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

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Why are people having such a hard time with this. HD is about RESOLUTION, not grain or artifacts. If you want to watch film without grain, lotsa luck, but don't upgrade to HDTV with the expectation that all noise and artifacts are eliminated. Expect that your resolution will more than double from NTSC to 1080p. You CAN appreciate this improvement even if there is grain and other noise in the picture.

So quit whining about grain!

So people went to high definition so the grain would be clearer? I didn't know that, thanks for the insight.

By the way, I recently watched Bringing Up Baby on an upscaler DVD machine - my Sony carousel - and grain was almost non-existent. I whined anyway, but it was because I had really terrible gas pains from some frozen burritos I ate.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by VenomXR8

isnt it funny that the best selling hd movie is the one with proberly the most grain (intentional by the way and I love it) of all hd movies.

Wouldn't it be even funnier if people complained that more grain was needed to make a film a record breaker?

"Great actors...great story...big fan base...but the reason it flopped is cause we needed MORE GRAIN on the damn thing...somebody's gonna get fired, what were they THINKING."

[blindcat87]

Some people like decorating their houses with velvet Elvis paintings and dogs playing poker images along with decor gathered from flea markets and garage sales. Others would rather decorate with tasteful prints and fine art. If you hate grain, you should stick to animation, cgi pieces and action flicks that have been DNRed to death.

Grain is a part of film. The amount of grain changes the look and feel of the film just as much as the lighting and other atmospheric choices. Everyone is entitled to their own tastes, but making such an observation about film is akin to saying that all sculptors should limit themselves to Play-doh as a medium.

The fact is that I cannot see the grain in film anymore, but when that day comes that I am able to see it again, and I firmly believe that day will come, I want films to still look like films. There is nothing wrong with slick, smooth digital as a look. It works for films like Crank, but POTC and films like that need to keep the amount of grain the director and his DP intended.

Chris

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.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by blindcat87

Some people like decorating their houses with velvet Elvis paintings and dogs playing poker images along with decor gathered from flea markets and garage sales. Others would rather decorate with tasteful prints and fine art. If you hate grain, you should stick to animation, cgi pieces and action flicks that have been DNRed to death.

Well...dang. Guess I gots to sh*tcan my Kurosawa collection, the Godfather set, and anything else I got before June of last year.

Originally Posted by blindcat87

Grain is a part of film.

Well, death is a part of life, but I'm not looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by blindcat87

The amount of grain changes the look and feel of the film just as much as the lighting and other atmospheric choices. Everyone is entitled to their own tastes, but making such an observation about film is akin to saying that all sculptors should limit themselves to Play-doh as a medium.

Look, anybody can make a film any way they want. They can film it in 4:3 aspect ratio, or light everybody's face from below, or slather on makeup like cake frosting, or whatever they want to do. I happen to like Mean Streets; I even like Coppola and DeNiro's ancient "Hi, Mom!" (wonder if anybody has seen that one) and both were filmed on what looks like the cheapest, cloudiest film stock they could steal from some blue movie set.

I understand their challenge; it adds to the charm of the films. Now, when some multibillion dollar studio has an unlimited budget, I don't feel like being given the I'm just a broke auteur song and dance; show me the money. I cough up $35 for a film, give me my money's worth.

Originally Posted by blindcat87

The fact is that I cannot see the grain in film anymore, but when that day comes that I am able to see it again, and I firmly believe that day will come, I want films to still look like films. There is nothing wrong with slick, smooth digital as a look. It works for films like Crank, but POTC and films like that need to keep the amount of grain the director and his DP intended.

Chris

Look, I understand your point, but there have been one heck of a lot of clean, fine, low-grain productions going back a long, long ways. Peter O'Toole seems to have been in a few; I've seen prints of Lord Jim, Lawrence Of Arabia, and The Stuntman, all of which had remarkably low grain for their time (and all had astounding cinematographers aboard, by the way). It's possible to do it well, and while grain-free isn't absolutely necessary, it's not an "effect"; it's a side effect, usually of rapid production, crappy lighting, cheap stock, or a combination of all three.

Some examples of films with an astounding amount of grain, due to limited budgets, that I think look marvelous:

The Godfather
Bullitt
Brother (the Beat Takeshi film)

If the guy is broke, fine; make the movie anyway. But when the budget is high, come on - clean it up already, spend the money, act like you're making it for the ages, not this week's "disappointing box office performance".

