Whole Grain or White Bread?

[hendersd]

OK, let me toss this out there...
Many posters and reviewers seem to be fixated on grain. One recent reviewer actually said: "I wish there was more grain...". I forget which film was being referred to. I totally agree with the notion that fims should be presented in a way that was originally intended, and DNR can have disasterous results. Having said that, some films on home video seem to be grainier that they were originally. I saw CE3K and Young Frankenstein first run on BIG screens and I could almost swear that they were not this grainy. I remember admiring Doug Trumbull's effects shots in the former and how smooth they looked. The latest BD seems grainer to me. Of course, we all know that memories lie, but I'm an art-maker and visually attuned to such things. I also find it interesting that people are falling all over themselves praising the Sleeping Beauty BD (including me!). It looks great. However this presentation has ZERO grain! The magicians at Disney have obviously "tweaked the knobs" here to produce this extraordinary result.
Why are we not complaining about this one?

[Lucy Diamond]

If the grain is part of or adds to the picture then I am all for it.

Predator is an example of this and I love that Blu-ray.

Tombraider on the other hand is unforgivable and I would have liked a clearer image of the girl popping out of the cake in Under Siege.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by hendersd

I also find it interesting that people are falling all over themselves praising the Sleeping Beauty BD (including me!). It looks great. However this presentation has ZERO grain! The magicians at Disney have obviously "tweaked the knobs" here to produce this extraordinary result.
Why are we not complaining about this one?

That's because Sleeping Beauty was scanned from the Original Successive Exposure Technirama negative, there would be far smaller grain when scanning such a negative because it is larger than 35mm film.

The image integrity that you can achieve from scanning the negative benefits the final picture immensely. The detail and resolution has always been on the negative, but the limitations introduced by the optical re-compositing necessitated by shooting SE, coupled with IB printing attenuated much of that crispness (and the secondary anamorphic step likely didn't help matters). Certainly the new Blu-ray version looks radically better than anything we have achieved before.

Robert A. Harris Interviews Theo Gluck, Director of Library Restoration for Walt Disney Motion Pictures

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Lucy Diamond

I would have liked a clearer image of the girl popping out of the cake in Under Siege.

Nice

[Canada]

I hated the Italian Job it was a bloody mess it looked like a VHS tape if not worse. The Terminator did not look much better but taking into account the age of the film and the low budget origins Terminator can not look much better where the Italian Job can.

Although the picture in 28 Days later was way worse in terms of grain, the grain was supposed to be there, with the Italian Job it wasn't or was supposed to be a lot less.

Yes I know the Italian Job was among the first Blu Rays put out.

[saginawjuggalo]

Grain doesn't look as intense projected on a big screen. I'm a fan of flim grain but NOT this DNR molestation taking place on many recent titles. A small touch of DNR isn't terrible, but being untouched is even better to me!

:incase we have some noobs reading:

DNR wipes out grain and detail but doing this tends to make film look like video

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

That's because Sleeping Beauty was scanned from the Original Successive Exposure Technirama negative, there would be far smaller grain when scanning such a negative because it is larger than 35mm film.

It was also grain filtered by DTS/Lowry Digital.

[Gremlin]

There are many variables regarding grain: the master reel quality, film's age, method of photography & equipment, poor lighting and wrong iso choice, or just artistic value.

As I see it there is intended grain and image/shot noise which can contribute to the PQ, and some cases its just poor quality control.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...oton-noise.jpg
look here for example, the pic in the right bottom corner is the sharpest, but in this case I prefer the one above it even though its a bit grainier. however the even more grainer shots are just poor.

[MOONPHASE]

and here i thought this thread was going to be about sandwiches

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by hendersd

I also find it interesting that people are falling all over themselves praising the Sleeping Beauty BD (including me!). It looks great. However this presentation has ZERO grain! The magicians at Disney have obviously "tweaked the knobs" here to produce this extraordinary result.
Why are we not complaining about this one?

If you read the article posted a little while ago on this site covering the Sleeping Beauty Restoration Web Conference, you'd have read that Disney made a conscious decision to remove grain from Sleeping Beauty because it was an animated movie. The true source of the film was hand-drawn artwork that would obviously not have had film grain. I think Disney made the right decision. If you saw Ratatouille in a theater, should Disney have added grain to the Blu-Ray to make it match your cinema experience or use the purely digital and grain-free source files?

[killat0n]

Originally Posted by Canada

I hated the Italian Job it was a bloody mess it looked like a VHS tape if not worse. The Terminator did not look much better but taking into account the age of the film and the low budget origins Terminator can not look much better where the Italian Job can.

Although the picture in 28 Days later was way worse in terms of grain, the grain was supposed to be there, with the Italian Job it wasn't or was supposed to be a lot less.

