Would you prefer 300 with or without grain?

[BadAss]

Lets face it, if HD-DVD was released with lots of film grain as is, and Blu-ray was released with an absolute pure pixel for pixel transfer like Sin City which one would we all be singing praises for?

What if Peter Jackson went back to revisit LOTR trilogy and said 'actualy this film looks too darn clear. What I should have done was add lots of grain like 300' How many of us would think yeah great idea Pete?

Film grain is a by product of bad film stock, badly lit, or under exposed lighting, IMO. Look at Saving private Ryan v A Thin Red Line, I know which one I prefer the look of.

Lol, don't you think if digital cameras were available in the 60's all those dusty westerns would now look like crank.

[DavePS3]

I think the film has a gritty feel to it... kinda 'sandy'. The almost 'sepia' tone or goldish hue doesn't seem to bother anyone here. I think the way it's shot, gives the film a definate grit, a hard edge. It brings out the pitted metal and gives the title what it needs... a granite-like solidity... a hard metal edgeness like a rusty blade torn from the sand. I dig it. If you prefer thee look of an HD documentary like the just released Blue Planet (IMAX not BBC), more power to ya, I love that stuff too but I also love the kick-ass take no prisoners feel of 300.

[supersix4]

and it does look wonderful on blu-ray, after seeing the blu-ray , then dvd today ... IT was astonishing how much was lost .. people need to come to the fact that if you look at it in its own respect it has amazing PQ

[PeterTHX]

Film grain is a by product of bad film stock, badly lit, or under exposed lighting, IMO. Look at Saving private Ryan v A Thin Red Line, I know which one I prefer the look of.

Sorry, but you're way off base.

Spielberg uses some of the finest cameras and film stocks out there. The grain you see is a product of postproduction. His films like Minority Report and War of the Worlds are filmed clear & colorful. Even ILM must have their effects as crisp as the original negative. Then he takes the end product and "bleaches" them in postproduction to give that grainy look. EXACTLY what they did to 300.

[IamNhobdy]

I'll take all of my movies EXACTLY how the creative minds responsible for them intended me to experience them.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by BadAss

Film grain is a by product of bad film stock, badly lit, or under exposed lighting, IMO. Look at Saving private Ryan v A Thin Red Line, I know which one I prefer the look of.

How do you explain all those Academy Award winning movies that won for cinematography that have grain. Are you saying they were lauded despite the grain or that, perhaps, it added something that you just disagree with.

[BadAss]

If we went back in time and asked several directors why they chose certain film stock I'm pretty sure none of them would say because of the added grain.

[MouseRider]

Originally Posted by BadAss

If we went back in time and asked several directors why they chose certain film stock I'm pretty sure none of them would say because of the added grain.

Not true at all.

If you go so far back that there wasn't a choice in the type of film, your argument might hold some water but the reason why, at the peek of film consumption, there were so many different types of film, as well as, so many different ways to manipulate the film (i.e. push and pull, processing tricks) is an indication that directors and cinematographers want a particular look from their work.

Even in today's digital world, there are actually filters that have been written to add grain and texture to perfect digital camera footage to create a unique look to suit the films atmosphere or filmmaker's intent.

Artists have always wanted control of as many aspects of their creation as possible, that's why we have so many different types of canvas, paper, oils and films.

And if you're wondering what makes me qualified to say the above? Well, I think having been an editor and having worked with executive producers, producers, directors, cinematographers, editors and actors for over a decade does afford me some insight.

[BadAss]

Sure I'm not arguing artistic input when using filters to get better colour saturation and so on...

My argument is when film makers like Ridley Scott and George Lucas make films like Gladiator and Star Wars with top quality film stock we all lap up the ultra clean transfers. But when film makers like Steven Spielberg and James Cameron choose certain film stock that leaves films like War of the Worlds and Aliens looking warn out and dated i think more people would appreciate if all films were made with the best film stock available.

Sin City is a classic example of how good 300 could have looked.

What I don't understand is why we have Lowery Lowry Digital Images clean up films like North by Northwest, Citizen Kane, Dr. Zhivago yet we have modern films trying to make their films look like they came out of the stone age.

