The DNR Debate - What Side Are You On?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Caleb

If there's no grain or noise in the things we see in real life why should it be any different on the things we watch on pricey HDTV's?

It's 2011 and imo I think the picture quality should be the same as the Oprah Winfrey show.

Obviously, you're not watching real life, you're watching a movie.
If movies aren't your thing, by all means, go watch Oprah.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by 42041

Viewing distance has a lot to do with it too. I saw Black Swan recently and was forced to sit very close to the screen and it was grainy as hell. From the back of the theater the image was as smooth as any 35mm print.

Modern cinemas tend to be quite small with very large screens and so grain is more visible than the days of very large auditoriums and when you were charged more to sit further back - where you would see a grainless image - which audiences preferred. I certainly don't understand why on a much smaller TV screen I see so much grain on Blu-ray discs even when I'm sitting a fair distance away.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by 42041

While digital aliasing/scaling/sharpening (applied either during mastering or on a miscalibrated TV) may affect how grain is rendered, the main reason is that the images you see in a theater just aren't very sharp (i don't even see pixels on my local 2K digital cinema screen, which is only a hair above the resolution of my plasma). Since grain tends to be the highest frequency component of an image, it gets low-pass filtered away by the time it's four generations away from the camera negative and is being projected through another lens. Now on the other hand, if something's shot on 16mm with really coarse grain that's below the cutoff frequency of the print, I see plenty of it in the theater.

Viewing distance has a lot to do with it too. I saw Black Swan recently and was forced to sit very close to the screen and it was grainy as hell. From the back of the theater the image was as smooth as any 35mm print.

Thank you.

That makes more sense. I've actually read quite a bit about it and it's not a very well-documented subject because I think the concept of discussing grain outside of film-school papers is rather new.

Would that also explain why I think sometimes flims have blurry motion in theaters as well? Only sometimes, and usually when it looks like a softer image anyway. To be absolutely honest I've never gotten into the 24p thing because I'm afraid that's the effect people want to have. I'll be getting a new TV later this year and just about every one I am looking at has 24p, and I'm sure it is better - but this has always been my knowingly uneducated whisper in my ear.

Thanks again!

[42041]

Originally Posted by Caleb

If they would use cameras that had no film grain in the first place DNR would not be needed.

At present, there is no camera without "film grain". 70mm film may produce grainless images, but it's prohibitively expensive. Digital cameras may produce very clean images in good light, but push them a bit and you get Public Enemies.

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by Caleb

If they would use cameras that had no film grain in the first place DNR would not be needed.

CAMERAS don't produce grain. It's the film itself.

The picture on motion picture film IS grain -- it's actually the element the picture itself is made of, like the pixels on digital pictures. That's why it's often pointed here that scrubbing away grain scrubs away picture detail.

Different film stocks and lighting conditions will emphasize the graininess on some pictures, but there is "grain" in every movie ever committed to actual film (as opposed to digital). It's just not noticeable on brightly lit films shot in good lighting conditions on fine-grain film.

[ryoohki]

Btw.. just a fact. Camera are not human eyes.. far from it, even today..

[papaholmz]

After watching many blus I have decided that I only care to the extent that the director intended it. If the director meant there to be grain to convey a gritty feel than I care, but if the director didn't really care one way or the other, than neither do I.

In either case, I don't get my panties in a wad over the issue. Some of you sound like kids on a playground arguing over which swing on the swing-set is better

-papaholmz

[42041]

Originally Posted by Caleb

The more grain a movie has the less realistic it looks PERIOD.

Exploding robots that change into cars are not realistic, yet you own Transformers

[Caesu]

I dont mind movies having DNR. I actually prefer Predators Ultimate Hunter Edition over the first release. Yes, Im sure Im in the minority there opinion wise. Depends on the movie really though. In the above example with Predator, the amount of grain on the first rel;easewas just too much for me, too distracting especially the night scenes. It looked like I was watching it on a TV with a noisey cable connection.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Caleb

I hate noise......like in gta IV the lost and the dammed and hurt locker and 300.

Why would you WANT to add grain to a modern movie or game???

What are people smoking these days?

