The Social Network 4K UHD (2010)

[samlop10]

Seems like everything was done digitally:

https://www.postmagazine.com/Publica...l-Network.aspx

No mention of using film anywhere.

[jerclay]

Originally Posted by samlop10

Seems like everything was done digitally:

https://www.postmagazine.com/Publica...l-Network.aspx

No mention of using film anywhere.

The movie has definitive digital look, but they left some weird looking grain in a rowing competition scene though… The colors are Fincher-ian. I mostly liked what I saw, but I thought Sony light cannon was a bit of an annoyance in some scenes. Also it’s ridiculous these guys are saying HDR is absent, just look at the darker scenes where it opens up shadows so nicely! Of course this film was degrained and smoothed to some extent, but it never turns into a wax fest a-la Hobbitses, and in general it is hard, at least for me to say what was intentional and what wasn’t. But nothing seems too distracting because, we’ll, it’s a great freaking movie you get easily into. Not the best Sony presentation I suppose, but some scenes do look mighty impressive!

[Christian Muth]

In 2010, there were still 35mm prints being made for lots of films, so I'm sure they did a film out, but there's no reason to think they rescanned one of those for this new UHD. I mean, the geometry and framing on the UHD is *exactly the same* as the Blu-ray. If this was a new scan from a film out, there would no doubt be some variations.

Chris

[imnoteventhatfunny]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

What about the note that's passed to Mark in class? That was supposedly changed to get the PG-13 in addition to the sound redubbing. Have they restored the original shot there?

The note still reads "u dick", no change there. The only change in the unrated audio track is that the line "let's gut the frigging nerd" now has an f-bomb instead.

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by samlop10

Seems like everything was done digitally:

https://www.postmagazine.com/Publica...l-Network.aspx

No mention of using film anywhere.

I'll say it again: the level of AV nerdgasm that goes on here never ceases to amaze me.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by jerclay

Also it’s ridiculous these guys are saying HDR is absent, just look at the darker scenes where it opens up shadows so nicely!

You can't attribute color grading differences demonstrated in an SDR conversion as benefits of HDR. Besides, the idea that HDR somehow has special shadows isn't accurate in the first place. (Except maybe Dolby Vision, but all SDR screencaps are created with the HDR10 base layer so let's not open that can of worms just yet) HDR only affects the range of highlights. Everything above 100 nits, to be precise. Any boasting of improved shadows is marketing. Anything that dark isn't going to look any different in HDR than SDR. (repeat previous parenthetical) Compression improvements notwithstanding.

[biggquis]

For me, I just want to own films I love in their best looking condition to date. I'm not comparing one film to the next. I'm sure this'll be better than the blu and I'll be a very happy camper. I'm easy to please.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by wright96d

You can't attribute color grading differences demonstrated in an SDR conversion as benefits of HDR. Besides, the idea that HDR somehow has special shadows isn't accurate in the first place. (Except maybe Dolby Vision, but all SDR screencaps are created with the HDR10 base layer so let's not open that can of worms just yet) HDR only affects the range of highlights. Everything above 100 nits, to be precise. Any boasting of improved shadows is marketing. Anything that dark isn't going to look any different in HDR than SDR. (repeat previous parenthetical) Compression improvements notwithstanding.

You what? Then there would be no difference between the BD of Blade Runner 2049 and the 4K UHD, which is obviously demonstrably false. Compression affects the ability of the SDR disc from having the same contrast as the UHD disc. At all levels of the shadow/colour information. The depth is not there in SDR.

This theoretical mumbo jumbo you're spouting comes across like blind naysaying formed by cobbled together information long skewed and haphazardly rebranded from the "HDR is crayons" philosophers round these parts.

[wright96d]

It's time to play everyone's favorite game!

DNR OR BIT-STARVATION

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

You what? Then there would be no difference between the BD of Blade Runner 2049 and the 4K UHD, which is obviously demonstrably false. Compression affects the ability of the SDR disc from having the same contrast as the UHD disc. At all levels of the shadow/colour information. The depth is not there in SDR.

This theoretical mumbo jumbo you're spouting comes across like blind naysaying formed by cobbled together information long skewed and haphazardly rebranded from the "HDR is crayons" philosophers round these parts.

Read the last sentence of my comment and piss off.

[dcowboy7]

Poor guy just wanted to buy his wife a pair of thigh highs.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by wright96d

It's time to play everyone's favorite game!

