The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[chip75]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Sorry for the long post. I hope you all can forgive me.

The reason I'd imagine it's not as visible in theatres is that we're getting scans of the negatives and not several generations down the line prints, so we're seeing a copy of a copy on the big screen and the resolution isn't as resolved. It's less of an issue these days as they're shooting and exhibiting in digital (and downscaling the master footage with 2K finishes). So grain is more of a artistic choice (it's not quite on the level of shooting black and white or 4:3).

It's always debatable how much grain should we see when the scans come from the negatives, but once that detail is scrubbed away, there's no way to restore it. So I'd rather have it. Just make sure your TV's sharpness settings are correct and if it does irk you with UHD BDs switch to 1080p resolution and give it go.

But I honestly can't remember when grain has ever bothered me watching a movie at home.

[Mitchings]

I've always loved grain and the way it can really bring an image together; after all, the grain isn't an addition to the image but it is the image..

I'm very much in favour of being faithful to the source; more specifically: the middle ground between the creator's original intentions and the way it was originally shown, should there be any discrepancy; and if the two differ too much, make distinct versions available to satisfy all parties, assuming it's financially viable.

Getting back to grain. The problem we seem to have now is that in many cases we're going back to the original negative for catalogue releases, which isn't true to the way people saw these features in the first place. It's a commendable idea as it no doubt gives you the most detail and the most latitude, or adjustment-potential..

Most people who saw movies like this theatrically probably saw a print that was 2, 3 or more generations removed where the grain was still apparent and remained organic in appearance but took on a slightly softer look, almost melding together appearing as transluscent, monochromatic layer atop the image; though VHS/DVD/SDTV pretty much made the grain invisible, this was once again the character of grain again with HDTV/Blu-ray.

However, we're now displaying films on dense, detailed 4K screens in 4K with a 4K source derived from 4K+ masters of 4K+ scans of the OCN.

With this we're not only sharply resolving much, if not all of the active 'grains of grain' but that extra distinction is making its motion more apparent, the colours of each speck are now evident so we're no longer seeing a seamingly coherent field as part of the gently dithered image but many outliers; organic errors caused by light bouncing around in the lens, the camera, on the film itself and the inherent 'flaws' of the medium.

While this may be true to the source; as in the OCN itself, it's not true to an original theatrical print. Even as someone who loves the look of grain and believes in faithful representation, seeing grain in the form of The Matrix 4K or Ghostbusters 4K threw me off a little, it's not that there's more of it or that it appears to dance and swarm more; it's that every speck is distinct and separate in both form and colour.

It could be said that it's almost too raw, we're not just capturing the detail but the space between. Which is great for archival both digital and analogue, but as a definitive reference for viewing that's meant to be representative of the theatrical release and the intentions of its creators, it doesn't seem like the right approach. It's like the closer you get, the more it falls apart, to me it actually resembles something closer to digital noise, albeit finer and more randomly placed.

Don't get me wrong, it's vastly superior to watching any DNR Waxworks Editions and I can certainly acclimitase, but I feel more nuance is needed.

I wonder if a good approach would be to take the OCN and strike up a new, neutral, high quality interpositive (or even internegative if you really want) and then scan that in instead. Detail loss would be minimal and grain would be, not so much reduced, but hopefully closer in characteristics to a theatrical print; think of it less as Digital Noise Reduction and more as Analogue Noise Restructuring, less of a down-res and more of a gentle organic dither.

Of course this line of thinking only generally applies to 80s through early 00s and/or films shot in non-ideal light, with non-ideal equipment and material using high speed stock etc.

Again, as I've reiterated, 'grain FTW!' but taking the OCN of an inherently grainy piece of material and running it through a 4K+ pipeline and displaying it in 4K changes the characteristics of that grain to something more raw and unfamiliar, even compared to a 35mm theatrical presentation. To summarise, I think it will better to utilise a new interpositive/internegative in these instances.

/rambling

[VonMagnum]

The grain is NOT the image. I don't understand why people think this. Grain is essentially an ERROR in the imprecise chemical process that is film (again akin to wrong colors due to unresponsive pigments in the film). There is no grain in digital (there might be some sensor noise on older crappier sensors in dark scenes). Digital resolution is limited by pixels, but pixels and grain are not analogous to be each other. Digital noise is closer to what grain is than pixels. Like tape noise, it doesn't exist in the real world and it's not part of the movie itself.

