What is grain and what are the benefits?

[vonzar]

Hey everyone, I have recently been wondering about grain. I particularly do not like it and think that it hinders an otherwise amazing viewing experience, but I know that the studios intentionally put it in their movies. Is there some reason why they do this. I personally think that there is nothing as beautiful as watching a blu-ray with no grain. I have seen mixed reactions to grain on this site. It seems there are many like me who do not like it, but there are others I have seen who say it makes sense that they put the grain in the movies. Perhaps I am just not getting it, but what is the benefit. I have been buying and watching blu-rays since I got my ps3 back at launch, and never noticed the grain on my 106" projector screen. I didn't know about it until I started watching them on my brother's dlp big screen tv. I at first thought that it was a problem with my ps3, that something had gone wrong with it, but then after posting a thread about it on this site and reading some the comments, and the reading some other stuff on this site, I came to conclude that it was the grain I was seeing. So my questions are, first why do they put grain in movies, and second is grain as noticeable on a large projector screen. I don't get why I didn't see it on my projector screen but it is painfully noticeable on smaller tvs. If someone could enlighten me, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

[workshed108]

Grain is inherent in film.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by workshed108

Grain is inherent in film.

Correct. What you see on a BD as far as grain goes... it is exactly what the master print contains. BD ups the resolution so far above DVD, that it is visible just as seen in theaters. Grain is not an artifact of Blu-ray movies.

[CAB]

Needed for beer. Needed for single malts.

[bajor27]

I can't really answer what grain is exactly, but it's not always intentional. It's just something that happens with film. It's added to digitally shot movies to make them look like they were filmed though. I don't really see the point either, but the director is the artist, not me, so who am I to complain.

As for your second question

Originally Posted by vonzar

and second is grain as noticeable on a large projector screen. I don't get why I didn't see it on my projector screen but it is painfully noticeable on smaller tvs.

My guess is that the settings on your Projector or his TV are out of whack. There is no reason grain should be noticable on one but not another, as if what you are seeing is truly grain, it should be always visable.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd be guessing that you're seeing some sort of digital noise on the TV possibly due to the sharpness setting being too high. I don't know if this setting would also make grain more noticeable if set too high as well.

[miokti]

I can't imagine Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan without grain... the grain that Spielberg left in these movies added to the overall ambiance and emotion. It's the same for the prologue of Casino Royale. The black and white scenes in the beginning of the movie were intentionally done grainy for the overall effect of flash-back. The rest of the movie is prestine with hardly any grain at all. Horror movies are often very grainy, because less visibility often hightens anxiety. Grain is a tool directors use... in fact, one of the reasons why directors hesitated for so long to use digital cameras when making films was because digital cameras didn't capture scenes are warmly as the grainy film cameras. Without grain, movies will look like home videos. It took a while for digital cameras to have a grainy effect... then they took off.

[Whytewash]

Originally Posted by miokti

I can't imagine Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan without grain... the grain that Spielberg left in these movies added to the overall ambiance and emotion. It's the same for the prologue of Casino Royale. The black and white scenes in the beginning of the movie were intentionally done grainy for the overall effect of flash-back. The rest of the movie is prestine with hardly any grain at all. Horror movies are often very grainy, because less visibility often hightens anxiety. Grain is a tool directors use... in fact, one of the reasons why directors hesitated for so long to use digital cameras when making films was because digital cameras didn't capture scenes are warmly as the grainy film cameras. Without grain, movies will look like home videos. It took a while for digital cameras to have a grainy effect... then they took off.

grain, in my eyes, adds so much style to a film. There are times when Im disappointed with the PQ of a film but grain doesnt bug me NEAR like it used to. I would be pissed if every film looked like apocolypto, POTC, or casino royale.

there is a difference between beautiful PQ and grain. Just because a movie has grain doesnt mean the PQ is bad

[Gavin Von Karls]

To overly simplify things... Grain is tiny crystals or silver on the film that record an image when it is exposed to light. The size of the grain is dependent on the speed of the film stock and whether the cinematographer over or underexposed the negative.

For instance the 300 was shot on iso 500 speed film and Larry Fong underexposed in most scenes by 2 stops. This left an immense amount of grain on the image. But the payoff is he was able to shoot amazing slow motion sequences without a huge amount of light. It's not always budget related since Transformers was mostly shot on 500 speed stock. But the faster the film speed the larger the crystals and the more grain you will see. Also many cinematographers underexpose the film and then push it to correct exposure in the lab to bump up the contrast and give the film a harsh look... for example Mathew Libatique did this with The Fountain, this causes more grain. While in Requiem for a Dream he overexposed most of the scenes and pulled the film giving the image a softer look.

