The Digital Bits; "Grain is supposed to be there!"

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by dadkins

No. I prefer the BEST PQ us consumers can purchase.
I have a 1080p screen in front of me.
I prefer the movies that are not dragged through a quarry before they are sold to you and I.

A bit dramatic, yes? You're getting a 1080p image that has an immense increase in detail and color reproduction. The grain is hardly that noticeable, unless you're making a point of staring at it.

My point above was because you said the pristine trailer looked "hokey".
I suggested that you watch the other, grainy trailer in 480p or the standard
trailer and tell me if you could see the grain - I bet you can't!

Right, but the detail is also lost because it's 480p . . . so why would I want to watch it in 480p? Again, it doesn't match the tone of the originals and looks extremely out of place when it's smooth. You can see the grain in the original Indy trilogy, but it's light due to lack of resolution.

Playing a SD DVD through our HW will upscale/upconvert it. The grain will NOT be as visible as it is on a BD.

Neither will details in the picture.

This will actually present itself as a better viewing experience for many(most?) people...

So due to ignorance the way people shoot films should be changed? I don't think Steven Spielberg, for one, really cares.

I predict that more and more people will come here and just about every other forum asking why there is a grainy picture on their high-dollar new HDTVs.
I also predict that many people like yourself will tell them that is the way film is or that's the way the director wanted it.


Lots of people will not be happy with this explaination.

I don't care Research before you buy.

Pay a grand to 3 grand for a whoop-ass new HDTV and a Blu-ray player and see a crappy picture?
Could have saved the money and just watched the DVD on the old beater TV.

So be it. If people would rather settle for lower quality, I'd rather them not infect my hobby.

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by binarymelon

Everybody seems to be ignoring my point. Let's say that, hypothetically, through the marvels of science that we developed a film technology that did not have any grain once you reached the final product, no grain, no DNR, just exactly what the director/cinematographer's eyes saw. How would that picture be anything less than perfect. As digital technology progresses, algorithms, storage, processing speed. We will eventually reach a point where we can display that where no human or machine will be able to tell the difference.

This is different to applying DNR, though. If the picture originally captured is inherently grain free, as you already see in bright outdoor scenes in many movies, where fine grained low ISO film has been used, then that is okay. There is no cost to that in terms of DNR artifacting.

The problem is taking a movie that looks a certain way when released in cinemas, and applying electronic filtering, of which DNR is just one type of filter, and making it look less good than it should do. This is what people are objecting to.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Pelican170

The movie doesnt need grain to make it better, it needs a good set to reproduce dust and dirt and whatever else would resemble where they are, artificial grain is nonsense.

It's shot on film . . . it's not artificial.

[Pelican170]

Well, why is it that the new movies that are coming out have nearly no grain? While the older movies that are transfered to Bluray apparently do? was this the directors intent, or the fact that technology is getting better and we are finally finding a way to end the grain problem (yes, its a problem in my eyes and i dont believe its intended to be there.)

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by dadkins

I prefer the BEST PQ us consumers can purchase.
I have a 1080p screen in front of me.

Me too. I hate the crappy Warner encodes where they run it through all sorts of filters to reduce the image quality. If I wanted smoothed out crap like that I'd buy a DVD instead. Blu-ray should have the best possible picture quality which means high bitrate and no filtering.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Pelican170

Well, why is it that the new movies that are coming out have nearly no grain?

Like Spiderman 3, Casino Royale, etc? Spiderman especially has a considerable amount of grain. Which is why it looks good.

While the older movies that are transfered to Bluray apparently do? was this the directors intent, or the fact that technology is getting better and we are finally finding a way to end the grain problem (yes, its a problem in my eyes and i dont believe its intended to be there.)

A movie shot on film is going to have grain, because the grain makes up the film. Unless it's digitally removed, it's there, and should be there, or else you're taking the detail out of the picture.


Am I not saying it right?

[Grubert]

Film stocks have got better (faster speed without the added grain)

but

Also many movies have noise reduction applied at the digital-intermediate level. In other words, the theatrical copy is already smoothed over.

