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

[BStecke]

I give up.

[Anthony P]

Frankly grain is no different than lossy encryption. It is obscuring (hmm, that's a bad word to use), modifying information that can no longer be retrieved in it's original state.

binarymelon: even though it is not like lossy. You are right. The issue, like you put it, is that the information is already lost and you can't bring it back. The only thing you can do is fake it and if you fake it you mess up much more, because you must fake every other aspect of the picture. Is that a freckle or a modifiesd piece of info - remove it.

I understand what he is saying. I believe he is trying to say, that up intil recently, film makers have had no choice but to use film, which included grain in the picture. And grain could be viewed as a flaw in the recording media, such as Lossy Audio to recording...

Pelican170: the problem is that you start with a mistake. Right now digital cannot even come close to the detail in film. It is like saying since we can't get the precision to the nearest penny, we should round to the nearest Million.

[tvted]

Is it possible to make a film wherein the subject matter *is* film and hence the materials that create it? Film qua film? The Structuralist movement of the Sixties and Seventies would contend it is.
David Rimmer:
http://www.movingimages.ca/catalogue...imental_r.html
Michael Snow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Snow
Hollis Frampton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollis_Frampton
Even good old Norman Mclaren with his "surface" experiments (though, rightly, not part of that group).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begone_Dull_Care

Historically, as a particular art has been changed or superceded, Painting -> Photography, B&W (or monochrome Sepia say) to colour, the older medium has been able to explore the means by which it is produced. It is a formal approach to Art and for many too rigid, but for some of us that formal approach offers many rewards.

Now that the organic nature of film is being replaced by electrons (digital in the most refined sense) previous methods become forms which can be explored. - Brian Eno is an example of someone exploring the Analog/Digital video divide.

In other words, because modern stocks allow for the conrol of grain in most circumstances it can now become a consciously directed tool in the the artist's pallette - another means of expression.

I see it as a struggle between those who think that film should merely be a recording medium vs those who think of it as a material that has an inherent material language of its own much like the Impressionists struggled to make paint itself a subject to explore once photography had freed painters of the need for "realism".

Video will go that way too I believe. Though I find much of Battlestar Gallactica as claptrap, I admire the "texture" of the show which is confined to the limited dynamic range that is HD Video cameras - I revel in the blown out highlights and high-key lighting exhibited in the fighter machine shop - it just reeks of tension, heat and fatigue. The usage of video noise in the episode You Can't Go Home Again conveyed the bleakness and desperation of Strabuck's situation - it was palpable.

I've a small fear that with the CE Video manufacturers pushing for higher frame rates being egged on by the consumer who prefers the squeaky clean look - the "looking through a window" quality of video - we will lose many of the expressive qualities inherent in the medium which we choose to contain our ideas. Too bad really, as we forget that art is a mitigated process not a recording of what is real, it is artifice and being artifice it is always conveyed by a surface which in itself is a means of conveying a story or an idea.

anachronistic ol' me
ted

[welwynnick]

The OP could do with some support, so I'm with binarymelon, and have long been frustrated with grain. I seem to have made many enemies by saying so, and people take this much too seriously. It's only TV, folks.

People expect grain because cinema has been based on film for ever, and HD home theaters seem to attempt to replicate the cinema experience as closely as possible. This is what I would like to avoid. I don't want my HT to mimic a cinema, I want my HT to do what a cinema is trying to do (and failing in many ways). And that is to recreate an event, not to recreate a recreation.

The grain often represents a failing of the medium, like surface noise on a record. Would you save an LP to hard disc, and say that accurately reproducing the surface noise was a good thing? The noise is there because you can't avoid it; it doesn't make the music any better, in this context.

With films, my view is that grain is usually there because it HAS to be there, not because anyone wants it. If you filter a film master to remove grain, and end up losing detail, then that detail is lost forever. But if you can remove without losing detail, then that's a different matter. The best solution is probably to keep it on the BD disc, and allow the user to filter it if he wants to.

Nick

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

The OP could do with some support, so I'm with binarymelon, and have long been frustrated with grain. I seem to have made many enemies by saying so, and people take this much too seriously. It's only TV, folks.

People expect grain because cinema has been based on film for ever, and HD home theaters seem to attempt to replicate the cinema experience as closely as possible. This is what I would like to avoid. I don't want my HT to mimic a cinema, I want my HT to do what a cinema is trying to do (and failing in many ways). And that is to recreate an event, not to recreate a recreation.

