Would you prefer 300 with or without grain?

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

Well, if it were freshly painted, it wouldn't be the Mona Lisa because Michaelangelo has been dead for hundreds of years. To answer your question, I would want it cracked and aged (or cleaned like the Sistine Chapel) rather than a reinvention.

There are a lot of reasons for film grain. Some directors use it to spark the viewers emotion. Others are striving for as much natural light as possible and an increase in grain is a direct consequence of that decision.


People are making it sound as if there's some switch in the projector that says "Grain - On/Off." That's far from the case.

Your ignorance is showing. It was Leonardo that painted the Mona Lisa not Michelangelo. And if you are going to argue the fact that he has died and can no longer paint a fresh copy...we can equally say that he also isn't around to be able to paint a toothy smile on the Mona Lisa.

And to see people get all excited and angered over the fact that some people are displeased with the grain makes me laugh. How old are most people in here?

This is not a thread conceived to rid the world of all grainy "300" Blu-ray movies and demand that a smooth version be released...it was merely an innocent question requiring a simple answer And by the way there is a button to remove grain from from the image....it's called Sharpen. it just does a horrible job.

Furthermore, people defending the grain solely because it is the directors intention and for the sake of art.....are simpletons. But I'll stop here; you guys are too easy to upset. To think that this the way most wars are started...for stupidities.

[BStecke]

Are you suggesting one raise or lower sharpness?

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Dace

Your ignorance is showing. It was Leonardo that painted the Mona Lisa not Michelangelo. And if you are going to argue the fact that he has died and can no longer paint a fresh copy...we can equally say that he also isn't around to be able to paint a toothy smile on the Mona Lisa.

And to see people get all excited and angered over the fact that some people are displeased with the grain makes me laugh. How old are most people in here?

This is not a thread conceived to rid the world of all grainy "300" Blu-ray movies and demand that a smooth version be released...it was merely an innocent question requiring a simple answer And by the way there is a button to remove grain from from the image....it's called Sharpen. it just does a horrible job.

Furthermore, people defending the grain solely because it is the directors intention and for the sake of art.....are simpletons. But I'll stop here; you guys are too easy to upset. To think that this the way most wars are started...for stupidities.

maybe if you came to BRCC( Blu-Ray Community College) after taking 300-101(2 days a week 3 hour classes *once on sunday) you would have an epiphany and say OMG I realize now why the movie needed grain

[supersix4]

thank god 68 people understand

[RedSnoddyBLU]

Originally Posted by supersix14

thank god 68 people understand

Thought I'd make it 70. Some people just need something to whine about. I saw 300 the first weekend it came out, before the print got scratched to shit, and it didn't look much better than the BLU. Which is to say it looked fabulous on the big screen and slightly less fabulous at home.

[supersix4]

MOST have zero problem with it and the ones who are capable of understanding it was ment to have grain, understand it shouldnt be compared to a Superman or POTC or 007 ... Jeeez how truly hard is this to understand

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Dace

Your ignorance is showing. It was Leonardo that painted the Mona Lisa not Michelangelo. And if you are going to argue the fact that he has died and can no longer paint a fresh copy...we can equally say that he also isn't around to be able to paint a toothy smile on the Mona Lisa.

That's what I get for posting right before I go to bed. I stand corrected.

As far as your second part, I would say that's wrong. If the original artist dies, I think the revision of the work dies with it. The only exceptions would be to complete a work in progress if necessary or to restore the item to what the artist originally intended.

Originally Posted by Dace

Furthermore, people defending the grain solely because it is the directors intention and for the sake of art.....are simpletons. But I'll stop here; you guys are too easy to upset. To think that this the way most wars are started...for stupidities.

Now who's being ignorant?

I would agree that some directors could care less about grain and they leave those thoughts up to their DP. Still, the way a movie appeared in theaters should be recreated as accurately as possible.

Could a studio change that if the public demanded it? Sure, that's why we had P&S videos for so long. Directors intent took a back seat to being able to see the movie on a 19" television.

[supersix4]

Just bought the dvd watched it and there is ZERO in common with the dvd... if you dont belive me go buy it too... the blu-ray destroys the dvd version...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[BadAss]

I'm not ignorant at all. Lets face it no one complained Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven or Sin City were too clean and didn't have that aged look.

But lots of people have complained about the grain in Spartacus, Pearl Harbour, Miami Vice, X-Men 3 etc.

OK the look of the movie was to reflect the graphic novel I except that, but those were still images, the grain was inbedded on textures like armour and rock. The grain in the movie was floating around on sky and peoples faces.

Don't get me wrong the grain didn't deflect my enjoyment of the movie I just though given the choice, keep th artistic style like Sin City but loose the grain.