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

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by Boss Hogg

Simple - because FAKE GRAIN LOOKS STUPID! It's the same as CGI effects that aren't quite good enough to look real - if they can't get the CGI to look real then they shouldn't include it at all. Same goes for grain in my opinion. Actually if the idiot director of 300 wanted it to look old-school he should have went the extra mile and just filmed it in black and white only.

I understand where the original poster is coming from because I went through the same thing -- got my TV and the first 2 blu-rays I played were loaded with grain and I was like "I spent almost $4000 for a picture like THIS?" Now I just don't buy grainy movies.

Well, adding grain via CG is a bit silly... considering he shot film, you can produce the same effect in the lab, and probably cheaper too.

[Westifire]

LOL@people that get mad at grain.

Anyways...moving on.

[Iceman_II]

I don't laugh at them, I take the Mr. T approach..

I pity the fools!

Idiots that have no clue, *****ing about something they don't understand, and the only reason they CAN ***** is that they finally have equipment which can show them what was there all along...

Again, I pity the fools

Moving on as well

[Boss Hogg]

Originally Posted by Iceman_II

I don't laugh at them, I take the Mr. T approach..

I pity the fools!

Idiots that have no clue, *****ing about something they don't understand, and the only reason they CAN ***** is that they finally have equipment which can show them what was there all along...

Again, I pity the fools

Moving on as well

I can't speak for anybody else but personally I understand the grain and realize it was there in the original movie. Doesn't mean we have to like it though. It is possible to shoot with film and not have visible grain...but alot of directors like grain for some reason. It's similar to the extreme widescreen aspect ratio some movies have - sometimes it's so wide it's just stupid - heads are chopped off vertically...I mean why is the horizontal picture space that much more "important" than the vertical picture space?

Anyway, I've stated my peace....rant over.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by Boss Hogg

I can't speak for anybody else but personally I understand the grain and realize it was there in the original movie. Doesn't mean we have to like it though. It is possible to shoot with film and not have visible grain...but alot of directors like grain for some reason. It's similar to the extreme widescreen aspect ratio some movies have - sometimes it's so wide it's just stupid - heads are chopped off vertically...I mean why is the horizontal picture space that much more "important" than the vertical picture space?

Anyway, I've stated my peace....rant over.

Because the human eye percieves more side to side...thats why we have what is called "peripheral" vision.

And whats this hocus pocus about heads getting cut off with wider aspect ratios?? um...the entire film is displayed with these ratios...how can ANYTHING get cutoff?? Its all there. (stop watching your movie in "zoom" mode)

I can understand if people want to rant, but know what youre ranting about in the first place.

[Iceman_II]

I know I said I was moving on, but I guess I had to answer that last question about widescreen, and why the horizontal is more important that the verticle.

The reason is the way people think and process data... you ever see people who trip because they don't look down? Or don't see something placed above them?

As hunters and gatherers who evolved in a relatively flat plain (not like chimps living in the three dimensional world of trees) Most people think in two dimensions (remember the ending of "The Wrath of Kahn"?)

Humans NORMALLY pivot their heads from side to side to increase their perception of the world around them, relying on peripheral vision to fill in the gaps above and below. The wide screen format simply accommodates how we normally take in data anyway.


Edit:
Sorry Crackinhedz, you beat me to the post, but I think I will leave mine, because it isn't often I get to reference a star trek movie as an example

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by Iceman_II

Edit:
Sorry Crackinhedz, you beat me to the post, but I think I will leave mine, because it isn't often I get to reference a star trek movie as an example

...hey, you explained it better than I did.

[Boss Hogg]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

Because the human eye percieves more side to side...thats why we have what is called "peripheral" vision.

And whats this hocus pocus about heads getting cut off with wider aspect ratios?? um...the entire film is displayed with these ratios...how can ANYTHING get cutoff?? Its all there. (stop watching your movie in "zoom" mode)

I can understand if people want to rant, but know what youre ranting about in the first place.

I know exactly what I'm talking about - I've seen more than a few movies in the THEATER where heads were cut off vertically because some idiot director thinks I'd rather see something useless like a pen or other stationary object way off to the side that adds nothing to the scene. Extreme widescreen ratios are just stupid. Besides, the human eyes have peripheral vision up and down as well as side to side, so your reasoning isn't correct anyway. Yes the fact that your eyes aren't stacked vertically means some widescreen makes sense, but not some of the crazy aspect ratios some directors use. If you haven't noticed any heads getting chopped off you're not paying very close attention apparently.

[Boss Hogg]

Originally Posted by Iceman_II

I know I said I was moving on, but I guess I had to answer that last question about widescreen, and why the horizontal is more important that the verticle.

The reason is the way people think and process data... you ever see people who trip because they don't look down? Or don't see something placed above them?

As hunters and gatherers who evolved in a relatively flat plain (not like chimps living in the three dimensional world of trees) Most people think in two dimensions (remember the ending of "The Wrath of Kahn"?)

Humans NORMALLY pivot their heads from side to side to increase their perception of the world around them, relying on peripheral vision to fill in the gaps above and below. The wide screen format simply accommodates how we normally take in data anyway.


Edit:
Sorry Crackinhedz, you beat me to the post, but I think I will leave mine, because it isn't often I get to reference a star trek movie as an example

Your post I generally agree with - widescreen makes sense but only to a point....it can get to a point where vertical space is sacrificed in favor of 'excessive' horizontal space.