Now on the other hand in a film like Pirates cinematographer Darius Wolski chose to shoot the daylight scenes on iso 50 speed film stock which has smaller crystals and therefore much less grain... in fact it's hardly noticeable except in a theater.

All film has some grain whether you notice it or not if you blew the image up large enough you will see grain. I love it and think it adds to the experience. It's not usually something the Director decides to throw in for effect... this does happen every now and then, like in the Grindhouse pictures, but overall this is very rare.

I hope this helps!

And in case you're wondering I shoot film for a living...

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Whytewash

grain, in my eyes, adds so much style to a film.

Film Grain

It's the vibe or mood, a richness and depth that can leave a digital image looking sterile or anteseptic. Film can be looked at as a form of poitntalism, patterns of distinct colors that the eye uses to produce other colors.

Georges Seurat, 1859-1891, a Neo-Impressionist painter, creates a grain-like structure using a method called divisionism made famous by such works as La Parade de Cirque. The idea was to "produce tints more luminus then thoes obtainable from pigment mixed on the palette" - H.W. Janson.

Some Prominent Impressionest Artists:

• Claude Monet, 1840-1926
• Peirre Renoir, 1841-1919
• Paul Cezanne, 1859-1891

Recent Exmples

• Linda Ronstadt

Grain is part of what the 'Director Intended' - Screen Shots

• 300 - Cinema Squid
• Casino Royale - md99
• Got DNR - xradman.

Other Posts

• Screncaptures - Deciazulado
• Grain is Suppost to be there - BSteke
• Tiny Crystals of Silver - Gavin Von Karls
• Soft Picture - Craig
• Grain/No Grain: Volver

Back to The HD POST

[Kristin Simard]

Originally Posted by CAB

Needed for beer. Needed for single malts.

Let's not go against the grain here

[STARSCREAM]

I too dislike grain....but.....if it is the intent or can't be helped then I can't really get too pissed about it. I do prefer the nice clean no grain look though.

[vonzar]

Whytewash, I agree that blu-rays, even with grain, still are amazing pictures, but to me, the grain is just distracting, I guess it is just something I will have to get used to.
To Bajor27, I guess some setting could be off on my brother's tv, but I truly did not notice it at all on my projector. I don't know why that is if what you are saying is true, which I am not doubting. I am in the process of moving and my projector is packed away. I will have to wait until I am all settled into the new place to watch movies on my projector again and see if I notice it then. Maybe I had just watched movies on nothing but my projector for so long, that a picture on a tv just seemed different. Or maybe (I just thought of this and it seems like it probably is the reason) I didn't notice the grain on my projector because I didn't get my glasses until after I had it packed away. I've always had perfect eyesight until about a year and a half ago, just before I first heard about blu-ray, but then my eyes started getting pretty bad. I didn't do anything about it until a couple of months ago because I didn't want to wear glasses. Pretty retarded huh. But shortly after I packed away my projector I got some glasses and it has been a big difference. The pictures on blu-rays have even made a big jump in quality, despite the appearance of grain. Maybe I am just now seeing blu-ray correctly for the first time. That could be. Maybe I just need to get used to the grain, but as things are right now, like I said, and it goes with what Whytewash said, the picture quality is better than anything I've seen, even better than what I used to see blu-rays at (and even then I was impressed) it's just a little distracting.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by STARSCREAM

I too dislike grain....but.....if it is the intent or can't be helped then I can't really get too pissed about it. I do prefer the nice clean no grain look though.

DVD has this problem licked. Almost. I was watching The Brotherhood of the Wolf a couple days back and guess what I saw only extremely toned down due to the DVD PQ....?

[vonzar]

Gavin Von Carls, I just have to say, that that whole thing was one of the most informative bits of info I have read on this site, that answered my question on what is grain and what are the benefits completely. Thank you.

[stow123]

im quite used to the grain now and you can hardly see it anyway once you come away from the tv.If you bring the detail out of the film the grain is gonna come with it.I think when its really really noticable thats probably when its been actually put onto the film on purpose i dont pretend to be an expert or anything.

[supersix4]

please use the search function this has been discussed plenty.

