Discussion about AI, DNR etc.

[mx77]

I want to start a dedicated thread for discussion about AI processing, noise reduction, degraining etc. Doing any kind of processing to remove grain and noise - which can also be described as enhancing - seems to be quite a divisive issue. I will be adding a reply to a message in The Terminator 4k thread, where @Ruined and @sojrner have been discussing about this very matter. As you can see from my reply, I personally like the idea of removing grain, as it makes the picture so much more pleasant for my liking. I see the grain just as a flaw of the medium available at the time, and only the movie itself as the art, not the medium it was originally stored on. However, I really hope that we can have a discussion without ANY unneccessary off-topic comments, that are just targeting the person, not the matter itself.

[mx77]

Originally Posted by sojrner

@ruined
Sigh... I've had this discussion with you before, and yes, you ignored logic, basic reading comprehension, and moved goals when cornered then even as you're doing now.

I disagree with this. Ruined might have ignored YOUR logic, which you seem to represent as a logic of all enthusiasts, collectors etc. He has equally valid logic behind his points. Even when You refuse to accept his point of view, it doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be logic behind it.

Originally Posted by sojrner

It's already been pointed out many times, by many on many threads, that all art is captured on a medium. Whether alone or on combination, stone, canvas, celluloid, ink, paint, flesh, steel, and yes, even digital 1s and 0s, (and so many more) all have attributes that add elements to art.

Yes, this can also be seen as a limitation or flaw of the medium, not only as an attribute. When we talk about movies, I, as an enthusiast and as a collector, don’t tie the medium to the art itself that tightly. When I watch a movie, I watch the movie, not trying to see attributes or flaws of the original medium the art was stored on. If for example an AI tool exaggerates some minor details in the movie, so what? Does it really affect the viewing experice that much? For me, no it does not. For You, maybe it does. Tying the medium and the art together like You do, is however just a personal preference. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by sojrner

Selecting that medium and techniques used with it to enhance or minimize certain attributes is part of the process. (Note: the fact that an artist didn't have access to or didn't think of a particular medium at that time is irrelevant)

How would that be irrelevant? It is only irrelevant, when You – as a personal preference – decide to tie the art to the medium used at the time it was created. It is part of the process, but it has been told to You many times, that You just can’t speak for anyone else, but just how You see this. If an artist, a director for example, feels like his creation should get a new treatment to bring it to new medium, that is up to the artist. And if the art is changed during the process, it is still the same movie, just on a new medium and slightly changed. The analogy between different forms of art doesn’t really work, as there is so many variables to the equation. How the art is being consumed etc.

Originally Posted by sojrner

The art reflects so many things from the artist, or team of artists, plus the environment, period, emotions, etc. that create the result. No nostalgia at all, it's simply produced in that moment, in all that entails, and is of the time.

Yes, but is it only You seeing the medium as a part of that ”reflecting environment etc” thing? I sure know I don’t see it that way, and I still would call myself maybe an enthusiast but a collector for sure. What is wrong with bringing old art to today, even if slightly changed? The art itself is still being preserved, just getting rid of the flaws of the medium available at the time the art was created? It's not like the plot of the movie would be altered etc.

Originally Posted by sojrner

Once the art is presented, making copies of it is another process that either makes a cheap copy for roadside hucksters, or a faithful copy to preserve as much of the original as possible for a museum or collector... How far to either end of that scale you go determines whether you are revisionist or not, and removing tool marks, brush strokes, pores, fiber, grain, texture, gloss, pocks, grit, etc. is just that: revising the art. (media used for the copy itself further introduces attributes, like paper or compression, and those are not what is wanted and is additional revision) Yes, you can get a print of a painting that is a flat, smooth, stroke-free presentation to hang in a truck stop bathroom, or you can source one with (or similar to) actual paint on canvas that at least tries to look like the painting for you to have in your home. One had a utilitarian purpose and may be enough for many, the other is wanting to appreciate the art in greater depth, which is what that enthusiast/collector/patron is after.

