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

[thegline]

An actual quote from someone hanging over my shoulder watching a movie ("Wings of Honneamise") remastered for Blu-ray. He didn't think the film grain was actually part of the image: he thought it was evidence that this HD stuff wasn't all that at and a bag of chips.

Has anyone else experienced anything like this? I worry that in a couple of years people are going to think film grain is this horrible intolerable eyesore, the way some people seemed to think black-and-white film was "missing" something and had to have color applied to it to be worth watching.

[SpikesBluBlooded]

I haven't experienced this first-hand, but I do know that there is a vast difference between film grain and B&W pictures. Film grain, IMHO, is not desirable, does not add character to a film, and I don't believe (with the exception of certain scenes in a movie to indicate age of a section of film, like flashbacks or memory scenes) that any director desires to see it in their film.

Yes, it is nastalgic to see a certain amount of grain in some earlier films, but quite frankly, I think the public, film afficianados, and directors will all agree, if it can be removed without affecting the quality of the piece, then do it!

[thegline]

Well, the problem is that the vast majority of the time it's not possible to remove it without adversely affecting the quality of the image. (The Wellspring DVD reissue of "Ran" might serve a good example of this: IIRC, they applied so much denoising and post-processing to the image that the result looked even worse than the original non-anamorphic Fox Lorber version.)

If a disc of a movie is grainy because it was struck from a multi-generational print, that's one thing, and that should be fixed if possible. If it's grainy because that's the way it looks, well, that's something else.

[miokti]

grain is only bad if it's un-intentional... Spielberg added grain to Schindler's List to make it look old. Grain was also added to 300, Sin City and Man on Fire to make the movies look gritty. Without grain, many movies will look like home videos.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by miokti

Spielberg added grain to Schindler's List to make it look old.

The grain was caused by a specific B&W film stock that was used. The higher the film speed, the grainier the result would be. If you shoot photos with ISO400 35mm film and without adequate lights, you're gonna get grain. ISO100 and200 had finer grain.


fuad

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

The grain was caused by a specific B&W film stock that was used. The higher the film speed, the grainier the result would be. If you shoot photos with ISO400 35mm film and without adequate lights, you're gonna get grain. ISO100 and200 had finer grain.


fuad

Exactly right. A lot of people don't understand film stocks and lighting conditions and the choices that directors and DPs make. A "grain-free" image is NOT always desired... nor is it always possible if it is desired. It's really not possible for those who weren't involved in the decision-making process to know why certain lighting conditions and film stock were used on a particular scene.

Unless the director or the DP specifically asks that the grain be removed from the video transfer, though, I really have a problem with messing with the way a film looks just to appease people who think film should look like video and not like film. Worse, the eventual outcome of excessive grain removal is typically a softer image, with DNR and EE effects to boot.

[emacs]

Originally Posted by SpikesBluBlooded

Film grain, IMHO, is not desirable ...

if you find a way to shrink the silver halide particles in film emulsion let people know.

[Kristin Simard]

Grain was something of a necessary evil in the days before computer special effects/CGI. On old films you can often predict when an optical effect is about to happen, when there is a reel change and the picture is suddenly grainy. Optical effects often suffered through multi generations before going to a master.

That is why 2001 - A Space Odyssey is such a remarkable film. All of those effects are mechanical and optical. No CGI at all.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Kristin Simard

Grain was something of a necessary evil in the days before computer special effects/CGI. On old films you can often predict when an optical effect is about to happen, when there is a reel change and the picture is suddenly grainy. Optical effects often suffered through multi generations before going to a master.

While copying film to film usually adds more grain, grain is part of all film because film is grain. Period. How visible this grain is depends on many factors. But it's there all the time, if you shoot on film. And HD must show it, because HD means HIGH DEFINITION, not HIGH DECEPTION. If you hate grain stick to movies shot on digital cameras and enjoy the noise there, which pops up as grain does when the circumstances are such.
Or better stick to noise and grain free CGI and animation. There you have only compression noise to fear.

[richieb1971]

If all my movies look like Silver surfer or Bridge to Teribithia with little to no grain. Then so be it. This is the quality I expect in every movie, not just some.

1080p doesn't mean diddly doo without a good clean master.

If you bought a new car and it had specs in the paint and the salesman said "Ahh, that would be the kind of paint used".. I'd expect you'd walk away immediately without hearing further explanation.

Thats exactly how 99% of the consumers feel about HD.