I don't know many people that "like" tape noise. Tape noise is caused by random magnetic particles that didn't align with the signal when it was being recorded, almost identically analogous to unresponsive pigments and impurities in film that we call "grain". If it can be removed without harming the music (which is not the tape noise/hiss), why wouldn't you want to remove it? It's not on the digital master, just the cassette tape. It's not the song itself. It's NOISE. So is film grain. The proof is you can see it even on DVDs which aren't even CLOSE to 4K resolution. A wrong pigment color is a wrong color. Noise shows up at nearly all levels.

The trick is to remove the noise (or correct the color pigments) accurately so the music (movie) isn't harmed for detail. Correction will only improve over time. Like vinyl or cassette lovers, there's no reason they can't do BOTH. As film disappears from newer movies there won't be any to correct. Film grain will be a noise filter to make things look OLD in the future. Hell, it already is in many movies looking for an old film within a film look.

Yes, old timers like myself associate grain with a cinema look, but that's because we grew up with it. That too will change over time as newer generations grow up with HD and UHD and 8K etc. etc.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

The grain is NOT the image. I don't understand why people think this. Grain is essentially an ERROR in the imprecise chemical process that is film (again akin to wrong colors due to unresponsive pigments in the film). There is no grain in digital (there might be some sensor noise on older crappier sensors in dark scenes). Digital resolution is limited by pixels, but pixels and grain are not analogous to be each other. Digital noise is closer to what grain is than pixels. Like tape noise, it doesn't exist in the real world and it's not part of the movie itself.

I don't know many people that "like" tape noise. Tape noise is caused by random magnetic particles that didn't align with the signal when it was being recorded, almost identically analogous to unresponsive pigments and impurities in film that we call "grain". If it can be removed without harming the music (which is not the tape noise/hiss), why wouldn't you want to remove it? It's not on the digital master, just the cassette tape. It's not the song itself. It's NOISE. So is film grain. The proof is you can see it even on DVDs which aren't even CLOSE to 4K resolution. A wrong pigment color is a wrong color. Noise shows up at nearly all levels.

The trick is to remove the noise (or correct the color pigments) accurately so the music (movie) isn't harmed for detail. Correction will only improve over time. Like vinyl or cassette lovers, there's no reason they can't do BOTH. As film disappears from newer movies there won't be any to correct. Film grain will be a noise filter to make things look OLD in the future. Hell, it already is in many movies looking for an old film within a film look.

Yes, old timers like myself associate grain with a cinema look, but that's because we grew up with it. That too will change over time as newer generations grow up with HD and UHD and 8K etc. etc.

On a film negative, grain is part of the image detail. It's synonymous with each other. There are different factors that make it less or more obvious, but if you scrub the grain you end up taking away some or a lot of the actual picture detail.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

On a film negative, grain is part of the image detail. It's synonymous with each other. There are different factors that make it less or more obvious, but if you scrub the grain you end up taking away some or a lot of the actual picture detail.

Don't confuse the film emulsion with visible film grain! Proper film behavior conforms to the IMAGE not random NOISE. You cannot see "grain" that conforms!!! It is like a pixel. It just gets blurrier as you zoom in. Visible grain are pigment errors. That's why the grain changes frame to frame even if the camera is pointed at the same unchanging thing (e.g. Indoor lit red wall). If the grain you see were part of the image, it wouldn't keep changing as the camera just sits there taking identical exposures. Film emulsions aren't perfect. They have inherent noise just like cassettes do. The noise is not the image. The noise can be removed. That is why the word NOISE is in dynamic noise reduction (DNR).

[Doctorossi]

It just depends how you define "the image". If your idea of the image is "what the camera is looking at", grain has no part of it; if your idea of the image is the film frame itself, grain has every part of it.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Don't confuse the film emulsion with visible film grain! Proper film behavior conforms to the IMAGE not random NOISE. You cannot see "grain" that conforms!!! It is like a pixel. It just gets blurrier as you zoom in. Visible grain are pigment errors. That's why the grain changes frame to frame even if the camera is pointed at the same unchanging thing (e.g. Indoor lit red wall). If the grain you see were part of the image, it wouldn't keep changing as the camera just sits there taking identical exposures. Film emulsions aren't perfect. They have inherent noise just like cassettes do. The noise is not the image. The noise can be removed. That is why the word NOISE is in dynamic noise reduction (DNR).

While algorithms are getting better at grain management, they still can prove detrimental to the image. There is no magic bullet yet. Grain and image information are still walking hand in hand.

[ROSS.T.G.]

I like my movies loud and noisy. Always have, always will. The Matrix UHD is gorgeous.

