"What's all that stuff on the picture?" "That's GRAIN."

[thegline]

An actual quote from someone hanging over my shoulder watching a movie ("Wings of Honneamise") remastered for Blu-ray. He didn't think the film grain was actually part of the image: he thought it was evidence that this HD stuff wasn't all that at and a bag of chips.

Has anyone else experienced anything like this? I worry that in a couple of years people are going to think film grain is this horrible intolerable eyesore, the way some people seemed to think black-and-white film was "missing" something and had to have color applied to it to be worth watching.

[SpikesBluBlooded]

I haven't experienced this first-hand, but I do know that there is a vast difference between film grain and B&W pictures. Film grain, IMHO, is not desirable, does not add character to a film, and I don't believe (with the exception of certain scenes in a movie to indicate age of a section of film, like flashbacks or memory scenes) that any director desires to see it in their film.

Yes, it is nastalgic to see a certain amount of grain in some earlier films, but quite frankly, I think the public, film afficianados, and directors will all agree, if it can be removed without affecting the quality of the piece, then do it!

[thegline]

Well, the problem is that the vast majority of the time it's not possible to remove it without adversely affecting the quality of the image. (The Wellspring DVD reissue of "Ran" might serve a good example of this: IIRC, they applied so much denoising and post-processing to the image that the result looked even worse than the original non-anamorphic Fox Lorber version.)

If a disc of a movie is grainy because it was struck from a multi-generational print, that's one thing, and that should be fixed if possible. If it's grainy because that's the way it looks, well, that's something else.

[miokti]

grain is only bad if it's un-intentional... Spielberg added grain to Schindler's List to make it look old. Grain was also added to 300, Sin City and Man on Fire to make the movies look gritty. Without grain, many movies will look like home videos.

[Deciazulado]

added

Originally Posted by thegline

If a disc of a movie is grainy because it was struck from a multi-generational print, that's one thing, and that should be fixed if possible. If it's grainy because that's the way it looks on the negative, well, that's something else.

well said





I guess it's worthless if I link those threads again. People will forever think film based photographic images are some kind of airy recording of photons in ether, having grown up watching DVDs and CGI and shooting with 5 Megapixel cameras and will never understand what grain is.

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

added
well said





I guess it's worthless if I link those threads again. People will forever think film based photographic images are some kind of airy recording of photons in ether, having grown up watching DVDs and CGI and shooting with 5 Megapixel cameras and will never understand what grain is.

LOL try shooting with a Digital Camera (normal.. none DSLR) at ISO 400,800 and you,ll see the new meaning of NOISE!

[sean10mm]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

added
well said





I guess it's worthless if I link those threads again. People will forever think film based photographic images are some kind of airy recording of photons in ether, having grown up watching DVDs and CGI and shooting with 5 Megapixel cameras and will never understand what grain is.

There needs to be a grain sticky at the top of the forum, I think. Then lock all new grain-related threads.

[emacs]

Originally Posted by SpikesBluBlooded

Film grain, IMHO, is not desirable ...

if you find a way to shrink the silver halide particles in film emulsion let people know.

[Kristin Simard]

Grain was something of a necessary evil in the days before computer special effects/CGI. On old films you can often predict when an optical effect is about to happen, when there is a reel change and the picture is suddenly grainy. Optical effects often suffered through multi generations before going to a master.

That is why 2001 - A Space Odyssey is such a remarkable film. All of those effects are mechanical and optical. No CGI at all.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by miokti

Spielberg added grain to Schindler's List to make it look old.

The grain was caused by a specific B&W film stock that was used. The higher the film speed, the grainier the result would be. If you shoot photos with ISO400 35mm film and without adequate lights, you're gonna get grain. ISO100 and200 had finer grain.


fuad

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

The grain was caused by a specific B&W film stock that was used. The higher the film speed, the grainier the result would be. If you shoot photos with ISO400 35mm film and without adequate lights, you're gonna get grain. ISO100 and200 had finer grain.


fuad

Exactly right. A lot of people don't understand film stocks and lighting conditions and the choices that directors and DPs make. A "grain-free" image is NOT always desired... nor is it always possible if it is desired. It's really not possible for those who weren't involved in the decision-making process to know why certain lighting conditions and film stock were used on a particular scene.

Unless the director or the DP specifically asks that the grain be removed from the video transfer, though, I really have a problem with messing with the way a film looks just to appease people who think film should look like video and not like film. Worse, the eventual outcome of excessive grain removal is typically a softer image, with DNR and EE effects to boot.

