The Digital Bits; "Grain is supposed to be there!"

[welwynnick]

Yes, but would Da Vinci have been using paints and brushes if he had had a camera instead?

Would Hitchcock have used film if he could have used video instead?

The answer may be yes in both cases, but the question is entirely rhetorical. We have gotten used to seeing grain on films in the cinema because we don't know any different. Film is used because it's what we've got. Imagine if movie-makers had been using video cameras for all those decades, then some smart kid came along with this thing called film, and tried to persuade the industry to use that instead. What would everyone have said?

"Whoa - what's all that speckly-stuff, where did that come from?"
"Hey Alfred, what was wrong with your camera?
"Where did that fog come from in those shaddows?"
"Are you SURE it looked like that during the take - go and do it again!"
"Why is the motion all blurred and jumpy, my eyes are going funny trying to watch."

There's nothing divine about film, or 24 fps for that matter, and I wish people could have the opportunity to simply discuss it without being accused of trechary or sacrilege.

Essentially, I think it's about what we want our home theaters to do. Should they simply try to recreate a cinema?

Nick

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

Yes, but would Da Vinci have been using paints and brushes if he had had a camera instead?

Would Hitchcock have used film if he could have used video instead?

All artists used the tools that they had at their disposal at the time. Just because new tools appear doesn't mean we have to use them on works of art done in the past.

It's like colorization. John Huston said, when he found out that Turner had colorized The Maltese Falcon, that it was a lack of respect for his work, and that his movies should be shown faithfully as they had been shot, within the limitations of the time.

There's nothing divine about film, or 24 fps for that matter, and I wish people could have the opportunity to simply discuss it without being accused of trechary or sacrilege.

Essentially, I think it's about what we want our home theaters to do. Should they simply try to recreate a cinema?

Nick

From the original editorial at thedigitalbits:

The Blu-ray presentation should replicate, as closely as possible, the best original theatrical experience of the film.

[Marcusarilius]

What causes grain? Some blue ray DVDs have more grain than others too. 28 weeks Later (the zombie movie) had a lots of grain, But The Fifth Element did not?

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

What causes grain? Some blue ray DVDs have more grain than others too. 28 weeks Later (the zombie movie) had a lots of grain, But The Fifth Element did not?

Apples and oranges. The Fifth Element was shot on a set, mainly with artificial lighting. 28 Weeks Later was shot on location, with a lot of natural light.

Also, film stocks differ, lenses differ, DPs differ.

That's like saying why a Nine Inch Nails album sounds dirty and a Madonna album sounds clean.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Apples and oranges. The Fifth Element was shot on a set, mainly with artificial lighting. 28 Weeks Later was shot on location, with a lot of natural light.

Also, film stocks differ, lenses differ, DPs differ.

That's like saying why a Nine Inch Nails album sounds dirty and a Madonna album sounds clean.

I knew there had to be an appropriate analogy here somewhere. So, the nine inch nails album has grain? i.e. 28 weeks and Modonna is clean without grain like the Fifth Element?

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

What causes grain? Some blue ray DVDs have more grain than others too. 28 weeks Later (the zombie movie) had a lots of grain, But The Fifth Element did not?

Grain is caused by the silver halide particles in the film, and those particles vary in size, depending on the speed rating of the film.

A fast film can be correctly exposed with a small amount of light. That's a result of a fast shutter speed, a small lens aperture, or a low level of illumination. A fast film generally has large grain.

A slow film generally has small grain, but is less sensitive and needs more light to expose it. Its a compromise.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

Grain is caused by the silver halide particles in the film, and those particles vary in size, depending on the speed rating of the film.

A fast film can be correctly exposed with a small amount of light. That's a result of a fast shutter speed, a small lens aperture, or a low level of illumination. A fast film generally has large grain.

A slow film generally has small grain, but is less sensitive and needs more light to expose it. Its a compromise.

Is that why 2001 looked grain free?

[Rob Tomlin]

..

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

Is that why 2001 looked grain free?

It's a Warner title. Wasn't it DNRed?

[tvted]

One of the issues I've long held with the idea of Home Cinema is the fact that currently it is confined to soley what is available to the mechanisms that feed our displays. Its resulted in an audience that confines itself to the narrative tradition in filmaking.