[blindcat87]

Don't get me wrong. I am not a grain freak, I don't snort shredded film stock between movie viewings. I am a bit of a zealot for original intent. I hate when studios futz with the aspect ratio, force the director to slash a couple of really good scenes because they believe they will get more ticket sales if the flick is 10 minutes shorter, or when they go all insane on a restoration and do something like, say make Taxi Driver look like The Simpsons Movie.

My tastes run from the classics to the greatest, most groan worthy cheese.Most people going through my collection think that it must belong to two or three people with totally differing tastes. What I want is for studios to keep their hands off of the grain unless it is unintentional or unwanted by the creators of the film. I wouldn't mind if Highlander got a serious cleanup. Most of the excess grain in that movie is there because of the budget and not intent. If the director is fine with a total removal of grain, I have no complaints.

New films, I think it should still be up to the film maker. If the director wants to make it look like a gritty grindhouse flick, fine with me, if they want to make it look all smooth and digital, cool. I just hate when studios mangle someone else's work because some people object to the look. To me, that is no different than the colorizing craze.

Chris

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Well...dang. Guess I gots to sh*tcan my Kurosawa collection, the Godfather set, and anything else I got before June of last year.



Well, death is a part of life, but I'm not looking forward to it.



Look, anybody can make a film any way they want. They can film it in 4:3 aspect ratio, or light everybody's face from below, or slather on makeup like cake frosting, or whatever they want to do. I happen to like Mean Streets; I even like Coppola and DeNiro's ancient "Hi, Mom!" (wonder if anybody has seen that one) and both were filmed on what looks like the cheapest, cloudiest film stock they could steal from some blue movie set.

I understand their challenge; it adds to the charm of the films. Now, when some multibillion dollar studio has an unlimited budget, I don't feel like being given the I'm just a broke auteur song and dance; show me the money. I cough up $35 for a film, give me my money's worth.



Look, I understand your point, but there have been one heck of a lot of clean, fine, low-grain productions going back a long, long ways. Peter O'Toole seems to have been in a few; I've seen prints of Lord Jim, Lawrence Of Arabia, and The Stuntman, all of which had remarkably low grain for their time (and all had astounding cinematographers aboard, by the way). It's possible to do it well, and while grain-free isn't absolutely necessary, it's not an "effect"; it's a side effect, usually of rapid production, crappy lighting, cheap stock, or a combination of all three.

Some examples of films with an astounding amount of grain, due to limited budgets, that I think look marvelous:

The Godfather
Bullitt
Brother (the Beat Takeshi film)

If the guy is broke, fine; make the movie anyway. But when the budget is high, come on - clean it up already, spend the money, act like you're making it for the ages, not this week's "disappointing box office performance".

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

So people went to high definition so the grain would be clearer? I didn't know that, thanks for the insight.

Your sarcasm iside, that's how it seems based on your reaction to seeing film grain in HD content. Did you guys expect BD to be some sort of grain scrubbing technology?

By the way, I recently watched Bringing Up Baby on an upscaler DVD machine - my Sony carousel - and grain was almost non-existent.

All you're telling us is that you prefer digital noise-reduction applied to NTSC over 1080p that is true to source material. As for me, give me the highest resolution to bring me as close as possible to the original film source. I want to feel like I'm watching film instead of some spinning shiny disc.

This whole issue reminds me of all those who complain about tape hiss in the remasters of old recordings.

[weazel]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Why are people having such a hard time with this. HD is about RESOLUTION, not grain or artifacts. If you want to watch film without grain, lotsa luck, but don't upgrade to HDTV with the expectation that all noise and artifacts are eliminated. Expect that your resolution will more than double from NTSC to 1080p. You CAN appreciate this improvement even if there is grain and other noise in the picture.

So quit whining about grain!

are you insane ?!maybe you should have stuck with vhs

[blindcat87]

Why? VHS doesn't have enough definition to let you see the grain.

This is why we need a sticky explaining the concept to newbies. Film has grain. If the definition is good enough to see the grain, it means you are seeing the real details of the film. All of those little procedures people seem to want studios to use to clean up the grain do it by destroying fine detail. Why? Because the grain is part of the fine detail.

I don't know why it continues to surprise me, we still get regular posts whining about the black bars despite the sticky having been there forever.

Chris

Originally Posted by weazel

are you insane ?!maybe you should have stuck with vhs

[Deciazulado]

Some general pointers about grain on photographic film:

A: low light scenes tend to be shot with faster more sensitive film that has more grain than the slower less sensitive film used for brighly lit shots like in daylight.
B: B/W negative film (silver based) tends to be grainier in the highlights (bright parts of the image) while color negative film (dyes) tends to be grainier in the shadows.
C: smooth uniform pastel color areas (like shots of clear blue skies) tend to show more grain.