[AbsentAbe]

I personally love seeing the grain in BD releases. It feels like I am seeing all the detail that the movie had.
Better to have grain than artifacts.

[Kayne314]

I agree with the OP. Film grain is the number one complaint I hear from people who don't understand High Definition. It is something we will be hearing more and more about as people buy into High Def.

Frankly, I could do without it. Coming out of film school in my recent past, I can attest that there are film stocks and lenses that could be used that result in almost no appreciable film grain. However, most DP's and Directors view film grain as a part of their painters pallet.

Believe me, if there is film grain in the image, it is there for only two reasons.

1) the director wanted it that way.

or

2) the DP (Director of Photography) doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

Most directors around the world view film grain with a warm fuzzy feeling in their hearts. It gives them a sense of nostalgia for the days when film stocks were frankly shite. They remember fondly watching the deteriorated film prints of their youth. Therefore, if the movies the director loves are plagued by film grain, the movies the director will make himself must look the same.

Film grain equals cinema in their minds.

As newer movies come out, and Blu-ray takes a bigger share of the home video pie, directors will start to come around. Newer films will look cleaner and clearer than ever before. Directors don't like to be criticized for their films, and more movies will make use of the better film stocks, and lenses.

Blu-ray will have an impact in Hollywood. Directors aren't used to this level of scrutiny of their films that High Def offers. Directors will come to know that Blu-ray is where their films will live for all to see. When that happens you can be certain film grain will begin to die.

[richieb1971]

This kinda thread cracks me up. If I see one movie with grain and one without, I prefer the PQ of the one without.

If its an old movie then so be it, its acceptable. But in this day and age if one movie director can choose a stock that has no grain, then everyone else should choose this stock. Its not rocket science.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

This kinda thread cracks me up. If I see one movie with grain and one without, I prefer the PQ of the one without.

If its an old movie then so be it, its acceptable. But in this day and age if one movie director can choose a stock that has no grain, then everyone else should choose this stock. Its not rocket science.

That makes about as much sense as telling a painter he can only use certain types of colors and canvases but no others and a composer he can only use such and such instrument but no others. It's absurd.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Kristin Simard

Grain was something of a necessary evil in the days before computer special effects/CGI. On old films you can often predict when an optical effect is about to happen, when there is a reel change and the picture is suddenly grainy. Optical effects often suffered through multi generations before going to a master.

While copying film to film usually adds more grain, grain is part of all film because film is grain. Period. How visible this grain is depends on many factors. But it's there all the time, if you shoot on film. And HD must show it, because HD means HIGH DEFINITION, not HIGH DECEPTION. If you hate grain stick to movies shot on digital cameras and enjoy the noise there, which pops up as grain does when the circumstances are such.
Or better stick to noise and grain free CGI and animation. There you have only compression noise to fear.

[richieb1971]

If all my movies look like Silver surfer or Bridge to Teribithia with little to no grain. Then so be it. This is the quality I expect in every movie, not just some.

1080p doesn't mean diddly doo without a good clean master.

If you bought a new car and it had specs in the paint and the salesman said "Ahh, that would be the kind of paint used".. I'd expect you'd walk away immediately without hearing further explanation.

Thats exactly how 99% of the consumers feel about HD.

[KenThompson]

I'm sick of all the threads about grain in the picture. Use the search button and get over it. Thats part of the picture.

[DocNovak]

I don't have any problem with grain. I want to see the movie as the director intended it to look or how it looked when originally released. What I have a problem with is sub-par transfers that do not address the artifacts such as "The Omega Man" which had several scenes where there were noticable artifacts that detracted from watching the movie. To break it down George Bush style "Grain is good, artifacts bad. Read my lips people, no new artifacts."

[Anthony P]

This kinda thread cracks me up. If I see one movie with grain and one without, I prefer the PQ of the one without.

If its an old movie then so be it, its acceptable. But in this day and age if one movie director can choose a stock that has no grain, then everyone else should choose this stock. Its not rocket science.

there is no stock without grain, plain and simple all film has grain. Now different films, different lighting conditions will affect the visibility of grain on film. Now sometimes directors pick the grainier film on purpose, other times it is because it is cheaper, other times again it is forced by the conditions (you can't use the same film in a bright outdoor scene and a dark cave)

Then again unless you have the original film from the camera the reason one is grain less and the other not could have to do with a post processing decision or over compressed files on disk that lose grain and other minute details that you want with HD.