Yes I know the Italian Job was among the first Blu Rays put out.

Sounds like your TV is the problem, or maybe your eyes

I've always felt that the Italian Job looks good. To compare it to Terminator is laughable at best. Terminator looks like upconverted DVD.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/185/italianjob2003.html 4 star video for what you call "looks like VHS". I guess we aren't watching the same movie

[QwikSand]

Maybe I'm in the minority but I hate any grain at all. My definiton of HD is the clearest and sharpest picture out there and grain takes away from that. I don't want it to look like the theater, I want it to look better.However I also have a 1080i tv so maybe that's part of it. Just my one cent

[Blu Man]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

and here i thought this thread was going to be about sandwiches

Yeah, I'm disappointed.I wanted to state my opnion on ham and cheese.

[Mr.Sparkle]

Originally Posted by killat0n

Sounds like your TV is the problem, or maybe your eyes

I've always felt that the Italian Job looks good. To compare it to Terminator is laughable at best. Terminator looks like upconverted DVD.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/185/italianjob2003.html 4 star video for what you call "looks like VHS". I guess we aren't watching the same movie

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/11/terminator.html

Terminator also got 4 star video on that same site.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by hendersd

OK, let me toss this out there...
Many posters and reviewers seem to be fixated on grain. One recent reviewer actually said: "I wish there was more grain...". I forget which film was being referred to. I totally agree with the notion that fims should be presented in a way that was originally intended, and DNR can have disasterous results. Having said that, some films on home video seem to be grainier that they were originally. I saw CE3K and Young Frankenstein first run on BIG screens and I could almost swear that they were not this grainy. I remember admiring Doug Trumbull's effects shots in the former and how smooth they looked. The latest BD seems grainer to me. Of course, we all know that memories lie, but I'm an art-maker and visually attuned to such things. I also find it interesting that people are falling all over themselves praising the Sleeping Beauty BD (including me!). It looks great. However this presentation has ZERO grain! The magicians at Disney have obviously "tweaked the knobs" here to produce this extraordinary result.
Why are we not complaining about this one?

You really hit the nail on the head for me. I have never walked out of a theatre and stated "Great film but what was with all that grain?" I think the answer to this controversy lies somewhere in the middle. No, I don't want films to be DNR'ed to death but did CE3K really look that grainy on opening night back in 77?

[Zvi]

If the director wants or intended grain to be there for whatever reason so be it. His/her movie after all.

However, I don't get why most of the ppl want grain in there if it can be removed w/o softening overall picture. In all cases grain(except purposeful) is there because of film/technology deficiencies and not because that was the intention. So, if today's technology can make it better, why not?

Why do I have to watch grainy picture just because in 1960 technicolor or whoever else couldn't produce better film? To have that "authentic" feeling? I don't. I want best PQ from BD, lifelike and vivid, etc.

Using the same logic one can argue that the scratches and dust particles shouldn't be removed form the master either, those are also authentic you know Give you real old and authentic feeling.

[hendersd]

Back in the days of laserdisc, I had a Pioneer (still have it) player that had on-board variable NR. This was a great feature because some laserdiscs had an inherent level of visual noise. I wouldn't mind having that capability now. I'm currently running my discs through a PS3. My Panasonic Plasma has very limited controls as far as sharpness (or lack thereof) is concerned. I'd like to soften Young Frankenstein just a bit. Shame on me!

[Crim122]

My gf thinks if you take grain out of all old movies then they lose that "vintage" feel.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Lucy Diamond

If the grain is part of or adds to the picture then I am all for it.

Predator is an example of this and I love that Blu-ray.

Tombraider on the other hand is unforgivable and I would have liked a clearer image of the girl popping out of the cake in Under Siege.

If you ask me, "Under Siege" looked WAY too waxy looking (and I'm not just talking about Erica Eleniak's plastic surgery)... so I wouldn't be surprised if that film was DNR'ed (by someone who didn't know what they were doing).

Totally agree with your "Predator" comment though!

~Alan

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Zvi

If the director wants or intended grain to be there for whatever reason so be it. His/her movie after all.

However, I don't get why most of the ppl want grain in there if it can be removed w/o softening overall picture. In all cases grain(except purposeful) is there because of film/technology deficiencies and not because that was the intention. So, if today's technology can make it better, why not?

Why do I have to watch grainy picture just because in 1960 technicolor or whoever else couldn't produce better film? To have that "authentic" feeling? I don't. I want best PQ from BD, lifelike and vivid, etc.

Using the same logic one can argue that the scratches and dust particles shouldn't be removed form the master either, those are also authentic you know Give you real old and authentic feeling.

+1. Very well said.