's painting, "Sunday Afternoon." As the camera moves in closer and closer, the (effective) resolution seems to get lower and lower. I'm experiencing the same characteristics with RED footage for large-format projection.
I watch different iterations of our "RED Reels" with Jim and Jarred probably 3 times a week while in between watching 2K versions of The Social Network and other films. When I am up close, 4K is clear and impressive. But when I stand at the back of the theater (nearly 100 feet away), it's unbelievably magnificent! That's where the resolution really starts to settle in and begin to offer up another level of compelling imagery that cannot be replicated with scaling.
But in order to achieve this additional dimension of a film, one needs to oversample because 1080p up-close vs. 1080p far away exhibit very similar characteristics. With RED starting with an unsharpened oversample, the 2K debayered result with mild sharpening delivers much more temporal resolution than a normal camera-sharpened 1080p source. The Social Network is a perfect example of this working successfully (thanks, Paris, for noticing). The images people will see on TSN are 2K results in a 2.40:1 aperture from a full debayer / RED 4K 2:1 source. 90% of viewers will see 35mm prints, which were made from the 2K DSM. As everyone knows, release prints will only carry 1.5K resolution at best. So when it comes to high fidelity in a world dominated by low-res exhibition, once again, it pays to oversample.
m
 
Looking forward to see Social Network at 2K digital projection on October 10 at English Cinema Haydn here in Vienna.
 
Nice little teaser from SoundWorks on upcoming Sound for Film profile on Social Network. Featuring some on set Red One action | http://vimeo.com/15261977
 
The ASC article about the film says it was noise processed by Lowry. Why was this done when MX is so low noise?
 
I don't know if Paris watched the movie at the one of the main NYFF screenings (I assume so, given the timing), but regardless, Alice Tully Hall (where the screenings take place) has, hands down, the best projection (for both film and digital) in NYC. I don't know what digital projector they have; I'm pretty sure it's 2K, but regardless, the image is exceptional. The sound and the acoustics of the auditorium are fantastic as well. It's just a shame that they only use Alice Tully once a year for the NYFF.

I wasn't at the screenings, but I would be surprised if they didn't project the film digitally at the NYFF. They're big on projecting in the director's preferred format, which for Fincher, I'm pretty sure, is digital.
 
Image Enhancements

Image Enhancements

Michel Hafner said:
The ASC article about the film says it was noise processed by Lowry. Why was this done when MX is so low noise?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in my above post, the entire film was photographed at a T1.3-which does give TSN a uniquely soft, cinematic look. Lowry did a great job of image enhancements - which wasn't specifically motived by noise reduction. Everyone agrees MX images are virtually without any visible noise at all. TSN is no exception. But with the fact that this film will have it's primary wide release on prints, I believe David's desire was to make sure the film went through image enhancing processing so that the 2K source looked its best on a print.

This brings up a point that I think is important for all films: while noise reduction used to be a necessary step for films that wanted to release digitally or on a print that looked as pristine as possible, MX footage still might benefit from image enhancing outside of the boundaries of traditional noise reduction. While Reliance (formerly Lowry) is known for their skills as noise reduction experts, I feel their strength is in image enhancement, which includes but is not limited to noise reduction.

I can make a post later with some before/after images (from another RED film) that went through the same process which significantly improved its ultimate large-format exhibition if people think that is useful.
m
 
Michael Cioni said:
I can make a post later with some before/after images (from another RED film) that went through the same process which significantly improved its ultimate large-format exhibition if people think that is useful.
m
Click to expand...

Hi, Michael. That would be excellent. Thanks for the offer.
 
Michael Cioni said:
I believe David's desire was to make sure the film went through image enhancing processing so that the 2K source looked its best on a print.
Click to expand...
Which could mean that it does not look its best on digital projection? Trying to compensate for losses in the filmout stage and analogue printing chain makes sense if the final print looks better. But is there not also the danger that projecting the digital master with this compensation results in an overprocessed image for digital projection? Would it not be better to go 4K instead and make 2 digital masters, one for print generation and another for digital projection and Blu Ray?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top