What is grain and what are the benefits?

[Blu n Gold]

I explain it like this:

The goal of SOME blu-ray discs is to make the movie look like real life (Pirates, Rescue Dawn, Apacolypto). Other times blu-ray discs are made to look like a cinema presentation (Close Encounters), which has a lot of grain, or aged (Bram Stoker's, 300).

[york weir]

I watched March of the Penguins over the weekend and certain shots had grain and others didn't. To say it's intentional, I think in many cases is just a cop-out.

[Blu n Gold]

Originally Posted by york weir

I watched March of the Penguins over the weekend and certain shots had grain and others didn't. To say it's intentional, I think in many cases is just a cop-out.

In that situation certain shots were not shot with an HD camera. Samething happens in Planet Earth.

[RUR]

Originally Posted by york weir

I watched March of the Penguins over the weekend and certain shots had grain and others didn't. To say it's intentional, I think in many cases is just a cop-out.

Lots of discussion regarding why MOTP looks the way it does here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...f+the+penguins

Originally Posted by Josh Z

The movie was shot in 16mm in the middle of the Antarctic winter using mostly telephoto lenses. Yes, it's soft and grainy. It's not ever going to look better than that.

People are once again confusing film grain with video noise. They're not the same thing.

The underwater scenes were shot on SD video using tiny cameras. You can see them being used in the documentary in the supplement section.
What were you people expecting?

Not necessarily intentional, but more likely a result of the cameras used, film and overall lighting conditions. Could there also be adverse effects due to the authoring/transfer processes? Opinions seem to vary based on personal recollections of the film.

[york weir]

Originally Posted by RUR

Lots of discussion regarding why MOTP looks the way it does here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...f+the+penguins



Not necessarily intentional, but more likely a result of the cameras used, film and overall lighting conditions. Could there also be adverse effects due to the authoring/transfer processes? Opinions seem to vary based on personal recollections of the film.

I figured it was a limitation of the equipment or the environment. That's why I said it's a cop-out to say it's always intentional.

[Kuraudo]

Are these both Myths?

1. HD Dud has a bit less grain than Blu-Ray
films
2. DVD because it is less resolution doesn't show as much noticeable grain
as a high resolution HD movie like Blu-Ray.

I heard this from a friend, but I have yet to find anything that verifies its truth. So these are lies?

Anyways I don't mind grain if it makes the film specific for it, its artistic in its choice.
However, I don't think Film Grain is good when you want to demo your new pristine LCD HDTV to a friend/Relative for the first time.

[Whytewash]

Originally Posted by Gavin Von Karls

To overly simplify things... Grain is tiny crystals or silver on the film that record an image when it is exposed to light. The size of the grain is dependent on the speed of the film stock and whether the cinematographer over or underexposed the negative.

For instance the 300 was shot on iso 500 speed film and Larry Fong underexposed in most scenes by 2 stops. This left an immense amount of grain on the image. But the payoff is he was able to shoot amazing slow motion sequences without a huge amount of light. It's not always budget related since Transformers was mostly shot on 500 speed stock. But the faster the film speed the larger the crystals and the more grain you will see. Also many cinematographers underexpose the film and then push it to correct exposure in the lab to bump up the contrast and give the film a harsh look... for example Mathew Libatique did this with The Fountain, this causes more grain. While in Requiem for a Dream he overexposed most of the scenes and pulled the film giving the image a softer look.

Now on the other hand in a film like Pirates cinematographer Darius Wolski chose to shoot the daylight scenes on iso 50 speed film stock which has smaller crystals and therefore much less grain... in fact it's hardly noticeable except in a theater.

All film has some grain whether you notice it or not if you blew the image up large enough you will see grain. I love it and think it adds to the experience. It's not usually something the Director decides to throw in for effect... this does happen every now and then, like in the Grindhouse pictures, but overall this is very rare.

I hope this helps!

And in case you're wondering I shoot film for a living...

that is probably the most detailed description this site has ever had! I must say, good work, Im gonna have to favorite this thread or something...

or better yet, mods can we sticky that?

[u_nick]

I think of it this way:

Asking why a certain film (lets say 300) has grain is like asking why the Mona Lisa has dark hair.

Why not blond? Maybe some people would have preferred blond?

Simply: The creator's intent was to have it.

[FilmmakingFiasco]

Originally Posted by Kuraudo

Are these both Myths?

1. HD Dud has a bit less grain than Blu-Ray
films
2. DVD because it is less resolution doesn't show as much noticeable grain
as a high resolution HD movie like Blu-Ray.

I heard this from a friend, but I have yet to find anything that verifies its truth. So these are lies?

Anyways I don't mind grain if it makes the film specific for it, its artistic in its choice.
However, I don't think Film Grain is good when you want to demo your new pristine LCD HDTV to a friend/Relative for the first time.

Having seen Paramount's Sahara and all three Mission Impossibles on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray, I will testify that, yes, some HD-DVDs had less grain than their Blu-ray counterparts. On each of these titles, the HD-DVD version used a VC-1 encode and the Blu-ray was an MPEG-2 encode.

These were rarely instances (and MPEG-2 can look fantastic in some cases: see Kingdom of Heave for example). It has nothing to do with them being on HD-DVD or Blu-ray, just the way that they were encoded.

2. DVD is less resolution and people were also watching them on smaller TVs with lower resolution. So, I could see how that could be true. (Doesn't mean that's the reason why there IS less grain though..just seems plausible to me).

[Zvi]

Grain as it was explained by Gavin exists because of the film technology imperfection. If the director introduces it on purpose that's different but otherwise it's there not because it's good but because film isn't good enough. I certainly hope eventually it'll be gone.

