2001, Close Encounters, Pirates - Film Grain

[narrowgate]

2001, Close Encounters, and Pirates received the highest rating for video quality on this web site's reviews. As a novice, help me understand the relative absence of film grain (a "clean" look) in 2001, a nearly 40-year-old film, and the presence of film grain in Pirates: At World's End, a brand new film, and the "abundance" of film grain in Close Encounters? I'm not sure that a novice viewer would give each film the same video quality rating.

Is it the type of film used? or a filming technique? or an artistic decision?

[NoQuestion]

its a bit of all....most of the time its directors decision. Correct me if im wrong, but some movies can be put through a process of removing a majority of the grain. I dont mind it that much as long as it is not destracting me from the film.

[Verbal]

The answer is:

D) All of the above.

[Dotpattern]

And don't forget the type of lighting used.

[ryoohki]

2001 is a DNR mess.. there's almost 0 fine detail, look like closer to an actual Dvd upscale than actual HD

[sonicbox]

I (personally) think 2001 is an excellent release and was handled with care... and has excellent detail. I find it far better than any release on any format so far, including the last anamorphic DVD release. So, we can agree to disagree.

[JJ]

You know what they say, Sonic - opinions are like *******s, everyone's got one. Personally - I agree with you, it looked fantastic.


/expletive

[davidPS3]

I thought that all 3 of these movies looked great. Considering the age, the turned out great and are classics.

[hoser]

I watched 2001 tonite and all I can say is WOW!
What a fantastic video experience.
Terrific detail, without a blemish in the source.

The audio sounded a bit dated, although it isn't bad.

Do yourself a favor and buy this classic....you won't be disappointed.

[doctorsteve]

Many here have orgasms over film grain. Sort of like those that love the pop and crackle of vinyl records. I understand the allure of the nostalgia, but I like a nice clean look. However, grain does have it's place in contributing to the aesthetic on the screen.

Don't think a film is bad for having grain - if it contributes to the feel of the film, but when people talk about the beautiful grain structure. I cringe when people's eyes roll back in their head over grain.

Make your own choices based on your likes...

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by narrowgate

2001, Close Encounters, and Pirates received the highest rating for video quality on this web site's reviews. As a novice, help me understand the relative absence of film grain (a "clean" look) in 2001, a nearly 40-year-old film, and the presence of film grain in Pirates: At World's End, a brand new film, and the "abundance" of film grain in Close Encounters? I'm not sure that a novice viewer would give each film the same video quality rating.

Is it the type of film used? or a filming technique? or an artistic decision?

2001 was photographed in 65mm which means its negative area is about 22 mm x 48.5 mm

CE3K was photographed in anamorphic 35mm which gives it a negative area of about 17.5 mm x 21 mm (equivalent to about 12.5 mm x 30 mm in flat photography)

Pirates was shot on Super-35 which gives it a negative area of about 10 mm x 24 mm

Film emulsion resolution kind of doubles every 60 years

Different emulsions (faster/grainier, slower/finer, etc) are chosen to shoot a film

When transfering to video you can enphasize or de-emphasize certain frequencies against others, giving you different looks, and also use or not various forms of grain/noise reduction.

Usually capturing higher frequencies (more detail) brings up the visibility of grain

etc etc

[richard lichtenfelt]

There's no grain on the blu-ray that wasn't in the theatrical version.
It's not a reason to subtract points from the blu-ray review score.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

2001 is a DNR mess.. there's almost 0 fine detail, look like closer to an actual Dvd upscale than actual HD

2001 is no DNR mess. That's false information.

[krazeyeyez]

as a tech noob i just dont understand why they cant remove or reduce film grain without losing detail....i just dont understand the connection between the two......minimal film grain is ok, but when its overwhelming its just unacceptable and distracting.

i don't know why but when i use the cinema setting on my tv it eliminates alot of the grain issue but gives everything a weird tint till i adjust to it.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

minimal film grain is ok, but when its overwhelming its just unacceptable and distracting.

As Deci would say, "grain IS film."

But I'll let you consider your hypothesis. Suppose excessive grain is removed as per your suggestion. What do you want it to be replaced with?

Remember that the grain structure is what makes a filmed image. A grainy image is where the clumps of dots of grain structure can be seen. Those thousands of dots represent colors and lines on the screen. If you remove it, you have to replace it with something else that can make the image comprehensible to the eye so that the frame looks like the set or location or the actor.

Grain removal systems first analyze a frame of a scanned film (since each frame of film has a different grain structure) and then identifies the level of graininess. Then depending on the budget from the studio, the operator for the grain removal company (the best known is DTS Digital Images) can either let the machines do it or s/he does it by hand. The final product is of course is finalized by people and not machines.

Removing grain requires copying the pixels next to it and pasting it on top of the grain. On slightly grainy scenes, this won't be much of a problem and often the results are great, conti wise. But on really grainy scenes, the pixels you need to copy and paste is simply not there because they are pixels of grains! You can still do it but it would look weirder than if you just left it alone.


fuad

[thunderhawk]

If there's too much grain, sit further away from the screen.

[xzbit702]

some people are just never happy.

[GasCat]

Originally Posted by thunderhawk

If there's too much grain, sit further away from the screen.

Brilliant suggestion. People insist on sitting at distances far too close, there's your film grain.

I loved Lethal Weapon 2 and thought it was very clear others insist it's a bad transfer. The reason...they sit too close to the screen and I sit at the minimum recommended distance.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

as a tech noob i just dont understand why they cant remove or reduce film grain without losing detail....i just dont understand the connection between the two......

Grain is what forms the image


(I said it louder here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...297#post478297 )

[Gremal]

Exactly. The only way to "remove grain", is to create a digital algorithm that goes in and attempts to recognize what is grain vs not grain and changes what it perceives as grain to the same color as surrounding pixels. There is no way this can happen without removing details and thereby decreasing definition in the picture. That may be fine for those who want a scrubbed, humogeneous look, but I want to see the source--or as close to it as I can get--warts 'n all. I also don't want a codewriter's algorithm deciding for me what is grain vs what is legitimate detail in the picture. I'd rather watch the screen and make that determination for myself.

And as for the wisecrack about those who "enjoy cracks and pops" in their vinyl records, that isn't the reason audiophiles prefer vinyl. It has to do with the fact that the signal was never digitized and converted back to analog.