[Blu Cider]

This thread is a complete dumpster fire... reboot it and ban the trolls.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by Blu Cider

This thread is a complete dumpster fire... reboot it and ban the trolls.

I agree. Let's start with you.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by Mitchings

I've always loved grain and the way it can really bring an image together; after all, the grain isn't an addition to the image but it is the image..

I'm very much in favour of being faithful to the source; more specifically: the middle ground between the creator's original intentions and the way it was originally shown, should there be any discrepancy; and if the two differ too much, make distinct versions available to satisfy all parties, assuming it's financially viable.

Getting back to grain. The problem we seem to have now is that in many cases we're going back to the original negative for catalogue releases, which isn't true to the way people saw these features in the first place. It's a commendable idea as it no doubt gives you the most detail and the most latitude, or adjustment-potential..

Most people who saw movies like this theatrically probably saw a print that was 2, 3 or more generations removed where the grain was still apparent and remained organic in appearance but took on a slightly softer look, almost melding together appearing as transluscent, monochromatic layer atop the image; though VHS/DVD/SDTV pretty much made the grain invisible, this was once again the character of grain again with HDTV/Blu-ray.

However, we're now displaying films on dense, detailed 4K screens in 4K with a 4K source derived from 4K+ masters of 4K+ scans of the OCN.

With this we're not only sharply resolving much, if not all of the active 'grains of grain' but that extra distinction is making its motion more apparent, the colours of each speck are now evident so we're no longer seeing a seamingly coherent field as part of the gently dithered image but many outliers; organic errors caused by light bouncing around in the lens, the camera, on the film itself and the inherent 'flaws' of the medium.

While this may be true to the source; as in the OCN itself, it's not true to an original theatrical print. Even as someone who loves the look of grain and believes in faithful representation, seeing grain in the form of The Matrix 4K or Ghostbusters 4K threw me off a little, it's not that there's more of it or that it appears to dance and swarm more; it's that every speck is distinct and separate in both form and colour.

It could be said that it's almost too raw, we're not just capturing the detail but the space between. Which is great for archival both digital and analogue, but as a definitive reference for viewing that's meant to be representative of the theatrical release and the intentions of its creators, it doesn't seem like the right approach. It's like the closer you get, the more it falls apart, to me it actually resembles something closer to digital noise, albeit finer and more randomly placed.

Don't get me wrong, it's vastly superior to watching any DNR Waxworks Editions and I can certainly acclimitase, but I feel more nuance is needed.

I wonder if a good approach would be to take the OCN and strike up a new, neutral, high quality interpositive (or even internegative if you really want) and then scan that in instead. Detail loss would be minimal and grain would be, not so much reduced, but hopefully closer in characteristics to a theatrical print; think of it less as Digital Noise Reduction and more as Analogue Noise Restructuring, less of a down-res and more of a gentle organic dither.

Of course this line of thinking only generally applies to 80s through early 00s and/or films shot in non-ideal light, with non-ideal equipment and material using high speed stock etc.

Again, as I've reiterated, 'grain FTW!' but taking the OCN of an inherently grainy piece of material and running it through a 4K+ pipeline and displaying it in 4K changes the characteristics of that grain to something more raw and unfamiliar, even compared to a 35mm theatrical presentation. To summarise, I think it will better to utilise a new interpositive/internegative in these instances.

/rambling

This is a really amicable post full of compromise, concession to multiple arguments etc and I don't understand why someone would respond to it with dogmatic belligerence.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

If someone understood it the first way, then the whole universe is just a bunch of images, and the advent of film was redundant.

The purpose of film was not to add grain to the existing images in the universe; it was to organize and store those images in logical sequence for the purpose of storytelling.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mitchings

[Show spoiler]I've always loved grain and the way it can really bring an image together; after all, the grain isn't an addition to the image but it is the image..

I'm very much in favour of being faithful to the source; more specifically: the middle ground between the creator's original intentions and the way it was originally shown, should there be any discrepancy; and if the two differ too much, make distinct versions available to satisfy all parties, assuming it's financially viable.

Getting back to grain. The problem we seem to have now is that in many cases we're going back to the original negative for catalogue releases, which isn't true to the way people saw these features in the first place. It's a commendable idea as it no doubt gives you the most detail and the most latitude, or adjustment-potential..

Most people who saw movies like this theatrically probably saw a print that was 2, 3 or more generations removed where the grain was still apparent and remained organic in appearance but took on a slightly softer look, almost melding together appearing as transluscent, monochromatic layer atop the image; though VHS/DVD/SDTV pretty much made the grain invisible, this was once again the character of grain again with HDTV/Blu-ray.

