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

[Texitura]

Nothing wrong with not liking the "look" of a movie anymore than not liking the plot, pacing, direction, actors or acting. Everybody's entitled to their opinion.

I think it's hysterically funny, though, when some ignoramus shows up who's just positive he knows more about film than any Hollywood director.

[jaffa]

Dont forget,300 is based on a comic book.I used to sell the comic in a COMIC SHOP years ago.The director has recreated the movie exactly like the comic book which also has a GRAINY look.It is how the director intended.Check out the comic book.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by AveneL

But, it still doesnt explain y regular DVD's would look weak also? What is the best LOOKING title on Blu Ray? I will buy it now to ck it, and I mean movies with NO GRAIN please, and is Tallladega supposed to be grainy at some parts? Thats wat mad eme see it in 300 in teh first place, and like I said , the gaming is perfect!!

Thanks everyone, and to the people pissed off bout teh 300 grain thing, I apologize, but I spent a decent amount of money and I am rightfully stressd out bout it, but I apologize if it bothers u.........

No one close this please, I need the answers.

don't worry, i firmly believe there are a lot of people on this site who solely sign up to bash newbies. glad to see a lot of people were respectful to you though, good luck

[aygie]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

don't worry, i firmly believe there are a lot of people on this site who solely sign up to bash newbies. glad to see a lot of people were respectful to you though, good luck

Yeah your right, that what annoys me. "oh you don't like grain so don't buy the movie" are you serious?

I think we should embrace newbies with Blu Ray rather than cast them out for not having the same opinions as other people who can't take a criticism on Blu.

I believe in Blu but it doesn't mean people shouldn't challenge it if they feel a certain way about something.

[Iceman_II]

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?

Lets get one thing straight here, I never said anything about people being idiots for not liking grain... I respect that they don't like it, but they need to give it a freakin' rest!

I was implying that people were being idiots for:

A: *****ing and whining about how a director chose to display his vision of a movie

B: *****ing and whining over something they couldn't even SEE in SD, and now, somehow trying to blame HD for it.

I think this whole debate is a direct result of the "I want it my way" mentality of American consumerism... if you don't like it, shut the hell up, and don't watch it... and for Gods sake, quit with the posts with undertones implying that studios should pander to a foolish minority who seem to believe they are somehow entitled to view movies that look how they think it should look.

I may not like Picaso, but I am not so much the fool to think I could do it better, the way all these whiners seem to think they could do a better job of directing a picture.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

don't worry, i firmly believe there are a lot of people on this site who solely sign up to bash newbies. glad to see a lot of people were respectful to you though, good luck

no its just almost all members even newer ones have to continuously answer things over and over and over and it gets to people especially this topic... Had he typed in 300 grain as I've said b4 clicked page 2 he would have had 3 grain topics come up 1 with 9+ pages... maybe its the members who've had to answer things 100's of times who should be receiving the respect, who in my opinion are 100's more understanding then other sites, you should keep that in mind...

[D1-2005]

on that same note, just to be fair, im sure most people dont even think to search for something, maybe this is there their first forum and they thought they could post a thread and get answers. not complaining just a thought

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Iceman_II

Lets get one thing straight here, I never said anything about people being idiots for not liking grain... I respect that they don't like it, but they need to give it a freakin' rest!

I was implying that people were being idiots for:

A: *****ing and whining about how a director chose to display his vision of a movie

B: *****ing and whining over something they couldn't even SEE in SD, and now, somehow trying to blame HD for it.

I think this whole debate is a direct result of the "I want it my way" mentality of American consumerism... if you don't like it, shut the hell up, and don't watch it... and for Gods sake, quit with the posts with undertones implying that studios should pander to a foolish minority who seem to believe they are somehow entitled to view movies that look how they think it should look.

I may not like Picaso, but I am not so much the fool to think I could do it better, the way all these whiners seem to think they could do a better job of directing a picture.

Your comparing Zack Synder to Picasso? Thats like comparing a slab of gold and a slab of turd.

At the end of the day if people are spending money on something they have a right to say something about it. THe studios aren't doing us a favor by selling movies, we keep them in business.

"...if you don't like it, shut the hell up, and don't watch it..."

stop telling people what to do, you don't control them. and look up the word idiot, cause it certainly doesn't mean someone *****ing about a director. That would be.....a *****?

[Deciazulado]

For some reason black bars and grain, two aspects or characteristics intrinsic to the movies we say we love so much, seem to bring the worst out of video enthusiasts, dividing them into the ones that want the movies as they originaly are, and the ones that want them all to look like recent 1.78 HDTV digital recordings, even if they never ever looked like that. Taste is one thing and everybody is enttled to it, but when people want things to be changed from original form and done their way to suit their taste well that's called customizing. As in "custom item". Anyway, it's nice to discuss different points of view but apparently when it comes to film's grain or aspect ratios, the discussion seems to veer into attacks and animosity toward each other. I think no other issue except these ones divide our Blu-ray members so violently. It's up to the studios and their artists to determine if they should cater to the demand of the customers that want movies shot in the 2.39 ratio to be cropped down to 1.78 or the grain in the image erased and make altered editions separately for them. But in the case the studios don't do that, the people that want this, either should not buy Scope/grainy movies and buy 1.78/digital clean movies so that way they support their preference, or should plan on buying a 16:9 display with a good 1080 input upscaling zoom mode to eliminate from view the empty space that black bars represent, and with a good Digital Noise Reduction (which is basically what the studios would use) circuit to minimize the grain they object so much too.