[Blu As Hell]

Originally Posted by Gavin Von Karls

To overly simplify things... Grain is tiny crystals or silver on the film that record an image when it is exposed to light. The size of the grain is dependent on the speed of the film stock and whether the cinematographer over or underexposed the negative.

For instance the 300 was shot on iso 500 speed film and Larry Fong underexposed in most scenes by 2 stops. This left an immense amount of grain on the image. But the payoff is he was able to shoot amazing slow motion sequences without a huge amount of light. It's not always budget related since Transformers was mostly shot on 500 speed stock. But the faster the film speed the larger the crystals and the more grain you will see. Also many cinematographers underexpose the film and then push it to correct exposure in the lab to bump up the contrast and give the film a harsh look... for example Mathew Libatique did this with The Fountain, this causes more grain. While in Requiem for a Dream he overexposed most of the scenes and pulled the film giving the image a softer look.

Now on the other hand in a film like Pirates cinematographer Darius Wolski chose to shoot the daylight scenes on iso 50 speed film stock which has smaller crystals and therefore much less grain... in fact it's hardly noticeable except in a theater.

All film has some grain whether you notice it or not if you blew the image up large enough you will see grain. I love it and think it adds to the experience. It's not usually something the Director decides to throw in for effect... this does happen every now and then, like in the Grindhouse pictures, but overall this is very rare.

I hope this helps!

And in case you're wondering I shoot film for a living...

This is truly a excellent explaination of film grain and it's benefits!!

Thank you so much Gavin!!!

This should be stickied.

[sleazypig]

Originally Posted by vonzar

Hey everyone, I have recently been wondering about grain. I particularly do not like it and think that it hinders an otherwise amazing viewing experience, but I know that the studios intentionally put it in their movies. Is there some reason why they do this. I personally think that there is nothing as beautiful as watching a blu-ray with no grain. I have seen mixed reactions to grain on this site. It seems there are many like me who do not like it, but there are others I have seen who say it makes sense that they put the grain in the movies. Perhaps I am just not getting it, but what is the benefit. I have been buying and watching blu-rays since I got my ps3 back at launch, and never noticed the grain on my 106" projector screen. I didn't know about it until I started watching them on my brother's dlp big screen tv. I at first thought that it was a problem with my ps3, that something had gone wrong with it, but then after posting a thread about it on this site and reading some the comments, and the reading some other stuff on this site, I came to conclude that it was the grain I was seeing. So my questions are, first why do they put grain in movies, and second is grain as noticeable on a large projector screen. I don't get why I didn't see it on my projector screen but it is painfully noticeable on smaller tvs. If someone could enlighten me, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

I like grain. For me it makes the home movie expierence seem more like going to the movies. So I kind of like it.

[SDon1969]

There's plenty of threads about grain but this one was a bit more informative thanks to the contributors - thanks, guys. I'm with you, OP, it is hard to get used to sometimes, but I am learning to appreciate it.

[Blaumann]

Originally Posted by Gavin Von Karls

To overly simplify things... Grain is tiny crystals or silver on the film that record an image when it is exposed to light. The size of the grain is dependent on the speed of the film stock and whether the cinematographer over or underexposed the negative.

For instance the 300 was shot on iso 500 speed film and Larry Fong underexposed in most scenes by 2 stops. This left an immense amount of grain on the image. But the payoff is he was able to shoot amazing slow motion sequences without a huge amount of light. It's not always budget related since Transformers was mostly shot on 500 speed stock. But the faster the film speed the larger the crystals and the more grain you will see. Also many cinematographers underexpose the film and then push it to correct exposure in the lab to bump up the contrast and give the film a harsh look... for example Mathew Libatique did this with The Fountain, this causes more grain. While in Requiem for a Dream he overexposed most of the scenes and pulled the film giving the image a softer look.

Now on the other hand in a film like Pirates cinematographer Darius Wolski chose to shoot the daylight scenes on iso 50 speed film stock which has smaller crystals and therefore much less grain... in fact it's hardly noticeable except in a theater.

All film has some grain whether you notice it or not if you blew the image up large enough you will see grain. I love it and think it adds to the experience. It's not usually something the Director decides to throw in for effect... this does happen every now and then, like in the Grindhouse pictures, but overall this is very rare.

I hope this helps!

And in case you're wondering I shoot film for a living...

Thanks for this post, very informative.