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

[WickyWoo]

And that isn't theoretical. We now have plenty of Warner titles (and even at least one New Line) that exhibit this.

Try all of New Line's output but Shoot em Up (which is a gorgeous reference disc)

Take it from a professional imaging technician for National Geographic Society, film grain is beautiful and essential to film. You should be elated that Blu-ray has the resolution and quality to show you the true face of film.

Listen to the man, how many of you grew up "reading" national geographic native tribe specials? How important was it that those photographs be of the highest quality?

[binarymelon]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Life, perfect?

If life is so perfect then why have thousands of people just died in Burma, why are millions still dying in Darfur?

No, Life is far from perfect and art, like movies, gives us an escape from the imperfections in life.

Content is a different story. Stop trying to make me seem like some heartless bastard by changing the argument.

[J6P]

Originally Posted by BluDomain

Why do you think "Planet Earth" was such a big
seller in HiDef? Probably because there were
more buyers that stuck to video methinks. I imagine
the BBC made a nice return on their investment to say
nothing of the CE's that sold BR players and televisions
because of it. This demographic probably is in the
millions.

Now just how many movie purists in the world touting
grain is a part of movie making are there. A demographic
of tens of thousands? I doubt "A Passage To India"
in Blu-ray made much of a return on investment or
sold any HiDef players or HiDef televisions.

Art is in the eye of the beholder or in the pocket of the
beholder to paraphase, and I daresay there are more video pockets with
dollars than there are movie grain pockets. Rubbish indeed.

That's not how art works, friend. It's not a democracy, and it's not mob rule.

I'm sure the vast majority of current Blu-ray owners would say they prefer movies presented in English, so all film should be shot in English to save them from the need to "read their movies". I can pretty much guarantee you a poll would be lopsided in favor of forcing all directors to work in English, and that all foreign catalog Blu releases should always be released in English dubs, with no option to hear the original soundtrack. (That's the real corrolary to grain, since once you smooth it in the encode, you can't go back.)

I hope that sounds ludicrous to you. But it's no less ludicrous to state that all directors should work in a 16:9 ratio, or that no current films should have grain evident, or even applied, as 300 and others have done, to capture the director's vision.

The people arguing against Bill's point need to realize that he and enthusiasts among us are pushing these issues for the good of film and for the good of all of us. You don't realize it now, but someday you might. The majority does not get to rule in matters of art.

This is the kind of thing that you won't miss till it's gone, and we'll never be able to make the turn back to pure, filmic integrity once the market goes the other way. Don't do it.

[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.

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by binarymelon

Misleading title. Grain is not supposed to be there. It's the result of an imperfect medium. Should it be removed after the fact? No, but it should also not be added because of 'artistic vision'. Fear of progress never got anyone anywhere.

Best post in this thread!

Look, IN REAL LIFE - *I* don't see grain.
No grain in dark situations, no grain in the background... none!

Am I suggesting that older "FILM" movies have the grain removed digitally? NO!

Am I saying that some directors are going overboard with the "artistic Value" and using grainy stock or adding grain like it is sprinkles on icecream? Yes!

Please, try to distinguish between film, movies and video people.

I got High Definition for the cleanest picture I could attain.
Some movies have grain - fine!
When you all praise a grainy movie(intentional/filmstock/whatever) as "Great Picture Quality" I have to laugh!

Sure, it's great that Blu-ray shows the grain, but grain in a picture is not necessarily
a good thing.
If you go have a portrait made of your child, and it comes back all grainy... is that good?
It's on film!
Y'all say grain is good...

[WickyWoo]

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.

There's at least one film that has come out in the last 12 months by a noteable director that was shot digitally, and then had a beehive worth of grain slapped on top of it, on purpose, at his express instruction because he wanted the film to feel gritty

The entire reason why one guy paints in oils, another in watercolor. Why filmmakers prefer more grain or less, why they choose to push reds or blues or greens or why they go for specific lighting.

If you don't like how they do things, don't buy them or go see their movies. Every time I walk out of a Michael Mann movie I wonder why I bothered, and then forget how boring I find every movie he does (Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in a gangster flick? Yup, going to see it again, bringing coffee and a pillow...) The problem is his movies sound so good on paper, and then his execution stinks.

Vote with your wallet. No DNR, no sale!

May the bigger wallet base win

[Scooby Blu]

This has been a great thread. And looking at the heavy hitters that are here this could be the new war since the Blu vs HD-DUD war. However, this looks like a Civil War. And I am all for GRAIN "grain has a certain vibe" Keep art for arts sake. Example, Close Encounters was a great blu transfer. Had not seen that film since it came out on opening weekend. It looked GREAT ! Grain and all !!!

[BStecke]

Have you seen the first trailer for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? It looks hokey and stupid because it has absolutely no film grain. The new trailer has some grain in it and looks much better, because that type of movie needs grain to fit the tone.

It's not fear of progress, it's creating a look that matches the story and setting.

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by J6P

That's not how art works, friend. It's not a democracy, and it's not mob rule.

Please. It is a entertainment marketplace that works on a return
on investment. Democracy and mob rule comparison is a bit
overboard.

[J6P]

Originally Posted by BluDomain

Please. It is a entertainment marketplace that works on a return
on investment. Democracy and mob rule comparison is a bit
overboard.