[Verbal]

Originally Posted by SpikesBluBlooded

Film grain, IMHO, is not desirable, does not add character to a film, and I don't believe (with the exception of certain scenes in a movie to indicate age of a section of film, like flashbacks or memory scenes) that any director desires to see it in their film.

Nice blanket statement there, Spikes...

...except it's entirely untrue.

[Deciazulado]

added

Originally Posted by thegline

If a disc of a movie is grainy because it was struck from a multi-generational print, that's one thing, and that should be fixed if possible. If it's grainy because that's the way it looks on the negative, well, that's something else.

well said





I guess it's worthless if I link those threads again. People will forever think film based photographic images are some kind of airy recording of photons in ether, having grown up watching DVDs and CGI and shooting with 5 Megapixel cameras and will never understand what grain is.

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

added
well said





I guess it's worthless if I link those threads again. People will forever think film based photographic images are some kind of airy recording of photons in ether, having grown up watching DVDs and CGI and shooting with 5 Megapixel cameras and will never understand what grain is.

LOL try shooting with a Digital Camera (normal.. none DSLR) at ISO 400,800 and you,ll see the new meaning of NOISE!

[sean10mm]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

added
well said





I guess it's worthless if I link those threads again. People will forever think film based photographic images are some kind of airy recording of photons in ether, having grown up watching DVDs and CGI and shooting with 5 Megapixel cameras and will never understand what grain is.

There needs to be a grain sticky at the top of the forum, I think. Then lock all new grain-related threads.

[Midnightsailor]

Originally Posted by thegline

An actual quote from someone hanging over my shoulder watching a movie ("Wings of Honneamise") remastered for Blu-ray. He didn't think the film grain was actually part of the image: he thought it was evidence that this HD stuff wasn't all that at and a bag of chips.

Has anyone else experienced anything like this? I worry that in a couple of years people are going to think film grain is this horrible intolerable eyesore, the way some people seemed to think black-and-white film was "missing" something and had to have color applied to it to be worth watching.

I just experienced this actually. Some dude that I know thought the grain were pixels.

[Blu Blur]

Age old complaint, it really comes down to opinion. I don't think it's possible to remove 100% of the film grain but with the HD era starting it's stride it would seem these classic film nuances will be frowned upon. As far as B&W vs Color I think the film should be left in it's original coloring, it does alot for the atmosphere of the film.

[gre8t1]

i hate grain.. i feel that it takes away from thr hd feel. but reading forums i have come to understand it. i have about 20 blu cases some have grain some dont. i see alot of people talkn about film and video. i understand the difference i think.. anyone correct me if im wrong.

ultraviolet = video wich could mean very little or no grain

black hawk down = film wich can have little to a lot of grain

[thegline]

Originally Posted by gre8t1

ultraviolet = video wich could mean very little or no grain

black hawk down = film wich can have little to a lot of grain

That's about right -- it's an aesthetic decision on the part of the director, and these days they can make those kinds of choices with impunity if the money is there (and it typically is).

As I was reading the messages in this thread, I thought of another parallel: maybe someday film grain will be seen in the same light as analog tape hiss -- something the CD revealed quite nakedly but which was generally buried under the surface noise of the vinyl LP. As long as it's seen as an artifact of its era, and not something that must be done away with at all costs....

[Kayne314]

Originally Posted by thegline

That's about right -- it's an aesthetic decision on the part of the director, and these days they can make those kinds of choices with impunity if the money is there (and it typically is).

As I was reading the messages in this thread, I thought of another parallel: maybe someday film grain will be seen in the same light as analog tape hiss -- something the CD revealed quite nakedly but which was generally buried under the surface noise of the vinyl LP. As long as it's seen as an artifact of its era, and not something that must be done away with at all costs....

Very good point. In modern films it will become less and less noticeable. Existing films should be left as is.

[Rustmonsteru]

Originally Posted by thegline

An actual quote from someone hanging over my shoulder watching a movie ("Wings of Honneamise") remastered for Blu-ray. He didn't think the film grain was actually part of the image: he thought it was evidence that this HD stuff wasn't all that at and a bag of chips.

Has anyone else experienced anything like this? I worry that in a couple of years people are going to think film grain is this horrible intolerable eyesore, the way some people seemed to think black-and-white film was "missing" something and had to have color applied to it to be worth watching.

I was showing my Uncle my new 52" XBR4 at Christmas and he wouldn't believe me that what I was showing him (Blade Runner) was actually HD. I think a lot of people expect all HD to look like a completely computer rendered Pixar movie. to them. Let's hope we don't get soft DNR ridden transfers once these people start crying in greater numbers.