Why would the smoother presentation of a painting go straight to the bathroom wall and the copy with accurate representation of brush strokes etc. to a collector’s living room? Isn’t that – once again – a matter of personal taste? You are defining the medium the art was originally stored on, as a non removable element of the art. And we do know, that this is not the case. It is just a personal preference. The greater depth of the art can be appreciated also by seeing the piece of art – a movie in this case – in a new, better form or as a piece of art, totally detached from the medium it was originally stored on. In fact, when a movie is encoded to be stored on a medium, a blu-ray disc, the encoding process itself can alter how the grain is repeated on it. Just as the AI tools can make faces fe. look like sh**, encoding a grainy source while not trying to remove it, can do just the same. I personally think that there are a bunch of grainy movies released on a 4k blu-rays that have just these issues, especially in scenes where the faces are far away, it is just a pixel mess. So in fact, I find Your point of preserving the attributes of the original medium a bit strange, because it will not be exactly as it was originally anyway. So what amount of changes from the original is acceptable from the preservation point of view? And who decides that limit? You?

Originally Posted by sojrner

You continue to posit that "eh, then stick with the sufficient older format," and go on to mention a 2k Blu or even VHS in different threads as solution to that more faithful version. This is further proof of your provocative intent rather than civil argument.

In fact, this is a perfectly valid point made by Ruined. Heck, some of the forum members have announced that they will be watching the 2k blu-ray instead of the new 4k. So yes, those that are not happy with the 4k release of such a movie, hold on to the 2k copy – or whatever release you find to be best to your liking. I don’t like the grainy releases, but I am not preaching here how my personal liking would be representing all of the collectors. I accept that some of the releases are not how I would like them to be, but it is the best I can have, and so be it. If I would have the choice to change all the movies in my collection to professional level AI enhanced degrained versions, I would do if 100 out of 100 times. And yes, I would still see myself as a collector and maybe even an enthusiast. Saying something about a release is perfectly fine, but for some reason, especially on this forum, certain kind of opinions result in some very unnecessary and off-topic replies attacking the person.

Originally Posted by sojrner

I digress, however. This has all been done already. It also doesn't address the teams working on a movie that can have their work removed, the commoditization of art, or so many other issues, which have also been discussed with you ad nauseum... and you'll continue to tilt on this no matter what is said anyway. You do you.

Once again, You are talking like your personal liking, or how You feel about the medium being a non removable part of the art, would represent the whole industry (and all of the enthusiasts and collectors,) and any modification to the product would somehow mean that their work would be removed or belittled.

[Cremildo]

Completely removing grain from movies shot on celluloid will necessarily affect unrelated aspects of the image. Therefore it is undesirable, unless you value your personal aesthetic preferences (prejudices?) over the integrity of what you're seeing. One can argue in favor of a case-by-case need of grain management on home video, but total removal is not something I'm interested in reading about.

It also strikes me as bad form to start a thread continuing an argument with another user from another thread. Very attention-seeking .

[mx77]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Completely removing grain from movies shot on celluloid will necessarily affect unrelated aspects of the image. Therefore it is undesirable, unless you value your personal aesthetic preferences (prejudices?) over the integrity of what you're seeing. One can argue in favor of a case-by-case need of grain management on home video, but total removal is not something I'm interested in reading about.

It also strikes me as bad form to start a thread continuing an argument with another user from another thread. Very attention-seeking .

No attention seeking, just moving the discussion here instead of going through this in several threads. Isn't the undesirable part of your reply also a personal preferencw? Integrity is already gone when the movie is encoded. The way I see it, it is a debate over how much the content is allowed to be altered? Encoding does also lose some detail (more so with grainy source) and like I said above, there is several cases where faces in distance are a pixel mess after encoding. They might be blurry to begin with, but still the encoding doesn't help it at all, where as AI tools might offer a better result. Just as an example.