No, it's art. Art available for purchase.

You no say in its creation. None.

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Have you seen the first trailer for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? It looks hokey and stupid because it has absolutely no film grain. The new trailer has some grain in it and looks much better, because that type of movie needs grain to fit the tone.

It's not fear of progress, it's creating a look that matches the stoy and setting.

*SOME* trailers/movies have grain that distracts one's eye from the action taking place.
Watch the same trailers in 480p or the generic trailers.

Many movies we watched and now have on BD were either shown originally on the big screen or SD DVDs and on SD TVs

When watching in those settings, that grain is usually not even seen.

FFW to here and now...
We have these same movies transferred to Blu-ray and they are being displayed on higher definition screens.
All of a sudden, the grain that was barely seen or not seen at all, is now VERY visible.

"What is that moving just to the side of the action?"
"Oh, grain."

As with most things, it varies from disc to disc.
*I*(and many others) prefer watching the movie itself, and not being distracted by excessive "non-movie picture noise".
*You all* have the right to accept/like it as whatever you wish to call it - Film Grain, Artistic Value, Directors Vision, ???

*WE* also have the right to not like it.

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by J6P

......You no say in its creation. None.

After it is created I do have a say. I say it is good entertainment
with pristine PQ, so here is my thirty bucks. Or I say crap grain PQ
in otherwise good entertainment, so here is my fifteen bucks for
the SD version or $5 from the WalMart bin for which I don't need
to spend thousands of dollars on a HiDef television and player.

[BStecke]

So you'd rather have a 480i, non-grainy image that also has no detail than a 1080p image with 100x more detail and grain? Why DID you buy that high def TV?

There are some painters I like, some I don't like. But I'm not going to go to those cats and tell them to change their style because I don't like it. I just won't buy it, and I won't cry about how I don't like it. Simple

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by BStecke

So you'd rather have a 480i, non-grainy image that also has no detail than a 1080p image with 100x more detail and grain? Why DID you buy that high def TV?

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.

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!

Since the majority of movie purchases are still on SD DVD, and they are most likely being displayed on SD TVs, grain is non-existent to the viewers.

You and I have WAY better screens in front of us, right?
You and I are buying the Blu-ray versions of these movies, right?
With the hardware you and I have, any grain that is on the movie is WAY more visible.
Playing a SD DVD through our HW will upscale/upconvert it. The grain will NOT be as visible as it is on a BD.
This will actually present itself as a better viewing experience for many(most?) people...

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.
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.

[DutchBoy]

All I know is when I'm watching an older movie, that is the clearest grain I have ever seen in my whole life!

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Have you seen the first trailer for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? It looks hokey and stupid because it has absolutely no film grain. The new trailer has some grain in it and looks much better, because that type of movie needs grain to fit the tone.

It's not fear of progress, it's creating a look that matches the story and setting.

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.

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by BStecke

So you'd rather have a 480i, non-grainy image that also has no detail than a 1080p image with 100x more detail and grain? Why DID you buy that high def TV?

I bought the HiDef television to watch OTA sports, broadcast
sitcoms and premium channels. Guess what! In 480i or 1080i there
is a vast improvement on detail and no grain. I'm quite satisfied.
The same can't be said for 1080p of some grainy versions of optical
discs. Those grainy versions will do just fine in 480i thank you
very much. Hey, the grain is less obvious, and they are only fifteen
bucks.

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by dadkins

Best post in this thread!

Look, IN REAL LIFE - *I* don't see grain.
No grain in dark situations, no grain in the background... none!

Am I suggesting that older "FILM" movies have the grain removed digitally? NO!

Am I saying that some directors are going overboard with the "artistic Value" and using grainy stock or adding grain like it is sprinkles on icecream? Yes!

Please, try to distinguish between film, movies and video people.

I got High Definition for the cleanest picture I could attain.
Some movies have grain - fine!
When you all praise a grainy movie(intentional/filmstock/whatever) as "Great Picture Quality" I have to laugh!

Sure, it's great that Blu-ray shows the grain, but grain in a picture is not necessarily
a good thing.
If you go have a portrait made of your child, and it comes back all grainy... is that good?
It's on film!
Y'all say grain is good...

I couldnt agree more!

[J6P]

Originally Posted by BluDomain

After it is created I do have a say. I say it is good entertainment
with pristine PQ, so here is my thirty bucks. Or I say crap grain PQ
in otherwise good entertainment, so here is my fifteen bucks for
the SD version or $5 from the WalMart bin for which I don't need
to spend thousands of dollars on a HiDef television and player.

Correct. And I wholeheartedly support your right to do that.

But if the masses somehow force weak executives at the studio level to begin shaving grain off of catalog releases to placate you, that's another thing entirely. That's a slow death for cinematic integrity right there.

We all lose because of your misguided theories about film.

[Deciazulado]

As I've said before, the photographic image is made out from the grain particles, as this text is made up from the pixels on the screen. The grain particle is exposed to light rays formed by the lens, and reacts to it, the chemical developer activates the grain particle hit by the light ray, making it visible ("developing" it) the particle become opaque (solid), in other words, dark, that's why the original image is a negative: light hit = dark particle. The multitude of partices/grains hit by light FORM the image we see. Take out the particle, take out the building block of the image and it's finer detail and sharpness with it.

.