[Deciazulado]

Some general pointers about grain on photographic film:

A: low light scenes tend to be shot with faster more sensitive film that has more grain than the slower less sensitive film used for brighly lit shots like in daylight.
B: B/W negative film (silver based) tends to be grainier in the highlights (bright parts of the image) while color negative film (dyes) tends to be grainier in the shadows.
C: smooth uniform pastel color areas (like shots of clear blue skies) tend to show more grain.

Electronic noise from digital capture might exhibit similar patterns.

For more reading about grain or noise in images you can peruse this other threads too:


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

Film Grain

I now see film grain

2001, Close Encounters, Pirates - Film Grain

Poll Would you prefer 300 with or without grain?

The "300 is grainy!!" thread

"What's all that stuff on the picture?" "That's GRAIN."

[bix105]

Is it safe to say that the grain on film is equivalent to a pixel in digital?

[SDon1969]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

C: smooth uniform pastel color areas (like shots of clear blue skies) tend to show more grain.

I definitely noticed this (blue skies generally is where I will see grain if it is present on my BDs), glad to hear it isn't my imagination or TV settings!

[rebfandan]

Originally Posted by CAB

Needed for beer. Needed for single malts.

Ha HAH! You are the Blu-Ray master, my friend. BEER AND BD!!

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by rebfandan

Ha HAH! You are the Blu-Ray master, my friend. BEER AND BD!!

and blu corn chips?

[Yeha-Noha]

I have a cure for you. Watch Aronofsky's low budget yet superb film, Pi, shot in dark, grainy, often blurred and overexposed black and white, and you probably won't ever again notice any grain in other movies. Seriously, the grain was certainly an intentional special FX. This film must be in Blu-ray to show the grain at its best and the way it was intended to be seen. And if you think grain is bad, better reconsider. Aronofsky won an award at the 1998 Sundance Film Festival, but not just for the grainy FX of course.

[Gavin Von Karls]

I have a cure for you. Watch Aronofsky's low budget yet superb film, Pi, shot in dark, grainy, often blurred and overexposed black and white, and you probably won't ever again notice any grain in other movies. Seriously, the grain was certainly an intentional special FX. This film must be in Blu-ray to show the grain at its best and the way it was intended to be seen. And if you think grain is bad, better reconsider. Aronofsky won an award at the 1998 Sundance Film Festival, but not just for the grainy FX of course.

This is actually a prime example of the film grain not being a special effect. Although it was used in such an artistic way it's hard to know if it was intentional or not (I believe it was).

For PI Aronofsky and Libatique deciced to shoot on shortends. Shortends have much more grain than most any other film stock do to age and exposure to heat. The benefit was they were able to shoot a feature length film on a very tight budget due to the fact they were buying leftovers from previous films.

A shortend is what you have when a director shoots a scene say for 9 minutes which would equal about a 800 feet of 35mm film. Then the director decides to go for another setup/take. Now they know that the scene will require nine more minutes in the can but all that's left is 200 feet of film. So instead of shooting it they recan the film and sell it to a company like Reel Good. This way the studio makes profit.

The shortends are sold for an unbelievably low price, I've bought a 1000ft for around as low as 100 dollars. Most 10min 35mm film cans new from kodak are anywhere from 450-500... at least when I was buying them.

But I'm getting off track... Grain is the issue here and the amount of grain on a shortend is relative to the age of the stock and how long it's been sitting at regular room temp. Most companies that resell the stock don't refrigerate them. Most stock needs to be kept pretty cool in order to remain fresh.

Anyways PI is a good movie but the grain here is an imperfection in the stock and not a special effect.

[J6P]

Originally Posted by Blu n Gold

I explain it like this:

The goal of SOME blu-ray discs is to make the movie look like real life (Pirates, Rescue Dawn, Apacolypto). Other times blu-ray discs are made to look like a cinema presentation (Close Encounters), which has a lot of grain, or aged (Bram Stoker's, 300).

This is true, but you need to substitute "films" for every mention of "blu-ray discs" above. The filmmaker is making these choices, and they are made with regard to the theatrical presentation, long before the eventual home video release.

The goal of every blu-ray disc is (and always should be) to exactly replicate the image as it was intended by the director and cinematographer in the theatrical release. Grainy, smooth, whatever it may be.

[Gavin Von Karls]

The goal of every blu-ray disc is (and always should be) to exactly replicate the image as it was intended by the director and cinematographer in the theatrical release. Grainy, smooth, whatever it may be.

Couldn't agree more.

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by Gavin Von Karls

This is actually a prime example of the film grain not being a special effect. Although it was used in such an artistic way it's hard to know if it was intentional or not (I believe it was).

For PI Aronofsky and Libatique deciced to shoot on shortends. Shortends have much more grain than most any other film stock do to age and exposure to heat. The benefit was they were able to shoot a feature length film on a very tight budget due to the fact they were buying leftovers from previous films.

Anyways PI is a good movie but the grain here is an imperfection in the stock and not a special effect.

I'm sure Aronofosky knew that the film shortends would be grainy if you are correct in asserting that he used shortends. I don't know what he used for film or where he got it from and could have just as well been fast grainy Tri X film for all I know. Whether it be imperfection, artifact, or special FX, he put the grain and other imperfections to good use.

Whatever... I liked the effect of grainy black and white, and the excessive use of contrast to increase the effect. I think it was intentional and artistic.

It was a film of contrasts: order vs chaos, sanity vs paranoid schizophrenia, good vs evil, light vs darkness, science vs pseudoscience etc. Grainy black and white was the ideal medium in which to present these contrasts with the grain representing the static or background noise, randomness.