Its like saying you like games with jaggy graphics instead of a game with AA support and smooth looking graphics.

I want all future films to have DNR!!!!!

If 300 (although a crappy movie) used the same filming techniques, color timing, etc. as... let's say "Speed Racer" it would be laughable....

Originally Posted by GC13

Do you have any idea how many Mass Effect players thought the game looked so much better once they turned off the "artistic touches" of film grain and motion blur. Just because it's art doesn't mean it looks good.

I can't begin to tell you how little I care about the tastes and preferences of video-game-nerds. Their likes and dislikes don't enter my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Caleb

The more grain a movie has the less realistic it looks PERIOD.

Let the fight continue.

The newest "Rambo" film... for instance.... The night-time boat scene was shot in the middle of the day...

Pretty much every shot you see has filters applied to it.... you can take all of the "HD Cameras" or Imax or whatever you want, and just "shoot" and if you look at the raw-footage, you'll probably agree that it looks like crap..... you can't shoot a movie without manipulating what the camera sees because "Life" captured on film isn't all that pleasing to look at.....

Even sports events that are live on T.V. manipulate the light/color/etc.... Have you ever watched a golf tournament go very late.... where the commentators are discussing whether the playoff etc. will be completed or postponed due to darkness, yet it looks bright??? It's because they open up the iris on the camera..... with your logic you'd rather have them leave it as a "standard" and just watch shadows that you can't make out because it's too dark to see.....


Your opinion is so easy to disagree with, because you're not even using the "I know it looks fake, but I like no-grain-torch-mode-contrast-boosted-cartoonish-looking-madame tussauds-images being displayed.... "

Instead, you're using the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid" argument... which, considering you don't know what you're talking about, is both silly and deliciously ironic.

Originally Posted by Caleb

WTF are you talking about?

We are discussing picture quality NOT sci-fi movies.

You just went WAY off topic.

If they made Transformers into a video game, would it be on-topic again?

[ImportFanatic]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

Time and time again we read that sort of comment but what the home cinema message board posters seem unable to grasp is that very many people (probably the vast majority who watch films on TV) DO NOT LIKE GRAIN and don't care what the film looked like on screen.

Thankfully DVD is there to cater for those types of people.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Caleb

You just went WAY off topic.

Weren't you talking about "real life" and how you don't see film grain? So where are the exploding robots? Where are the cuts, dissolves, where's rack focus? What relevance does "real life" have to movie images?

[dallywhitty]

Why do you have a Blu-ray collection if you don't like film grain?

[Caesu]

Your question goes against the open opinion of the forum topic, The DNR Debate - What Side Are You On?

This is a blu-ray forum, so the question was directed at blu-ray users in regards to what they prefer. DNR or film grain or sitting on the fence even. Asking why a person has blu-ray if they dont like film grain is almost akin to a 'poisoning the well' arguement. The question imposed as a result is invalid to the nature of the forum topic.

You are imposing, if the movie does not have film grain then it is not blu-ray. You might want to say you feel film grain as intended brings out the movie as it should be. Usually a movie that is carefully restored for blu-ray with the directors supervision involved has the best results. Often though, a lot of movies may have film grain more or less out of scope from what was intended. An overly noisey release in terms of film grain can be just as distracting from the movies intended presentation as DNR can be.

A good example from my personal opnion would be,

300 has film grain that is noticable, though the movie I think looks better for it. Without it, it would look less, 'epic' to me.

Predator's original blu-ray release had too much film grain that it was overly noisey and distracting to me, the DNR version, although at times over done, made the movie more watchable for myself, bringing out more clarity. Sometimes you have a choice, you go with the one you prefer. The lesser of two evils perhaps.

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Caleb

Wow.

He has a good point. If you relate ANYTHING in movies to real life....then "wow" to you.

Have you ever taken a picture and have it not look exactly the way it did in your eyes?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by 42041

Weren't you talking about "real life" and how you don't see film grain? So where are the exploding robots? Where are the cuts, dissolves, where's rack focus? What relevance does "real life" have to movie images?