[WickyWoo]

Well, adding grain via CG is a bit silly... considering he shot film, you can produce the same effect in the lab, and probably cheaper too.

Actually no, it's not cheaper, and 100x harder to control.

The grain is there for texture, and to hide CG cheese. It breaks up the "unreality" a lot

[Boss Hogg]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Actually no, it's not cheaper, and 100x harder to control.

The grain is there for texture, and to hide CG cheese. It breaks up the "unreality" a lot

that's a good point - it does make the CGI looks less like CGI for sure.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by Boss Hogg

I know exactly what I'm talking about - I've seen more than a few movies in the THEATER where heads were cut off vertically because some idiot director thinks I'd rather see something useless like a pen or other stationary object way off to the side that adds nothing to the scene. Extreme widescreen ratios are just stupid. Besides, the human eyes have peripheral vision up and down as well as side to side, so your reasoning isn't correct anyway. Yes the fact that your eyes aren't stacked vertically means some widescreen makes sense, but not some of the crazy aspect ratios some directors use. If you haven't noticed any heads getting chopped off you're not paying very close attention apparently.

Then what you have a problem with is movie theaters (stop going)...not aspect ratios, because when you watch a movie in its original aspect ratio, you are seeing EVERYTHING. To say something was cut off because of what aspect its in? rediculous.

[supabilly8]

did anybody have a problem with casino royale?

i thought it was grainy in a lot of scenes...but the movie was excellent

[zombieking]

How do threads like these stay open?? Like throwing fuel into the fire

[Boss Hogg]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

Then what you have a problem with is movie theaters (stop going)...not aspect ratios, because when you watch a movie in its original aspect ratio, you are seeing EVERYTHING. To say something was cut off because of what aspect its in? rediculous.

I REALIZE I am seeing "everything" that was shot - I never said I wasn't. I'm saying heads sometimes get chopped off at the forehead though because of the wide aspect ratio because the director wants a "close up", so we end up with a shot of an actor's face with no forehead or neck, and then a ton of crap to the side that has nothing to do with the scene and adds nothing to the scene. If you do not understand this or say it has nothing to do with aspect ratios, you do not know what you're talking about. Period end of story.

[Boss Hogg]

Originally Posted by supabilly8

did anybody have a problem with casino royale?

i thought it was grainy in a lot of scenes...but the movie was excellent

I thought there were a few spots of graininess but all in all it was one of the better PQ movies I've seen.

[u_nick]

Originally Posted by Boss Hogg

I REALIZE I am seeing "everything" that was shot - I never said I wasn't. I'm saying heads sometimes get chopped off at the forehead though because of the wide aspect ratio because the director wants a "close up", so we end up with a shot of an actor's face with no forehead or neck, and then a ton of crap to the side that has nothing to do with the scene and adds nothing to the scene. If you do not understand this or say it has nothing to do with aspect ratios, you do not know what you're talking about. Period end of story.

So you're problem isnt with aspect ratios, its with Directors.

I dont think many directors are using the wide space 'just because its there' or anything. a lot of directors consider themselves artists, and in their art form, they like to add things like pens and other objects that may seem meaningless tot he viewer, but may actually mean something for the director. or it's just artistic to their eye.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Boss Hogg

It's similar to the extreme widescreen aspect ratio some movies have - sometimes it's so wide it's just stupid - heads are chopped off vertically...I mean why is the horizontal picture space that much more "important" than the vertical picture space?

Anyway, I've stated my peace....rant over.

Because that's the way human vision works. We see a wider angle than tall. It's called peripheral vision and helps us survive in the real world.
So 2:1 or higher films are just trying to be more realistic and immerse you in a "reality", a virtual reality. The problem is, if you have a 40" LCD at 10 feet away from you, that's not gonna work for you. Need a 150"

About the "heads chopped off". You know what an extreme close up is no?
Those are used in the language of film to bring great emotion to the scene. When somebody is about to kiss you, (or kill you!) that person is face to face with you, and in that extreme closeness (like when kissing you ) you can't see their chin or top of head as your cheeks and brow limit your vertical vision. So only on a big screen when you have a close up you get a human face as big as in real life high emotional moments. Whether you want it or not. That's part of the magic of the movies.

Close-up
A shot taken at close range, sometimes only inches away from an actor's face, a prop, or some other object. The close-up is designed to focus attention on an actor's expression, to give significance to a certain object, or to direct the audience to some other important element of the film. In your monster movie, you might use a close-up of the monster's teeth or claws to show how ferocious it is, or decide to zoom in on a frightened passerby to illustrate his or her fear.

You can't handle the close-up

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Iceman_II

I don't laugh at them, I take the Mr. T approach..

I pity the fools!

Idiots that have no clue, *****ing about something they don't understand, and the only reason they CAN ***** is that they finally have equipment which can show them what was there all along...

Again, I pity the fools

Moving on as well

Your not an idiot for not liking grain in a movie its just your opinion. Just because it was "the directors intention" to have grain doesn't mean it's a good thing. I didn't mind the grain in 300 but if other people do whats wrong with that?

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by Aygie

Your not an idiot for not liking grain in a movie its just your opinion. Just because it was "the directors intention" to have grain doesn't mean it's a good thing. I didn't mind the grain in 300 but if other people do whats wrong with that?

Here here!