Added "Grain" in movies

[NoMeGustaU]

I just watched the movie 300 the other day and noticed that a lot of the movie has a "grainyness" to it.(not sure if that is a word)
I read somewhere that they did that on purpose, just wondering why they would do that. Wouldnt they want the picture as sharp as possible?

[Batman1980]

300 is supposed to be a very rough movie and the graininess adds to it. I can't really explain it right now because I have to go to work shortly but the point to grain is to improve the quality of the picture. DVD does have grain too but the resolution is too low to really notice it. The point of blu-ray is to see the movie the way it looks in theatres since that's the way the director wants us to see it.

[SlmShdy1]

Originally Posted by NoMeGustaU

Wouldnt they want the picture as sharp as possible?

Exactly. It's so sharp that you can see the intentional grain. It's a style for the movie that the director wanted.

[maidenbrain]

Adding grain (in the digital era) is a stylistic choice (sometimes good, sometimes not so good). Back when most films were shot on celluloid, filmmakers occasionally used different film stocks to achieve various looks to help convey the story (i.e. Natural Born Killers, JFK, and Traffic).

I saw 300 on digital IMAX, which employs a type of DNR, so I was pretty shocked by the grain on the BD. But, it actually works for the film and that's how Zack Snyder wanted it to look, so that's the way I want to see it.

[TTC1984]

I'm all for the original grain being intact in movies for the sake of a detailed, faithful remaster. I'm also all for filmmakers using film grain in new movies for the sake of creating an aged and/or gritty look.

What I am NOT in favor of, however, is going back and adding grain to movies that already exist. For instance, the French Connection had a bunch of grain added that was highly unnecessary - not to mention all the other issues with that disc.

[Sussudio]

In the words of Gordon Gekko, grain is good.

[steve_dave]

Please for any grain haters, please rent Surf's Up and watch the documentaries. Its a CGI cartoon but the filmmakers state explictly that they didn't want a "clean" cartoon. They wanted to look like it was shot with video tape and cheap (I.E. low budget) film stock. They also went to great lengths to decay the "archived footage" by adding tears, rips, spool jumps, dirt, grain, etc.

A lot of filmmakers have artistic decisions to make and we may not agree with them but its still their art.

Cold Case, a television show on CBS, is a great example of artistic work. The flashback scenes are shot with the film stock from the era that the flashback takes place or the film is degraded intentionally to match film stock of that time (just in case, they can't locate it). And in some of the episodes that are "tributes" to films, like The Big Chill, grain is apparant because of the film stock used.

[HumanMedia]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

In the words of Gordon Gekko, grain is good.

Hah!

Do we really have to have ANOTHER thread about film grain?
A search on grain and 300 has all the answers repeated over and over.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by NoMeGustaU

I just watched the movie 300 the other day and noticed that a lot of the movie has a "grainyness" to it.(not sure if that is a word)
I read somewhere that they did that on purpose, just wondering why they would do that. Wouldnt they want the picture as sharp as possible?

Artistic intent

[Jeff Kleist]

What I am NOT in favor of, however, is going back and adding grain to movies that already exist. For instance, the French Connection had a bunch of grain added that was highly unnecessary - not to mention all the other issues with that disc.

I believe they actually DNR'd it, then added in artifical grain to try to restore it after all the processing

[Freekman]

The grain also fit in with the setting of the film. Also, it worked with what Snyder called "battle debris," giving it a better warlike feel.

[Clark Kent]

The real reason they add artificial grain these days in post-production is to cover up the CGI and special effects. Most CGI would stick out like a sore thumb to the viewer if they did not "blend" it in with regular footage. 300 would have looked like garbage if they had not added the grain.

[RiseDarthVader]

No the CGI would of looked fine if they just added grain to the CGI composites that match the existing grain in the image. You don't need to blast the image with grain just to composite CGI.

[CrazyOvaBlu]

Eww Grain!

[curse]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Please for any grain haters, please rent Surf's Up and watch the documentaries. Its a CGI cartoon but the filmmakers state explictly that they didn't want a "clean" cartoon. They wanted to look like it was shot with video tape and cheap (I.E. low budget) film stock. They also went to great lengths to decay the "archived footage" by adding tears, rips, spool jumps, dirt, grain, etc.

A lot of filmmakers have artistic decisions to make and we may not agree with them but its still their art.

Cold Case, a television show on CBS, is a great example of artistic work. The flashback scenes are shot with the film stock from the era that the flashback takes place or the film is degraded intentionally to match film stock of that time (just in case, they can't locate it). And in some of the episodes that are "tributes" to films, like The Big Chill, grain is apparant because of the film stock used.

had no idea they did that... thats cool

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

300 would have looked like garbage if they had not added the grain.

On top of this: 300 was actually shot on film to begin with and because of the way they "overclocked" it, the film turned out grainy to begin with.

ps on the topic of "added grain", I believe one of the Grindhouse films were shot on digital and had all of the "film" effects added. Either Death Proof or Planet Terror.

[broganreynik]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

On top of this: 300 was actually shot on film to begin with and because of the way they "overclocked" it, the film turned out grainy to begin with.

ps on the topic of "added grain", I believe one of the Grindhouse films were shot on digital and had all of the "film" effects added. Either Death Proof or Planet Terror.

Planet Terror.

[mikem471]

Originally Posted by HumanMedia

Hah!

Do we really have to have ANOTHER thread about film grain?
A search on grain and 300 has all the answers repeated over and over.

It's a new member. You'll live.

[J.Seb]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

ps on the topic of "added grain", I believe one of the Grindhouse films were shot on digital and had all of the "film" effects added. Either Death Proof or Planet Terror.

I've got the planet terror special edition and in the second disc there's a "scratch free version from newly discovered negative" (lol) and it still looks really really grainy.

Are you sure that one was shot in digital?

To me it looks like rodriguez and tarantino danced claque on the film stock.

Great movie, may I add. Can't wait for Machete to come out next year

[TTC1984]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I believe they actually DNR'd it, then added in artifical grain to try to restore it after all the processing

Upon closer inspection, I think you're right. Would it have killed Fox to include a standard-def, unaltered copy of the movie with the Blu-Ray?