The grain often represents a failing of the medium, like surface noise on a record. Would you save an LP to hard disc, and say that accurately reproducing the surface noise was a good thing? The noise is there because you can't avoid it; it doesn't make the music any better, in this context.

With films, my view is that grain is usually there because it HAS to be there, not because anyone wants it. If you filter a film master to remove grain, and end up losing detail, then that detail is lost forever. But if you can remove without losing detail, then that's a different matter. The best solution is probably to keep it on the BD disc, and allow the user to filter it if he wants to.

Nick

+1

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

The OP could do with some support, so I'm with binarymelon, and have long been frustrated with grain. I seem to have made many enemies by saying so, and people take this much too seriously. It's only TV, folks.

People expect grain because cinema has been based on film for ever, and HD home theaters seem to attempt to replicate the cinema experience as closely as possible. This is what I would like to avoid. I don't want my HT to mimic a cinema, I want my HT to do what a cinema is trying to do (and failing in many ways). And that is to recreate an event, not to recreate a recreation.

The grain often represents a failing of the medium, like surface noise on a record. Would you save an LP to hard disc, and say that accurately reproducing the surface noise was a good thing? The noise is there because you can't avoid it; it doesn't make the music any better, in this context.

With films, my view is that grain is usually there because it HAS to be there, not because anyone wants it. If you filter a film master to remove grain, and end up losing detail, then that detail is lost forever. But if you can remove without losing detail, then that's a different matter. The best solution is probably to keep it on the BD disc, and allow the user to filter it if he wants to.

Nick

Well put!
+1

[Beta Man]

If you have a problem with grain, that's just too bad..... there are certain actors or actresses that are cast, that I don't like.... It's the same thing, it's a preference, and the director's "direction" for the movie..... it's been beat to death.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

The OP could do with some support, so I'm with binarymelon, and have long been frustrated with grain. I seem to have made many enemies by saying so, and people take this much too seriously. It's only TV, folks.

People expect grain because cinema has been based on film for ever, and HD home theaters seem to attempt to replicate the cinema experience as closely as possible. This is what I would like to avoid. I don't want my HT to mimic a cinema, I want my HT to do what a cinema is trying to do (and failing in many ways). And that is to recreate an event, not to recreate a recreation.

The grain often represents a failing of the medium, like surface noise on a record. Would you save an LP to hard disc, and say that accurately reproducing the surface noise was a good thing? The noise is there because you can't avoid it; it doesn't make the music any better, in this context.

With films, my view is that grain is usually there because it HAS to be there, not because anyone wants it.............

Whooooooooooa there pardner!
There are many examples in which the Directors/DP's explicitly wanted grain for stylistic reasons….and have stated that privately as well as publicly.

Such films include………………..
Jarhead (Roger Deakins –DP)
Minority Report (Janusz Kaminski-DP)
Munich (Janusz Kaminski-DP)
Babel (Rodrigo Prieto-DP)

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Whooooooooooa there pardner!
There are many examples in which the Directors/DP's explicitly wanted grain for stylistic reasons….and have stated that privately as well as publicly.

Such films include………………..
Jarhead (Roger Deakins –DP)
Minority Report (Janusz Kaminski-DP)
Munich (Janusz Kaminski-DP)
Babel (Rodrigo Prieto-DP)

Fools, all of them! Especially that Kaminski guy. Who wins Oscars? Psh.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Fools, all of them! Especially that Kaminski guy. Who wins Oscars? Psh.

And that damn Deakins guy was nominated for two Oscars in the same category just last year !

[Rob Tomlin]

..

[WickyWoo]

Q. What do the above films have in common, besides the fact that they intentionally have added grain?

A. Great cinematography!

More accurately. They intentionally have a certain grain content. Not necessarily added

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

Q. What do the above films have in common, besides the fact that they intentionally have added grain?

A. Great cinematography!

Could you imagine if they DNR'd Lawrence! *shudders*

I'm just happy Blade Runner turned out alright!