[Joe Cain]

Grain IS image; removing grain reduces definition.

You have every right to buy DVDs or adjust your picture controls to your satisfaction, but for heaven's sake don't ask for the invalidation of HD's raison d'etre just because you don't like the visual evidence of the process that makes film-watching possible.

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Like Spiderman 3, Casino Royale, etc? Spiderman especially has a considerable amount of grain. Which is why it looks good.



A movie shot on film is going to have grain, because the grain makes up the film. Unless it's digitally removed, it's there, and should be there, or else you're taking the detail out of the picture.


Am I not saying it right?

This i understand. but my point being, now that we are able to find a way to reduce/remove grain, we are seeing much much less grain in new movies. Therefore, i dont agree with people who say that the director intended on the grain in movies. Grain makes up the film, correct, but i do not believe its the directors intent to have this in, more of a problem with technology that they had no choice but to deal with...

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by binarymelon

But digital is the easiest and most accurate way to reproduce the stored information.

My response to that quoted statement:

No it isn't. 1080p, 2K and 4K formats do not store all of the image data from a 4-perf 35mm film frame.

An even worse thing about digital is you're locked into a set resolution. Analog is more graceful.

Case in point: early DVD Audio and SACD releases. Music companies couldn't use any 80's music with 16-bit 44.1kHz digital masters. They had to use music with high quality analog recordings. Analog is pretty flexible. Many digital types of media are not.

Star Wars: Episode II was shot with video cameras that weren't fully 1080p. Their resolution setting was significantly under that level. But, hey. Those cameras were digital. Whenever that movie is released onto Blu-ray it's probably going to look fairly soft unless some people do a lot of work on that not quite high def video.

Let's also not forget that most video, music and image files people use today are all stored with data lossy compression methods. Those file storage formats are far from perfect and destructive to the data.

[BStecke]

If they wanted to they could shoot on video instead of film . . . it's a conscious decision on their part to shoot on film. Steven Spielberg, for instance, will probably never switch to video because he prefers the way film looks. So . . . no problems with technology, a conscious choice to make the films look the way they do.

http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/arti...a_300/300.html

Look at those shots of 300, DVD vs. Blu-ray. Now, 300 is usually the one everybody complains about. Can anyone seriously look at those shots and say they'd rather watch the DVD because you can see the grain in the Blu-ray? If so, I think you're in the wrong hobby.

[dadkins]

You are still missing the whole idea of "High Defitition".

Yes! Playing back a older grainy movie on a High Definition display will make the grain more visible.
Does this make the movie better? No, actually.
It is displaying the imperfections of the medium the action was originally captured on.

Purposely using grainy stock is fine - but it is not great viewing a less-than-crisp picture on a high-dollar, "High Definition" screen.
It is the "Director's Vision" - so be it! Fine! Ok!
Does it have great Picture Quality? No, it's grainy! On purpose even! Sometimes even more digital grain is added!

Does this mean I have to like it? NO!
Does this mean I want it digitally removed? NO!
Does this mean I think it looks bad? Yes!

You like it - Fine!
I do not like it - also Fine!

LOL!

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by NutsAboutPS3

Me too. I hate the crappy Warner encodes where they run it through all sorts of filters to reduce the image quality. If I wanted smoothed out crap like that I'd buy a DVD instead. Blu-ray should have the best possible picture quality which means high bitrate and no filtering.

THANK YOU!

[CptGreedle]

Lets not compare movie trailers people... those things are as far from the original film as you can get. Full of compression and just out there to tease you. They manipulate and edit those so much it is pointless to talk grain with them, they prolly removed it anyways with DNR.
The point is that grain IS essential to film. Not always, as long as it is a digital capture (and if you think digital pictures/video has no grain think again, it has digital noise cause by dither to mimic the effect of grain).
Without the grain, the details are lost. Without the grain, the feel of the movie is different. You are just too used to seeing CG films and digital capture films and low quality SD films. Real films are exactly that, FILM. They have all the same look of film, and all the same feel. There are many different kinds of film they can use, which do not have the same grain, and directors choose to use different kinds for their films. So when they have a lot of grain, it is a choice they made to have it.
Older movies did not have the technology we have now which allows for less grain from the get-go, but that is part of what the film is!