Electronic noise from digital capture might exhibit similar patterns.

For more reading about grain or noise in images you can peruse this other threads too:


Grain... How to deal with Grain...

Film Grain

I now see film grain

2001, Close Encounters, Pirates - Film Grain

Poll Would you prefer 300 with or without grain?

The "300 is grainy!!" thread

[Anthony P]

So people went to high definition so the grain would be clearer? I didn't know that, thanks for the insight.

No, but I am guessing that they went HD to have more definition, more detail more information. Some of that detail information known as a higher definition is the film grain. It can't be artificially removed with out killing all other fine detail in the movie. That detail could be film grain or a wrinkle in the skin of the actor at the corner of his eye, if you remove one of the details by over compressing or filtering you remove the other

By the way, I recently watched Bringing Up Baby on an upscaler DVD machine - my Sony carousel - and grain was almost non-existent. I whined anyway, but it was because I had really terrible gas pains from some frozen burritos I ate.

so basically because the info was gone and was no ore on the disk and then you upscale it so you get that picture without the detail that was not there in the first place you think it is good HD. That makes sense; if they only have one pixel it will look even better upscaled.

I don’t think artificial grain is needed but complaining about film grain is like complaining you can see the brush strokes in a painting. What you are saying is the equivalent of take a picture of the painting , make a bad photocopy of it so the brush strokes are gone and then putting it in a replica of the frame and saying it now looks better because you can’t see the brush strokes any more (and this analogy works well because like paint where sometimes the strokes are more intentional then others grain can be more intentional or not.

[Sky_Captain]

So dummies would prefer everything looked DNR'd with all the actors looking like waxworks? Are these the same tits that don't like black bars and zoom their movies? I'm glad these people are relegated to spreading crap on the net and don't actually work in the industry... Baboons!!

[Teazle]

I watched The Searchers (1956) yesterday, which I understand has had an expensive restoration, and was surprised at the general lack of grain especially for an aging film. E.g. the blue skies don't have as much grain as I'd expect.

Was this removed during the restoration stage (somehow -- I have no idea how they do it), the VC-1 encode, or both?

I've heard that grain removal can obliterate details in a film. But the Searchers looks quite detailed to me. (Fine crevices in the rocky landscape, mountains in the distance and so on.) It just looks almost unnaturally non-grainy.

Am I right in thinking that the original theatrical audience in 1956 would have seen more grain on screen than we do in the VC-1 encode?

[ToEhrIsHuman]

'The Searchers' was shot in VistaVision, a large-format process. It is akin to 70mm, which uses a 65mm negative, but instead sends 35mm stock in horizontally thru the camera exposing twice the amount of film per frame than standard 35mm. The jist is if you have twice the image area for each frame than you do with normal 35mm, then obviously the grain will be half the size (and therefore much less noticeable.)

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by weazel

are you insane ?!maybe you should have stuck with vhs.

What did you disagree with in my post, mr. weazel?

Originally Posted by Anthony P

No, but I am guessing that they went HD to have more definition, more detail more information. Some of that detail information known as a higher definition is the film grain. It can't be artificially removed with out killing all other fine detail in the movie.

Exactly. Why do newbies have such a hard time with that concept.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by ToEhrIsHuman

'The Searchers' was shot in VistaVision, a large-format process. It is akin to 70mm, which uses a 65mm negative, but instead sends 35mm stock in horizontally thru the camera exposing twice the amount of film per frame than standard 35mm. The jist is if you have twice the image area for each frame than you do with normal 35mm, then obviously the grain will be half the size (and therefore much less noticeable.)

Very interesting ... so there wasn't as much visible grain to begin with. I was wondering about the "Vistavision" advertised on the box; I thought it was a v wide aspect ratio until the film came on in 16:9.

[Verbal]

Originally Posted by SpikesBluBlooded

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.

Nice blanket statement there, Spikes...

...except it's entirely untrue.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by blindcat87

Don't get me wrong. I am not a grain freak, I don't snort shredded film stock between movie viewings. I am a bit of a zealot for original intent. I hate when studios futz with the aspect ratio, force the director to slash a couple of really good scenes because they believe they will get more ticket sales if the flick is 10 minutes shorter, or when they go all insane on a restoration and do something like, say make Taxi Driver look like The Simpsons Movie.