However, we're now displaying films on dense, detailed 4K screens in 4K with a 4K source derived from 4K+ masters of 4K+ scans of the OCN.

With this we're not only sharply resolving much, if not all of the active 'grains of grain' but that extra distinction is making its motion more apparent, the colours of each speck are now evident so we're no longer seeing a seamingly coherent field as part of the gently dithered image but many outliers; organic errors caused by light bouncing around in the lens, the camera, on the film itself and the inherent 'flaws' of the medium.

While this may be true to the source; as in the OCN itself, it's not true to an original theatrical print. Even as someone who loves the look of grain and believes in faithful representation, seeing grain in the form of The Matrix 4K or Ghostbusters 4K threw me off a little, it's not that there's more of it or that it appears to dance and swarm more; it's that every speck is distinct and separate in both form and colour.

It could be said that it's almost too raw, we're not just capturing the detail but the space between. Which is great for archival both digital and analogue, but as a definitive reference for viewing that's meant to be representative of the theatrical release and the intentions of its creators, it doesn't seem like the right approach. It's like the closer you get, the more it falls apart, to me it actually resembles something closer to digital noise, albeit finer and more randomly placed.

Don't get me wrong, it's vastly superior to watching any DNR Waxworks Editions and I can certainly acclimitase, but I feel more nuance is needed.

I wonder if a good approach would be to take the OCN and strike up a new, neutral, high quality interpositive (or even internegative if you really want) and then scan that in instead. Detail loss would be minimal and grain would be, not so much reduced, but hopefully closer in characteristics to a theatrical print; think of it less as Digital Noise Reduction and more as Analogue Noise Restructuring, less of a down-res and more of a gentle organic dither.

Of course this line of thinking only generally applies to 80s through early 00s and/or films shot in non-ideal light, with non-ideal equipment and material using high speed stock etc.

Again, as I've reiterated, 'grain FTW!' but taking the OCN of an inherently grainy piece of material and running it through a 4K+ pipeline and displaying it in 4K changes the characteristics of that grain to something more raw and unfamiliar, even compared to a 35mm theatrical presentation. To summarise, I think it will better to utilise a new interpositive/internegative in these instances.

/rambling

I agree with a lot of this, that there's a middle-ground for grain to be handled in this age of ultra-rez scans off of the camera original, but scanning of a new IP or IN isn't a magic bullet because duping makes grain look coarser and less finely resolved, at least on 35mm. We'd no longer be seeing the space between spaces, true enough, but instead we'd have the chunkier, blotchier blue-and-yellow grain typical of dupes filling in those spaces, and the 4K HDR process is not a friend of grain/noise in any way, shape or form.

Heck, video itself is not a friend of grain/noise because something seems to happen to this organic process when it hits the rigidly coded and quantified realm of linear video, it seems to organisise itself into a 'harder' and more compacted form and what we're seeing in 4K is that effect pumped to the nth degree...depending on the studio and/or direction from the creatives, of course.

It's my firm belief that the Nolan UHDs got filtered as much as they did because even though the transfers were sourced from IP materials the grain would've looked more prominent than on the photochemical prints that they were likely comparing side by side. This isn't so much a problem when one is preparing a DCDM (which Nolan grades in the same way, side by side) and aiming for a 14fL projection, but when dealing with the vastly higher brightness of HDR something's gotta give, or at least it did in Nolan's mind.

Personally speaking, I love the way that the grain looked in The Matrix 4K. It's abundant but never overwhelming, as it can definitely be on certain Sony UHDs at times. But after lamenting several recent attempts to "manage" grain on certain titles I can only say that I'd rather have it looking grainy as balls rather than smudged to shit. The tools ARE out there to be able to truly "manage" these images and let the detail breathe whilst retaining enough of a semblance of filmic texture without surrending the image to a snowstorm of grain - which is the eternal juggling act for video transfers, balancing hard detail vs genuine celluloid texture, because those crystals of silver halide literally ARE the image - but you wouldn't know it at the moment!

I say that because we really do seem to have gone hurtling backwards by about 10 years to the bad old days of DNR, though I'm not surprised that it's the usual suspects who are carrying it out. Alas, the genie is out of the bottle regarding transfers from film negative and has been for a good while so there's no retreating from that (nor would I want them to, transferring from IP is not the solution IMO). But 4K UHD is highlighting it like never before and, just as with Blu-ray's grain battles before it, there's going to be a period of over-correction (and overabundance, in some cases) before the studios settle on a middle ground that isn't an exact replica of the negative (which was never intended to be seen) nor some bastardised version that's been drastically dumbed-down to appease Mr & Mrs Grain. O. Phobe.

