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

[BStecke]

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa155.html

To many of us, this isn't anything new, but to some, and I know you're out there, this could clear some things up.

Executive summary:

People new to Blu-ray have been complaining to thedigitalbits of picture "noise" on catalog films on Blu-ray. What they are seeing is actually film grain. Having never seen older films in a theater, they don't realize that. Film is shot on photochemical stock, so a film frame is comprised of tiny silver particles, and that is not a defect on the disc. However, many people expect older films to look as clean as modern ones.

This is probably going to be the main point enthusiasts and studios must explain to consumers. Currently, in response to feedback, studios are often applying excessive digital noise reduction to catalog films (and sometimes new releases) to remove grain, or refraining from releasing them altogether.

Last paragraph:

This isn't just a Blu-ray issue, it's going to affect ALL high-definition presentations of older films, if we allow it to. Film enthusiasts (and those at the studios who actually CARE about and respect the integrity of older films) need to really start educating people on this subject - new Blu-ray consumers, friends and family, fellow studio employees. FILM IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE FILM. Older titles on Blu-ray are NOT supposed to look perfect, as if they were shot today on video! The Blu-ray presentation should replicate, as closely as possible, the best original theatrical experience of the film. THAT'S the goal. I'll tell you right now, this is an important issue, just as anamorphic enhancement and presenting films in their original aspect ratios on DVD were before it. As we did with those issues, you better believe it's something the staff here at The Digital Bits will take up as a crusade with the Hollywood studios if it becomes necessary. So you studio folks... let's just say that you'd better get this one right, or you'll definitely be hearing about it from us in the months ahead (and, we suspect, from many others as well).

There's a lot more to the article, but the whole article can't be posted due to copyright issues. It's worth a read.

[stockstar1138]

excellent article. bill hunt ftw!

[BStecke]

Just curious . . . if you cite the source, doesn't that nix copyright issues?

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Just curious . . . if you cite the source, doesn't that nix copyright issues?

i don't know internet legal code, but i would assume that posting up the full article is not the fair thing to do as it takes hits away from thedigitalbits.com, because people can read the full article that you copied on blu-ray.com

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

i don't know internet legal code, but i would assume that posting up the full article is not the fair thing to do as it takes hits away from thedigitalbits.com, because people can read the full article that you copied on blu-ray.com

I see, I see. Well . . . I edited my original post so people know there's more to the article. It's a decent length, lots of good info. Always good to know there's somebody with contacts willing to fight for us people who actually know what we're doing

[Clark Kent]

I think for many people their only point of reference for what High Definition should look before they buy into Blu-ray is sports like Golf and the NFL shot on HD cameras in brightly lit environments from their local affiliate. Film is really a completely different medium to shoot on and the grain structure is an integral part of film's look.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by BStecke

I see, I see. Well . . . I edited my original post so people know there's more to the article. It's a decent length, lots of good info. Always good to know there's somebody with contacts willing to fight for us people who actually know what we're doing

I have summarised the editorial so that people can get the gist of it.

And I agree with Bill Hunt - this is going to be a long, thankless fight to educate people to make them prefer a picture with less eye-candy.

It's like trying to persuade a Bose owner to switch to B&W.

[Deciazulado]

Recommended THX viewing distance (36 degree viewing angle)

Interesting calculator. Last time I checked the THX TAP specs, that was the minimum recommended viewing angle for Scope films (last row of the theater)

I prefer Scope filmwatching to fill 64 degrees of my vision according to that calculator on a flat screen (Curved, it would be more)




By the way this is what's used by photographers to extract the sharpest image from film.





They're called grain magnifiers or grain focusers
They cost from $50 to $90

Why?

...allows you to focus the actual grain structure of the image. A grain focuser provides you with the sharpest focus you can get from a given negative. Examine the grain structure through the eyepiece and adjust the fine focus until the grain structure is in absolutely sharp focus.

[gamer2600]

Alright I am going to start with saying I know when grain is intentional like 300 and it doesn't bother me.

My question is...I have been watching a few Blu's, Season 2 of Weeds comes to mind, and a few scenes look grainy especially in dark lit areas. Is this just a product of the transfer of those scenes or is the Blu-ray player crapping out. I have a 60GB PS3 and it has not given me any problems.

[Maxx2029]

On Weeds maybe it's just that it's filmed on digital cameras and if you want to film scenes with natural lighting, some of the darker ones can be very grainy.

Like Michael Mann films Collateral and Miami Vice. or like with you digital camera when you turn the ISO setting up.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Maxx2029

On Weeds maybe it's just that it's filmed on digital cameras and if you want to film scenes with natural lighting, some of the darker ones can be very grainy.

Like Michael Mann films Collateral and Miami Vice. or like with you digital camera when you turn the ISO setting up.

When it's "filmed" on digital cameras, it's not grain. It's noise. As digital sensors get better, it will be less of an issue. It's worse in compressed video. When I watch some TV shows online that are supposedly HD, dark scenes look really, really bad. You get noise and digital blocking.