My tastes run from the classics to the greatest, most groan worthy cheese.Most people going through my collection think that it must belong to two or three people with totally differing tastes. What I want is for studios to keep their hands off of the grain unless it is unintentional or unwanted by the creators of the film. I wouldn't mind if Highlander got a serious cleanup. Most of the excess grain in that movie is there because of the budget and not intent. If the director is fine with a total removal of grain, I have no complaints.

New films, I think it should still be up to the film maker. If the director wants to make it look like a gritty grindhouse flick, fine with me, if they want to make it look all smooth and digital, cool. I just hate when studios mangle someone else's work because some people object to the look. To me, that is no different than the colorizing craze.

Chris

Quoted in full, as it makes perfect sense, and surprisingly to me - I agree.

I definitely don't want to see any film altered. No way.

[GTP]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I bought them both on the same purchase, and was so ticked off I haven't opened 28 Weeks Later yet.

I saw 28 Days on a DVD rental a while back, enjoyed it very much. Didn't notice the crappy image - but it was on a 36" tube. Looks normal there.

28 Days looked like crap projected on a 110" screen from a 2k dvd player.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Your sarcasm iside, that's how it seems based on your reaction to seeing film grain in HD content. Did you guys expect BD to be some sort of grain scrubbing technology?

I don't know about the other guys, but I have no intention of demanding that a film's original aspect be altered in any way. On the other hand, if it looks like crap because it was poorly or cheaply shot (there's a difference), I reserve the right to say it's "charming" or "artistic", based on factors other than it looks like it was filmed in a sandstorm.

Some films are simply shot like crap. May as well watch them on DVD (and I'm saying this as a guy who had to spend a week hunting down "A Better Tomorrow", damn the grain) and save a few bucks over what I consider exorbitant Blu-Ray prices.

High definition is going to change everything. It will change the way movies are presented, even in theaters, which I predict will shrink the way drive-in movies did, while not completely going away.

Originally Posted by Gremal

All you're telling us is that you prefer digital noise-reduction applied to NTSC over 1080p that is true to source material. As for me, give me the highest resolution to bring me as close as possible to the original film source. I want to feel like I'm watching film instead of some spinning shiny disc.:

Hope I didn't touch a nerve; I'm absolutely certain I didn't recommend editing a film by smoothing it out, colorizing it, or editing out the dirty words. Not my style, I have no interest in it, not my cuppa, no sir.

On the other hand, I do expect to see the very highest production values in a film, with all of the science and art that can be applied, to every new release that is made. I also expect studios to treat their archives with respect, so that I can see a film on my big screens as true to the original as the studio execs saw it, decades ago - Bringing Up Baby was my example, and it was transferred from a pristine print, God knows how they did that.

Please let me know if you find me advocating DNR smoothies at any time. I will commit seppuku immediately.

Originally Posted by Gremal

This whole issue reminds me of all those who complain about tape hiss in the remasters of old recordings.

Man, I've spent at least four hours a day on every day I have off, transcribing my 33 1/3 LP's to WAV lossless files. I do NOT use de-poppers, they screw too much with the dynamic range. A couple of fluffy towels under the turntable deals with any rumble issues.

But I can't stand crappy production. It's just a no no in my book.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so basically because the info was gone and was no ore on the disk and then you upscale it so you get that picture without the detail that was not there in the first place you think it is good HD. That makes sense; if they only have one pixel it will look even better upscaled.

WHOA NELLY

I know I'm as dumb as a box of rocks but even I know that an upscaled DVD of a 60 year old film ain't "hi def" by a long shot.

I just mentioned it because it looked very, very nice, and I've watched other dvd's on the same unit that looked like they were filmed in a blizzard.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don’t think artificial grain is needed but complaining about film grain is like complaining you can see the brush strokes in a painting. What you are saying is the equivalent of take a picture of the painting , make a bad photocopy of it so the brush strokes are gone and then putting it in a replica of the frame and saying it now looks better because you can’t see the brush strokes any more (and this analogy works well because like paint where sometimes the strokes are more intentional then others grain can be more intentional or not.

Hey, keep your shirt on. Not all films - or all transfers - are the same. I don't expect "you are there" in every frame, but when I see cheap work done - or some scenes that are terrible for grain, and others without, with the same lighting, in the same film - I get a bit ticked off.

I know the editor saw it. It says a lot for the production, and post-production, of a film. I think we're basically in agreement - I don't need some Ted Turner type melting crayons all over the classics.

I understand the difference between Leonardo da Vinci and Thomas Kinkade; but if Leo were painting today, I'd tell him not to put so much craqueleure in his pictures, it ain't necessary to make it look like a classic.