The point that I think he is trying to make, in general, is that film grain (in most cases) is more of a side effect of the medium rather than a carefully planned out part of the look of the film (which is what all of the other things that you listed are). And when grain and noise isn't present (on noticable levels), but with detail still preserved, they look more like you can "reach out and touch them" in Hi-Def than they do when riddled with film-grain (regardless of all of those other artistic choices that you mention here). At least I think this is the point that he is trying to make.

Sure, some directors do go for a grainy look if that is a specific artistic choice for how they want to film to look. I don't deny that, but those are the exceptions. But most movies have grain just because it can't really be avoided. There really aren't many other viable and affordable options for making a movie that can be used to avoid this issue.


Now, I'm not entirely against grain, nor am I entirely against DNR. I think either of them in excess is a bad thing. I do want detail preserved in movies, so if grain has to remain in order for the detail to be preserved, so be it. But, if a moderate amount of DNR can be applied to get rid of some of the negative aspects of grain while preserving the details for the most part, I'm fine with it.

I'm kind of in a similar boat as BillieCassin:

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

I've tried to educate myself more about it, but I haven't been that successful. I have never noticed "grain" in the theater, and yet on Blu-ray on my much smaller TV it's more apparent. I haven't been able to find an explanation of that yet.

Take "Showgirls", for instance. I've seen that film quite a few times in the theater, and it always looked ultra-slick to me. On Blu, I instantly noticed the grain. It doesn't bother me - the picture looks wonderful - but I did notice it right away. I can't recall ever noticing it in the theater, but it's been some years and I never even thought of the issue then.

So in short, it really does depend wholly on the title and what it actually looks like once it's in my player.

For the most part, I never really see grain in theaters. At least not on the same level of noticability as I do on some Blu-Rays that I own.

Not that I let it bother me too much, but this does raise a few important questions...


Generally speaking, the people who are 100% opposed to DNR and are all about leaving grain intact seem to be concerned with at least 1 of 2 things (usually both)... preserving the movie as it appeared theatrically (or in other words trying to recreate that theatrical experience as closely as possible at home), and preserving the director's vision and intent.


Now, those are understandible concerns/reasoning for wanting to preserve these movies and not tinker with them much.

However, I offer this arguement. If the grain is suddenly much more noticable when watching a movie on Blu-Ray on an HDTV at home than it is in the theater (as it has been in my experience, and that of many others), then doesn't that at least somewhat work against the goal of preserving/recreating the theatrical experience? If you are suddenly seeing SO MUCH detail to the point of seeing many flaws that in most cases were likely not meant to be seen or noticed, then that works against that goal (and potentially the director's intent).

Going further on the director's intent issue... Is it not possible that at least some filmmakers made their movies in certain ways (i.e. using cheaper or more grain-heavy filmstocks) on the basis that when actually seen in the theater (or on home video in the cases of movies made since the advent of it, prior to the Blu-Ray medium being an option) made those choices knowing and intending that when the film was viewed via the available disribution mediums of the time, the grain effect would be greatly reduced or completely unnoticable when presented via those mediums? Perhaps they never intended for their film to be seen in a manner that brings out the grain to the extent that Blu-Ray often does. And as a result, putting the movie on Blu-Ray and not doing at least a little something to reduce the grain effect could, in theory, be going against the directors wishes in those cases.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Caesu

Your question goes against the open opinion of the forum topic, The DNR Debate - What Side Are You On?

This is a blu-ray forum, so the question was directed at blu-ray users in regards to what they prefer. DNR or film grain or sitting on the fence even. Asking why a person has blu-ray if they dont like film grain is almost akin to a 'poisoning the well' arguement. The question imposed as a result is invalid to the nature of the forum topic.

You are imposing, if the movie does not have film grain then it is not blu-ray. You might want to say you feel film grain as intended brings out the movie as it should be. Usually a movie that is carefully restored for blu-ray with the directors supervision involved has the best results. Often though, a lot of movies may have film grain more or less out of scope from what was intended. An overly noisey release in terms of film grain can be just as distracting from the movies intended presentation as DNR can be.

A good example from my personal opnion would be,

300 has film grain that is noticable, though the movie I think looks better for it. Without it, it would look less, 'epic' to me.