DNR OR BIT-STARVATION

We already know it was DNR'd, that was part of the original Digital Intermediate process back in 2010. This was discussed in the "Post Magazine" article previously linked, and it's also on page 3 of the American Cinematographer article about the film:

"After the color timing was complete, the picture underwent a noise-and-grain-reduction sweep at Reliance MediaWorks’ Lowry Digital. The finalized files were filmed out at 2K at Technicolor, where David Orr timed the answer print. (Technicolor and Deluxe Laboratories did the release printing. LightIron Digital created the DCDM master.)"

https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/Octob...ork/page1.html

Chris

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

We already know it was DNR'd, that was part of the original Digital Intermediate process back in 2010. This was discussed in the "Post Magazine" article previously linked, and it's also on page 3 of the American Cinematographer article about the film:

"After the color timing was complete, the picture underwent a noise-and-grain-reduction sweep at Reliance MediaWorks’ Lowry Digital. The finalized files were filmed out at 2K at Technicolor, where David Orr timed the answer print. (Technicolor and Deluxe Laboratories did the release printing. LightIron Digital created the DCDM master.)"

https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/Octob...ork/page1.html

Chris

Right, but in the comparison I linked, there is more grain on the Blu-Ray than the 4K. So either there was another DNR pass done for this release, or it was bit-starved. I'd say it's probably a little bit of column A, little bit of column B. Actually, after taking another look, it might be predominantly column B.

[jerclay]

Originally Posted by wright96d

You can't attribute color grading differences demonstrated in an SDR conversion as benefits of HDR. Besides, the idea that HDR somehow has special shadows isn't accurate in the first place. (Except maybe Dolby Vision, but all SDR screencaps are created with the HDR10 base layer so let's not open that can of worms just yet) HDR only affects the range of highlights. Everything above 100 nits, to be precise. Any boasting of improved shadows is marketing. Anything that dark isn't going to look any different in HDR than SDR. (repeat previous parenthetical) Compression improvements notwithstanding.

Nice try. 😂

[samlop10]

Originally Posted by jerclay

The movie has definitive digital look, but they left some weird looking grain in a rowing competition scene though… The colors are Fincher-ian. I mostly liked what I saw, but I thought Sony light cannon was a bit of an annoyance in some scenes. Also it’s ridiculous these guys are saying HDR is absent, just look at the darker scenes where it opens up shadows so nicely! Of course this film was degrained and smoothed to some extent, but it never turns into a wax fest a-la Hobbitses, and in general it is hard, at least for me to say what was intentional and what wasn’t. But nothing seems too distracting because, we’ll, it’s a great freaking movie you get easily into. Not the best Sony presentation I suppose, but some scenes do look mighty impressive!

Yeah the source here limits how much 'pop' will be showcased even on the 4K disc. But nonetheless it looks like an upgrade.

[samlop10]

Originally Posted by Pagey123

I'll say it again: the level of AV nerdgasm that goes on here never ceases to amaze me.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by samlop10

Wrong, just wrong in some many levels lol.

He's not wrong, he's wright

[samlop10]

Originally Posted by wright96d

It's time to play everyone's favorite game!

DNR OR BIT-STARVATION

Neither.

I think that was just the compression of the standard blu-ray adding noise. Either because of compression deficiencies and/or to add dithering to prevent banding. I don't think the 4K disc had DNR applied from the source (i.e. the DI). It's not uncommon for some 1080p blu-rays to have more noise because of how they were compressed.

Furthermore, if you look at her strands of hair and the top of her sweater around her neck, you can clearly see the 4K has more fine detail, without signs of artificial sharpening, and it does not look smeary the way it would look if it had been DNR'd. If it had been bit-starved you'd also see fine detail falling apart in some areas instead of looking more detailed overall.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

We already know it was DNR'd, that was part of the original Digital Intermediate process back in 2010. This was discussed in the "Post Magazine" article previously linked, and it's also on page 3 of the American Cinematographer article about the film:

"After the color timing was complete, the picture underwent a noise-and-grain-reduction sweep at Reliance MediaWorks’ Lowry Digital. The finalized files were filmed out at 2K at Technicolor, where David Orr timed the answer print. (Technicolor and Deluxe Laboratories did the release printing. LightIron Digital created the DCDM master.)"

https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/Octob...ork/page1.html

Chris

Yes, this was what I remembered! They had a timed answer print, which means some final touches on the colours were put in photochemically. It seems strange, but I think there might be something to the point that they perhaps scanned things back from the negative.

I kind of remember the film looking a bit strange even on the blu-ray back in the day. Unlike the pristine clearly digitally sourced transfers for Zodiac and Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the look on Social Network always felt a bit loose to me (almost bordering on a fake filmic look).

It may be that Cronenweth, who I believe needed some pushing on Fincher’s part to adopt the Red, may have just finished on film just because he felt more comfortable that way. Of course, then again he clearly used a DI before, so really no reason for him to not finish on a DCI deliverable. But a film out and then a scan back to digital does kind of explain the looser look on the film, and may have just been a Sony mandated thing.

[Fat Phil]

Meh, non issue. Watched it the other night and compression is fine. The material is 2.39:1, clean as a whistle and is basically comprised of scene after scene of people talking. But this is blu-ray.com - where the bitrate needs to stay above 90 all the time or people start crying "If only they'd used a BD100, those wordy deposition scenes could've looked so much better!"