In digital audio, there's a concept of adding a "dither" signal so that more bits are used. I guess there's no such concept in digital video.

There's a big difference between film grain and video noise. Sometimes it actually is purposeful, as in the Michael Mann films you name, but I think before too long, those films will be considered to have a very dated look.

My personal preference is that I do want to see some film grain in a narrative movie. Otherwise, the film looks to me like a TV soap opera and it takes away the "suspension of disbelief" that is needed to make movies, especially fantasy and action movies, seem real.

I've posted this before, but have you ever seen an extra where they're showing how a scene was made and the action and acting seems totally fake, but when you see it in the film, it works? That's what some Blu-ray movies look like to me when there's no film grain.

[SDon1969]

From what I've read it's a product of filming in the dark, but there are a lot of members here better suited to give you a detailed explanation...

[SquidPuppet]

Weeds 1 and 2 both had some very grainy scenes....outdoor patio evening dinner shots were most noticable for me. Still, love the show.

[WickyWoo]

Dark+Digital cameras commonly used for TV shows=CCD noise

[Pelican170]

Search for this in the Forums. There was a big discussion on this like a week ago..

[onceachilde]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Dark+Digital cameras commonly used for TV shows=CCD noise

This!

Grain is the product of the silver halide particles in physical film stock. Faux grain or a grainy effect is sometime applied digitally to make a digitally shot movie appear more like film.

Video noise is something very different. This is what you are seeing.

[gamer2600]

Thanks to the people explaining a few things.

For the people that use stupid icons thanks for wasting your time. For your information, the search did not give me the results that I was looking for, they just bring up posts about 300 being grainy which is obviously intentional.

[jkwest]

Originally Posted by gamer2600

Thanks to the people explaining a few things.

For the people that use stupid icons thanks for wasting your time. For your information, the search did not give me the results that I was looking for, they just bring up posts about 300 being grainy which is obviously intentional.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ighlight=grain
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ighlight=grain
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ighlight=grain
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ighlight=grain
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ighlight=grain
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ighlight=grain
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...822#post657822

Originally Posted by Gavin Von Karls

To overly simplify things... Grain is tiny crystals or silver on the film that record an image when it is exposed to light. The size of the grain is dependent on the speed of the film stock and whether the cinematographer over or underexposed the negative.

For instance the 300 was shot on iso 500 speed film and Larry Fong underexposed in most scenes by 2 stops. This left an immense amount of grain on the image. But the payoff is he was able to shoot amazing slow motion sequences without a huge amount of light. It's not always budget related since Transformers was mostly shot on 500 speed stock. But the faster the film speed the larger the crystals and the more grain you will see. Also many cinematographers underexpose the film and then push it to correct exposure in the lab to bump up the contrast and give the film a harsh look... for example Mathew Libatique did this with The Fountain, this causes more grain. While in Requiem for a Dream he overexposed most of the scenes and pulled the film giving the image a softer look.

Now on the other hand in a film like Pirates cinematographer Darius Wolski chose to shoot the daylight scenes on iso 50 speed film stock which has smaller crystals and therefore much less grain... in fact it's hardly noticeable except in a theater.

All film has some grain whether you notice it or not if you blew the image up large enough you will see grain. I love it and think it adds to the experience. It's not usually something the Director decides to throw in for effect... this does happen every now and then, like in the Grindhouse pictures, but overall this is very rare.

I hope this helps!

And in case you're wondering I shoot film for a living...

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by onceachilde

This!

Grain is the product of the silver halide particles in physical film stock. Faux grain or a grainy effect is sometime applied digitally to make a digitally shot movie appear more like film.

Video noise is something very different. This is what you are seeing.

Film Grain is more apparent in dark scenes when converted also. sometimes it is the grain, sometimes its Noise..

[Travis]

Originally Posted by onceachilde

This!

Grain is the product of the silver halide particles in physical film stock. Faux grain or a grainy effect is sometime applied digitally to make a digitally shot movie appear more like film.

Video noise is something very different. This is what you are seeing.

Good post.

I can live with grain if it is part of the movie, Godfather; even faux grain like in 300 has its purpose (even though I don't enjoy the visual experience).

Adding noise or grain doesn't make me feel like I'm having a theater experience. I feel like my 1080p disscs aren't much beter than 480p discs.
I feel with Blu-ray, I want refrence quality all the time, visually stunning pictures that are crystal clear. I know it may not be possible all the time, (depends on master) and movie makers have their reasons, also it won't keep me from buying my favorite films like.

I really believe with tecnology today, crystal clear images are possible and they are what I want. But some people like the feeling of looking through a dirty screendoor to watch their movies.

Some movies in my collection like Dog Day Afternoon and Halloween I'm sure can never get 5 stars for PQ no matter how they are remastered. If you would have asked me a year ago about Sleeping Beauty or Blade Runner, I would have said the same thing. But Here we are, and those 2 are stunning.

My definitive response to grain is: it is tough (and maybe impossible), but grain should usually be removed and never added, except maybe in a few cases.

Seriously, if I could see Godfather without any grain (or color changes) I'm sure I would prefer it.