Predator's original blu-ray release had too much film grain that it was overly noisey and distracting to me, the DNR version although at times over done made the movie more watchable for myself, bringing out more clarity. Sometimes you have a choice, you go with the one you prefer. The lesser of two evils perhaps.

My question was aimed at Caleb, but hello.

My primary incentive for converting to Blu-ray is the level of detail. If said detail is going to be erased with DNR, what's the point? You may as well stick to DVD. I don't mind a small degree of DNR (although I'd rather none was used at all), but Caleb seems to think any film grain is bad. As for Predator, I believe there was a fair amount of noise, not only grain, which would make it look less desirable.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

However, I offer this arguement. If the grain is suddenly much more noticable when watching a movie on Blu-Ray on an HDTV at home than it is in the theater (as it has been in my experience, and that of many others), then doesn't that at least somewhat work against the goal of preserving/recreating the theatrical experience? If you are suddenly seeing SO MUCH detail to the point of seeing many flaws that in most cases were likely not meant to be seen or noticed, then that works against that goal (and potentially the director's intent).

Well, that's a pretty fundamental issue with blu-ray and filmmaker intent. For example, most 3-strip technicolor films, due to the way they were shot and subsequently printed, were not very sharp at all and had very little visible grain. When you scan the original 3-strip negatives at 8K and use digital tools to align them perfectly, like The Wizard of Oz, you'll start seeing things people in 1939 didn't, like the string holding up the lion's tail.

The problem with DNR, on the other hand, is that it's a zero sum situation in most cases. You replace grain with grain reduction artifacts. I think knocking a home theater projector slightly out of focus would make older films look more like they originally did, but I don't have one to test that theory

[Caesu]

"If said detail is going to be erased with DNR, what's the point? You may as well stick to DVD."

Before going forward, I agree with this. However, if the grain is too heavy that you find it too distracting to enjoy the movie is another point to consider. You are right, the original predator had a lot of noise mixed in with the grain. Overall the effect pulled my attention from the movie towards the heavy noise/grain.

DNR is a tool, if used properly it can be beneficial. I dont think it is as easy to say, "DNR is bad, Grain is good." Sorry if that sounded a bit Owellian there.

If you could reduce a very noisey movie which would be a distraction as a whole at the expense of some detail, would the end result be better? Better for who? Sometimes you cant have that perfect restoration. Sometimes you have to have a balance to make the best out of a less then ideal situation. What you get is a product that isnt perfect, but a lot better then being completely grainy/noisey or completely DNR'd to death.

Predator Ultimate Hunter edition I would say leans towards being DNR'd to death, especially with Carl Weathers moustache looking like it was pulled out of Photoshop. However, I accepted that as my definitive version knowing it isnt exactly how the movie should look, however, is the most easily watchable still since the original release was just too filled with heavy amounts of grain/noise for my enjoyment.

Unless the director himself supervises the actual blu-ray and states, "This is the way I intended the movie to be watched!" Then that is that. However, in every other case, it's up to the studio to interpret what the movie should look like so as to appeal to the majority. Sometimes they get it just right, sometimes they dont.

I wish I could use Gladiator as an example, I just dont have my copy yet. Would I choose the DNR version over Gladiator or the non-DNR'd version. My first choice would be the latter, as DNR in a movie I would think like you, would remove too much detail. If the grain is light, adds to the ambiance of the movie, then Im all for it. How many movies offer you the choice of either or though? A handful at most.

[GC13]

Originally Posted by 42041

This has to be the most idiotic thing I've ever read on this board. What does Mass Effect have to do with anything? Video game film grain is an effect laid over the image. Real film grain is what makes up the image, you can't just turn it off

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Why are you comparing video games to film? Apples and oranges.

I might suggest you focus more on the "just because it's art doesn't mean it looks good" and less the bit about Mass Effect. Bonus points for reading the text I quoted.

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I can't begin to tell you how little I care about the tastes and preferences of video-game-nerds. Their likes and dislikes don't enter my thoughts.

I can't begin to tell you how little I care about the tastes and preferences of cinema purists. Their likes and dislikes don't enter my thoughts.

See what I did there?