I understand your side, you want your movies to look smooth and pristine, like Cars or Ratatouille. You want them to look drop-dead amazing on your screen with the same clarity as the best digital capture like SW:ep3.
Well you are fooling yourself if that is the case. You can not get a digital capture quality image out of a film. No amount of DNR will help! In fact, it makes it worse. DNR is not a good thing, and that is what this is all about.
If you want to tell directors to make more digital capture movies, then do so. But when a movie in made on film, do not try to change it.
The thread is not "Directors should make more movies with no grain", it is "studios should not apply DNR to their movies!".

And that is undeniable. Studios should NOT apply DNR to their releases, old or new. The grain is there, the grain is part of the film, the grain stays!
The problem is educating and convincing people that the grain will be there and should be there and is a good thing.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by BStecke

http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/arti...a_300/300.html

Look at those shots of 300, DVD vs. Blu-ray. Now, 300 is usually the one everybody complains about. Can anyone seriously look at those shots and say they'd rather watch the DVD because you can see the grain in the Blu-ray? If so, I think you're in the wrong hobby.

Heck, what happened to the snow flakes?

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by dadkins

You are still missing the whole idea of "High Defitition".

Yes! Playing back a older grainy movie on a High Definition display will make the grain more visible.
Does this make the movie better? No, actually.
It is displaying the imperfections of the medium the action was originally captured on.

Purposely using grainy stock is fine - but it is not great viewing a less-than-crisp picture on a high-dollar, "High Definition" screen.
It is the "Director's Vision" - so be it! Fine! Ok!
Does it have great Picture Quality? No, it's grainy! On purpose even! Sometimes even more digital grain is added!

Does this mean I have to like it? NO!
Does this mean I want it digitally removed? NO!
Does this mean I think it looks bad? Yes!

You like it - Fine!
I do not like it - also Fine!

LOL!

Totally agree!

[Pelican170]

My thoughts are, that a director when making a movie wants the viewer to be and feel totally immersed in their movie. making them feel like they are in the movie, at the scene, and hearing and feeling what the characters are going through. Am I wrong? I dont think so, therefore, most times, i find it hard to believe a director would ever want the grain in the movie to take away from the feel of being immersed in the movie.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

The thread is not "Directors should make more movies with no grain", it is "studios should not apply DNR to their movies!".

And that is undeniable. Studios should NOT apply DNR to their releases, old or new. The grain is there, the grain is part of the film, the grain stays!
The problem is educating and convincing people that the grain will be there and should be there and is a good thing.

Nor is it "Directors and DPs should not apply grain reduction to their DI, or when preparing a BD master".

The decisions should be left to the people who created the film. Not decided by bean counters merely trying to maximize sales.

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Pelican170

My thoughts are, that a director when making a movie wants the viewer to be and feel totally immersed in their movie. making them feel like they are in the movie, at the scene, and hearing and feeling what the characters are going through. Am I wrong? I dont think so, therefore, most times, i find it hard to believe a director would ever want the grain in the movie to take away from the feel of being immersed in the movie.

Then they should approve the transfer with grain reduction.

The issue here is it being applied without any say from the filmmakers, for reasons that have nothing to do with immersiveness, but rather out of desire to satisfy ignorant demands for HD video looking discs.

Next step: Full frame. If you want OAR and no grain, why should they listen to you for one thing and ignore the pleas for the other?

Gary

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Then they should approve the transfer with grain reduction.

The issue here is it being applied without any say from the filmmakers, for reasons that have nothing to do with immersiveness, but rather out of desire to satisfy ignorant demands for HD video looking discs.

Gary

Well, i can agree with that. it should be up to the film maker. But then the question is, how many would really want it there? i think of it like, if you were at a recording studio for music and there is background noise. now, do you want that there? no, because its not intended and takes away from the main focus. Same for film really if you think about it. Since grain is apparently particles on the film itself, the director never intended on seeing this in his film, but comes as background noise...