Even Miami Vice got the Lowry treatment yet people still complained of grain.

[Deciazulado]

Maybe starting a subscription to American Cinematographer and going to the library and reading back issues too would be most rewarding in this case.

[ground chuck]

i don't understand why this tread is even continuing. the movie has natural grain! anyone that saw the movie in the theaters should remember that alot of the beginning scenes had grain in it. thus a transfer over to BD, its not your tv or your BD player, its in the f'ing disc.

and if anyone thinks that buying the BD version of 300 is a waste of money when you should have just purchased the regular dvd, doesn't know what the "f" their talking about.

[MouseRider]

I guess some people just don't understand the art and expression of film making.

It's not about "best film stock", sometimes, to get a grainy look on a film actually costs plenty more than a "clean" look.

Can you imagine how boring a trip to the Louve would be if every single work of art in the place looked like it was printed on the same Epson inkjet on glossy paper or it just had a bunch of plasma screens on the wall showing you digitized versions of the art that have totally smoothed out colors.

Well I guess some people might actually enjoy that... perhaps getting a subscription to American Cinematographer would be most rewarding.

[whippersnapper]

Originally Posted by Blu_J

It was a creative decision. If I directed the movie I like to think I would have done something similar. It is made to look as if it was pulled straight from the graphic novel and put to screen. The director has so much respect and admiration for the source material, he wanted to change it as little as possible. I would imagine this coincides with the wishes of the novels creator, Frank Miller.

It is made to look as if it was pulled straight from the graphic novel and put to screen.

Blu, you are exactly right. I wish folks would have a better understanding of this. Maybe if they googled the'd find some page excerpts & realize what a wonderful job they did with this picture. The video is true to the movie in this regard.

[huntifosi]

I know this 'GRAIN" thing is out of hand, but I wonder if they are basing it off of seeing '300' in the theater on 35mm. I saw the movie both in DLP and 35mm film, the film version was a lot 'softer'. The DLP version much as I saw it on my Sony XBR2 Wednesday night. (which was awesome!) Just a thought as the new guy...

[Y3k Bug]

I just watched 300 last night and I have to admit, going in I was a bit worried that the grain would be distracting (there is such a thing as too much of a good thing). After seeing it though, all I can say is WOW! It looked fantastic.

The grain is there but it's not overbearing like I feared it might be. It does actually enhance the "feel" of the picture. I wouldn't want it like that for every movie, but in this one it totally works.

All in all a great movie, glad I bought it!

[PeterTHX]

There's been complaints in the past over Warner's apparent use of noise reduction that noticably softens the picture (The Departed, etc) and now their techs are going to use the nitwit excuse that people hate grain (and makes it easier to compress on VC-1).

So would you folks really prefer a soft, cleaner picture or a clear, sharp picture with the grain texture?

[redsock]

I think the grain added to the film. It helped to give it a gritty feel that made this movie kick ass! The comic book had grain.

SPARTA!

[Deciazulado]

The only smoothies I want are the ones that come in vanilla, chocolate, or assorted fruit flavors

[supabilly8]

the grain isnt really a big deal, i dont why people are making it one

[PaulDubya]

Originally Posted by BadAss

Lets face it, if HD-DVD was released with lots of film grain as is, and Blu-ray was released with an absolute pure pixel for pixel transfer like Sin City which one would we all be singing praises for?

What if Peter Jackson went back to revisit LOTR trilogy and said 'actualy this film looks too darn clear. What I should have done was add lots of grain like 300' How many of us would think yeah great idea Pete?

Film grain is a by product of bad film stock, badly lit, or under exposed lighting, IMO. Look at Saving private Ryan v A Thin Red Line, I know which one I prefer the look of.

Lol, don't you think if digital cameras were available in the 60's all those dusty westerns would now look like crank.

Ok umm u sound pretty ignorant of the fact that the movie 300 was made intentionaly with grain to imitate the graphic novel.

And secondly Peter Jackson knows better than to mess with a classic