[coolmilo]

What happened to Master and Commander transfer? This BD seemed very uneven with some scenes very grainy and some scenes just OK. For me MC was the biggest disappointment of the year so far (except for the audio track which was exceptional). After watching MC on BD, I then put in the DVD. There was only a small improvement watching the BD over the upscale DVD. I was hoping for a reference job because I really like this movie. If FOX tried, could they have made the transfer close to say a Pirates movie? Does it need to be restored or remastered?

On the other hand, Youth without Youth was beautiful (and a very good movie to boot). I detected a small amount of grain but it did not take away from the PQ at all. It was like when someone described grain as an artist's brush strokes. BD was made for Coppola with his terrific talent for choosing beautiful locations to film.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

What happened to Master and Commander transfer? This BD seemed very uneven with some scenes very grainy and some scenes just OK. For me MC was the biggest disappointment of the year so far (except for the audio track which was exceptional). After watching it on BD, I then put in the DVD. There was only a small improvement watching the BD over the upscale DVD. I was hoping for a reference job because I really like this movie. If FOX tried, could they have made the transfer close to say a Pirates movie? Does it need to be restored or remastered?

On the other hand, Youth without Youth was beautiful (and a very good movie to boot). I detected a small amount of grain but it did not take away from the PQ at all. It was like when someone described grain as an artist's brush strokes.

Old master. Uses the same master as the two disc edition. If you don't mind waiting, this title will probably be remastered in a few years time.

[Lucy Diamond]

I think Predator has a beautiful lush grain that puts me right back in that theater all those years ago. It just feels right.

Personally, my eyes finally feel right at home with Blu Ray.

[Rob Tomlin]

..

[Ben]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

The OP could do with some support, so I'm with binarymelon, and have long been frustrated with grain. I seem to have made many enemies by saying so, and people take this much too seriously. It's only TV, folks.

People expect grain because cinema has been based on film for ever, and HD home theaters seem to attempt to replicate the cinema experience as closely as possible. This is what I would like to avoid. I don't want my HT to mimic a cinema, I want my HT to do what a cinema is trying to do (and failing in many ways). And that is to recreate an event, not to recreate a recreation.

The grain often represents a failing of the medium, like surface noise on a record. Would you save an LP to hard disc, and say that accurately reproducing the surface noise was a good thing? The noise is there because you can't avoid it; it doesn't make the music any better, in this context.

With films, my view is that grain is usually there because it HAS to be there, not because anyone wants it. If you filter a film master to remove grain, and end up losing detail, then that detail is lost forever. But if you can remove without losing detail, then that's a different matter. The best solution is probably to keep it on the BD disc, and allow the user to filter it if he wants to.

Nick

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Whooooooooooa there pardner!
There are many examples in which the Directors/DP's explicitly wanted grain for stylistic reasons….and have stated that privately as well as publicly.

Such films include………………..
Jarhead (Roger Deakins –DP)
Minority Report (Janusz Kaminski-DP)
Munich (Janusz Kaminski-DP)
Babel (Rodrigo Prieto-DP)

I quite agree, but it doesn't mean I have to like it, just like I don't have to like the script or the editing.

In those fairly esteemed cases, the grain is there because the director wanted it there, and it wouldn't be the same film without it. On no account should grain be removed from the video.

However, I think that many people associate grain with cultural films, and presume it's a good thing by simply being there, and that's my problem.

I'm not saying grain is always bad, I'm only saying that grain is not necessarily good. For all my compulsive film-watching, its often the HD TV video material that really provides the "wow" factor with HD. Put a good film on, and it's often greeted with comments about how great it looks. Play a well-produced natural history documentary (hooray for BBC HD) and conversation stops and jaw drops.

It's a different sort of experience, a perfectly valid one, and quite addictive. I think it can achieve that suspension of disbelief more effectively than film - that absorbing feeling where you forget that you are still sat at home. Any corruption of PQ & SQ will make this more difficult, and I think grain would represent some sort of barrier to this.

I want to get away from the seemingly automatic assumption that grain is good, because some good films have it, and I think people over-state the artistic element of it, and big-up some ordinary movies into something that they're not. Generally this is only Hollywood we're talking about, after all.

You can't add brush marks to a photograph and call it a DaVinci.

best regards, Nick

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

You can't add brush marks to a photograph and call it a DaVinci.

But removing brush marks from a Da Vinci won't turn it into a photograph.

Just like removing the grain from North by Northwest won't turn it into The Da Vinci code (God bless!).