In lieu of that period of enlightenment however, I'll reiterate that I'll take the Sony approach rather than the Paramount or Universal approach every damned day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

[Bourne1886]

" And people wonder why i get testy..."

There’s no need to get testy with people. If you put your views down in a forum some people will disagree with you and some will agree. That’s life. I respect your entitled to an opinion but I am allowed to disagree with you. Doesn’t mean I’m being disrespectful or looking to start anything. Whether grain is an imperfection like you say or not it does exist.

Personally I liked the Matrix 4K UHD presentation and the colour palette looked fine to me. I thought it was a big improvement over the old Blu-ray.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

This is a really amicable post full of compromise, concession to multiple arguments etc and I don't understand why someone would respond to it with dogmatic belligerence.

So giving facts instead of feelings and opinions is dogmatic belligerence in this day and age? It's no wonder scientists have such an uphill battle on things like climate change. As long as you're amicable (from someone's point of view), you apparently don't need to accurate. And if you want to educate, you're belligerent or a "TROLL". We don't need none of your fancy city learning here boy! Why don't you head on back to the land of fruits and nuts where you belong!

Try and convince flat Earthers the planet isn't flat. It's mind numbing. You could take them up on a rocket and they'd later claim you drugged them and put them in a simulator. They don't need any other "proof" (that most wouldn't understand anyway) than to look out on a field and see with their own eyes it's clearly and inarguably FLAT!

"You crazy with all that round talk boy! I can plainly see with the eyes God gave me the world is flat! What do you see? Circles? Hahahaha."



BTW, grain reduction is closer to pixel color correction. There are no spaces between missing. They don't remove pixels. They try and match them to the color they would have been if they correctly captured the image they were exposed to. Get too aggressive and you get color blur on borders and perhaps too even color, giving it the wax look.

The same is true with sound hiss or other noise reduction. It's easy to reduce noise, but to almost totally eliminate it without harming low level detail is much more difficult. Advanced programs like iZotope RX have tools that can do it (I've removed most analog noise and clicks/pops from LPs where there's less noise than the CD because I removed the analog source tape noise as well, but it's not easy without removing detail as well, but the tools are far more sophisticated than some Dolby noise reduction circuit from the 1960s. Some people love LP noises. I'm not one of them. I want the music, not the noise.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

So giving facts instead of feelings and opinions is dogmatic belligerence

So is this.

[Nothing371]

[bytor]

I think where VonMagnum lost a lot of people is his ranting about Ghostbusters. For the source they had to work with I think Ghostbusters looks amazing in 4K, the grain is just fine. It's people like him that whine about it are why we get waxy looking garbage like they did with The Big Lebowski.

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Super 35 *is* spherical 35mm, you're just using the whole silent aperture. In terms of the image area used for the final extraction then 2.40 S35 is hardly more than 2-perf Techniscope, and not all that different in terms of acreage than flat 1.85 shot in 4-perf sound (1.85 in 3-perf S35 is another matter).

I'm aware of that, but generally it looks smoother than standard 35mm.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I love the way that the grain looked in The Matrix 4K. It's abundant but never overwhelming, as it can definitely be on certain Sony UHDs at times. But after lamenting several recent attempts to "manage" grain on certain titles I can only say that I'd rather have it looking grainy as balls rather than smudged to shit. The tools ARE out there to be able to truly "manage" these images and let the detail breathe whilst retaining enough of a semblance of filmic texture without surrending the image to a snowstorm of grain

The problem of this debate is ya'll are being tribal. Everyone picks a "side"... This isn't a debate, though. This is an incredible ever-changing and complex set of variables. You should be flagwaving the literal middle, as then everyone can get on board.

Is isn't a case of "grainy as balls" or "smudged to shit". What a hideous dichotomy. The only way you say that is gross outliers like some have noted on the grain side, and T2 for the DNR side. Neither are where these tools have shon...

The middle is where the film grain veneer would still be noted present, but the DNR signature of smoothness would not be OBVIOUS. That is really the sweet spot. And btw, I would venture most titles, even from Sony, are in this range. You have to be really selective to point out overly DNR and overly grain-fest titles. And user settings are determining whether people see the unobtrusive grain left in there as swarms of ants or not. User preference for TV settings is very much a part of this. Not just the studios and what they do...

In short, I think the studios are doing a 75% good job. That's a good strike rate when there ain't no "standards" on this shit with PQ/artistic direction.