Please consider your fellow member's views even when you see them as wrong when discussing this and posting and try to keep calm when explaining why you think differently, cus this is getting out of hand, the bazillion sub format Wars!

[dadkins]

There are some of us that do prefer clarity, *BUT* we do not want the studios/directors/whomever to change or remake the grainy movies.
I got jumped on for voicing my preference on a certain movie AFTER being asked if I would prefer it without grain.
Well, yeah! I would!

This in NO WAY means that I want it changed, just that I would have preferred it without grain.

Anyone here want to try and explain why y'all jumped on my back for me voicing my preference?

[WickyWoo]

I cringe at the thought of what's going to happen with Aliens. A surefire J6P seller and notorious grain silo(on purpose)

At least it's 1.85:1!!!

[aygie]

Originally Posted by dadkins

There are some of us that do prefer clarity, *BUT* we do not want the studios/directors/whomever to change or remake the grainy movies.
I got jumped on for voicing my preference on a certain movie AFTER being asked if I would prefer it without grain.
Well, yeah! I would!

This in NO WAY means that I want it changed, just that I would have preferred it without grain.

Anyone here want to try and explain why y'all jumped on my back for me voicing my preference?

Because their too fragile about Blu. Any criticism is seen as a complete negative attack on their new format. If HD-DVD didn't exist then i think people wouldn't be so harsh about this subject.

[ClaytonMG]

Here's the thing about the grain in 300, it was shot on 35mm film. That automatically is grainy. I think the CG grain they added was to the CG shots to try to get it to match with the rest of the grain... As for the sharpness... really?! You're not supposed to have it on at all?! Geez, well i guess it makes sense, I also remember reading something about sharpness messing with the gama on a TV. Well I am off to go turn off my sharpness!

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Texitura

Nothing wrong with not liking the "look" of a movie anymore than not liking the plot, pacing, direction, actors or acting. Everybody's entitled to their opinion.

That is true, a lot of people hate the way Michael Bay films his movies (did you know there wasn't a shot that lasted longer than 7 seconds throughout all of Armageddon?) They say his films are way to glossy and flashy, I personally like the orange filterish things he uses. It helps with landscapes and pale people, such as myself But still, I don't think we should change the director's vision. You can say "the grain was kind of a dumb idea, even it was to match the director's vision." But just don't ask for the film to be alternatively processed and change the original vision for home video.

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by Aygie

Because their too fragile about Blu. Any criticism is seen as a complete negative attack on their new format. If HD-DVD didn't exist then i think people wouldn't be so harsh about this subject.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're right.
Thanks Aygie!

[aygie]

Originally Posted by dadkins

Yeah, I'm thinking you're right.
Thanks Aygie!

No prob and i think it's about to get even more fragile
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/...311YWV25ms0NUE

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

don't worry, i firmly believe there are a lot of people on this site who solely sign up to bash newbies. glad to see a lot of people were respectful to you though, good luck

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

Comeon guys, it's a textbook case of I don't like/understand film grain, surely.

Try watching the movie Volver by Pedro Almodóvar if you don't like film grain in the picture. But understand that 1080p is about recreating the original film image as closely as possible, and it may contian grain as intended by the director. CK out Partitaive Color.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Well, he made it like that.

[Pelican170]

I have a question to the people who say that all grain is supposed to be in the movie. Excluding "300", because I do feel that is supposed to be like that, but for example in the blu-ray "The Descent". This movie is about cave explorers who get trapped. In this movie, obviously the dark areas, which are supposed to be represented as pitch black because obviously there is no sunlight, but some scenes you can see the "grain" in these areas. Some scenes there is no grain, then others a bunch. I find this hard to believe that the director would want the grain to be there when I would figure that his intentions would be to represent a truly pitch black environment. So as for the grain in this example, it just doesnt make sense. Any comments?

[WickyWoo]

In this movie, obviously the dark areas, which are supposed to be represented as pitch black because obviously there is no sunlight, but some scenes you can see the "grain" in these areas

Low light film stocks are necessissarily grainy. It's inherent. If they were shooting digital cameras you'd get CCD noise in the same places, and FAR worse

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

That is true, a lot of people hate the way Michael Bay films his movies (did you know there wasn't a shot that lasted longer than 7 seconds throughout all of Armageddon?) They say his films are way to glossy and flashy, I personally like the orange filterish things he uses. It helps with landscapes and pale people, such as myself But still, I don't think we should change the director's vision. You can say "the grain was kind of a dumb idea, even it was to match the director's vision." But just don't ask for the film to be alternatively processed and change the original vision for home video.

Right, thats all I'm concerned about. I want to see it the way the artist wanted it. That's the director and DP.

If people don't like it, they're entitled to their opinion, but it should be take the whole film as it is and was meant to be, or don't.

Also, the widescreen format is one alot of directors like and others not so much. I personally think its great for making good compositions.

Different film makers will shoot in different ways with it of course but it doesn't invalidate the format.