I admire this tradition and have had a 2.35 anamorphic FP setup for about 3 years to indulge my interests. However there is another tradition that these days doesn't seem to exist outside of gallery walls, yet that tradition is equally as long and viable as that which has been produced by commercail/industrial interests. Some of it trickles out to those of us who care, for example http://www.amazon.com/Avant-Garde-Ex...1298864&sr=8-1

Within that tradition, which has generated many of the innovations that are currently utilized by narrative/commercial cinema to tell a tale, it is part of the aesthetic intent to question and analyse the means by which an artist conveys and an audience perceives a work. This might seem like art-fag stuff to some but so be it. However to think that this approach is invalid and should be "cleaned-up" for an audience that is used to pixel mapped squeaky clean images is dsappointing and certainly reflects on an audience's inability to confront what might be seen as amateurish when in fact it might simply be demanding.

Pendantic if you wish, but I think some of you need to get out to a wider world of film if you really think of it as an art form, without the pre-conceived notions of what something should look like. Maybe your perceptions need to be threatened more often.

ted

[rkish]

Originally Posted by Craig Ruchman

Humm, an old quote from Joe Kane on LaserDisc. "For several years LaserDisc player manufactures were putting 'Soft Picture' to get rid of high frequency information, the fine detail associated with LaserDiscs... they made LaserDisc look more like VHS tapes rather then tell you to turn down the Sharpness control... Warner Atlantic Electric... had a higher frequency detail then any other at the time... most reviewers pronounced them noisy, to a point of being unwatchable...[by] people who diden't know how to set their sharpness control". They did not know a good thing when they saw it, and the extra PQ was taken out on later discs. Complain too much about High Deff film grain, and they might smooth it over so it looks more like DVD.

I still watch classic animation on my Pioneer LD on my 50" Panasonic 85U Plasma. SURE...I expect a lot of grain and for the source to be noticeably inferior to either upconverted SD DVD and/or Blu-Ray. WHY do others have a problem with this. I have VHS footage of my father taken right before he died back in 1982 (age 52). This is the ONLY video image I have of him. Am I going to complain that this is "un-watchable" because it's VHS quality. Get real people!

[quexos]

In my opinion, grain should only be there when it was intended, when you can see it in a movie on the big screen. Other than that, I don't understand why there should be grain, it kind of kills the HD idea

[Beta Man]

They've gone from adding grain in films, to adding "Whole Grain" in T.V. shows

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by quexos

it kind of kills the HD idea

Huh?

[Alan Gordon]

I just noticed that The Man Room has a review up for "Semi-Pro"... looks like New Line DIDN'T use DNR on this one...

~Alan

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I just noticed that The Man Room has a review up for "Semi-Pro"... looks like New Line DIDN'T use DNR on this one...

~Alan

Wow . . . apparently that guy hasn't seen too many Blu-rays.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Wow . . . apparently that guy hasn't seen too many Blu-rays.

I don't think that's the case... I think it's more of a case of a guy who doesn't like "grain"...

~Alan<~~~~~~~~Who's disappointed that WB/New Line chose to use DNR on "Twister" and "The Golden Compass", but left it off "Semi-Pro"...

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by quexos

In my opinion, grain should only be there when it was intended, when you can see it in a movie on the big screen. Other than that, I don't understand why there should be grain, it kind of kills the HD idea

Movies aren't marketed as "HD"...

Blu-ray does market itself as HD, but as long as it's 720p or 1080i/p, it's HD. The quality of the source is totally dependent on the source. For instance, TV shows such as "Monk" and "Psych" in HD look almost like upscaled SD, "Smallville" on Blu-ray only offers a small upgrade from SD, but I doubt anybody would doubt the impact of "Lost" or the "CSI" franchises in HD compared to SD.

Movies are the same way, but grain has very little to do with it. For instance, some movies can look super sharp with grain, while others look messy. Some movies can look like upscaled SD with no grain (though both could be caused by DNR).

For me personally (though there are exceptions), movies with WASHED OUT colors tend to spoil the "HD idea" than anything else.

Also, I thought the idea of HD was supposed to be super sharp images and detailed images, or "High Definition" if you will. Using DNR on a film takes away the "Definition", and you're left will "Medium Definition", or MD if you will. Use enough, and we get "Low Definition", or LD if you will, and I could buy that years ago!

~Alan

[robertc88]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Old master. Uses the same master as the two disc edition. If you don't mind waiting, this title will probably be remastered in a few years time.

For M&C Blu Ray, wasn't what was utilized for the D Theater utilized for the BD?

[Rob Tomlin]

..