How many of you like grain in movies?

[fastica]

Sorry if this was already discussed but I just want to know if I'm some sort of weirdo, but I really like the grain in movies. For me it's one of the beauties of the HD and makes the movie much more cinema-like.

I think it happens something similar with the grain (at least in my country, were the BD it's in its beginings) to what's happened with the widescreen format when DVDs came out. People thought that with the black bars were losing image. Now with grain a lot of people thinks there's something wrong with the image. Don't you think?

For grain lovers I recommend obviously 300 and The Counterfeiters. If I print a screen of any of these two movies I can almost make sand paper... bad joke

Bye, and sorry for my English!

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by fastica

If I print a screen of any of these two movies I almost can make sand paper... bad joke

I laughed

[Batman1980]

The grain is part of the actual FILM the movie is shot on! Of course the director doesn't see it! To reduce the grain washes away part of the finer detail of the movie as it was intended to be seen by the director. That's why so many are raging over the transfer that a classic like Gladiator got.

[kevinbr100]

i like seeing the film how the director intended. so if they went for a grainy look thats fine. but unintentional and inconsistent grain can be annoying.

[dolphinc]

I don't mind a little grain in certain movies but I have to admit that Ghostbusters BD has way too much grain. It looked like the VHS version of the movie, a big disappointment. JMO

[Sussudio]

I usually participate actively in these types of threads, but there are always members who aren't able to see any other way past their own and resort to insults so I'll just say this: I don't think ANYONE should "have" to like grain, and I realize not everyone does. However, I do think it is important that everyone be able to make an informed decision by at least attempting to understand why grain exists, and that it isn't to "dirty the image." To me, statements along the lines of "grain sucks" demonstrate no evidence of grasping any sort of understanding and IMO should be disregarded. That's my piece

[TTC1984]

I'd rather have a detailed transfer with the film grain intact than one that has been DNRed to death, sacrificing a bunch of detail in the process.

Since there are so many "grain haters" out there, the companies should just offer two versions of each movie - a DNR version for the grain haters, and a faithful catalog master with grain intact. Considering how we dealt with the whole "widescreen/fullscreen" thing for years, I don't think this is too far outside the realm of possibility.

But long story short, give me a faithful catalogue remaster.

[dolphinc]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

I usually participate actively in these types of threads, but there are always members who aren't able to see any other way past their own and resort to insults so I'll just say this: I don't think ANYONE should "have" to like grain, and I realize not everyone does. However, I do think it is important that everyone be able to make an informed decision by at least attempting to understand why grain exists, and that it isn't to "dirty the image." To me, statements along the lines of "grain sucks" demonstrate no evidence of grasping any sort of understanding and IMO should be disregarded. That's my piece

Well said.

[Anthony P]

I neither like nor dislike it.
If it is intended then good, if not then it was there (when shot on film), is there (on the film master) and should be there (on the BD). DNR to remove FG is just eeeeeeeeeevil.
I also prefer film to digital (digital cameras just don't equal the image quality that can be recorded on film today)

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I also prefer film to digital (digital cameras just don't equal the image quality that can be recorded on film today)

That's not entirely true.

Logan

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

That's not entirely true.

Logan

Yeah it may just be me but I fully expect the Star Wars sagas to be among the very best in PQ in blu-rays when they finally come out late in 2013.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Yeah it may just be me but I fully expect the Star Wars sagas to be among the very best in PQ in blu-rays when they finally come out late in 2013.

As with everything else, it depends on the DOP and director to determine if an image looks as good as on film.

But if we go by a data standpoint, Digital is comparable to film.

Logan

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

That's exactly what I'm saying, it's hard for people to make the claim that the grain is part of the director's vision if the director doesn't see it when filming.

But the director and DP are fully aware of how the finished product will look--often with film and lens tests before principal filming even begins. So, given that the lighting, cameras, lenses, and film stock are all decided going into photography, it is then intellectually dishonest to say that just because the director doesn't see that 'grain' on the day necessarily also means it is not part of his/her 'vision' for the movie.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

That's not entirely true.

Logan

so which part don't you realize is true?

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so which part don't you realize is true?

As I've said it's up to the individual film crew and how good they are.

35mm film can look FAR better than digital given the right crew, but at the same time if you have a really good crew on digital it'll look better than 35mm.

For example, while I didn't much care for the MOVIE itself, but the images on Superman Returns were filmed on Genesis cameras,

http://www.panavision.com.au/News/Ge...n_Superman.htm

Sigel, a veteran cinematographer who has paired with Singer on several projects including X-Men, X2, Apt Pupil and The Usual Suspects, describes the images as “Great. The color and tonality of the pictures I’m getting seem very much like film, and yet to see it so sharp and grainless is wonderful. In some weird way, it’s like shooting 65mm.”

The visuals on Superman Returns I loved, but it was the plotline and story that I had an issue with, and most people if you sat them down wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.

Logan

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

That's exactly what I'm saying, it's hard for people to make the claim that the grain is part of the director's vision if the director doesn't see it when filming.

They plan for it regardless. Think about computer generated effects in post production. They don't see those things on the set either, but would you claim its not "director's vision" to have CG effects? How about color correction?

Originally Posted by dolphinc

I don't mind a little grain in certain movies but I have to admit that Ghostbusters BD has way too much grain. It looked like the VHS version of the movie, a big disappointment. JMO

VHS can't resolve grain like that, nor can it resolve fine detail as well as that either.

Go pull out a VHS copy of it and try to watch it.

For Ghostbusters, the grain is inherent to the film and it has always been the way it is. The only difference is that low resolution scans never showed it off because the grain actually isn't obtrusive and only REALLY shows up on higher resolution scans.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

That's not entirely true.

Logan

35mm has a resolution generally regarded as 4K or better, and yet most digital movies are shot at 2K. Not to mention color or anything else. I hear there are 4K digital cameras, but I haven't heard of any movies using them yet. And don't forget about different film formats like 70mm or IMAX. Digital isn't anywhere near that level of quality.

But guys, if you don't like seeing the fine detail in grain, you can always turn on the DNR setting on your hardware. Don't complain about it, just fix the it on your end. Same as people complaining about "black bars". You have a button that will zoom in and "fill the screen". Don't complain at us about the aspect ratio, and CERTAINLY don't demand that they HARDCODE the discs with detail scrubbed out or incorrect aspect ratio.

[fastica]

I think grain inconsistency sometimes can't be avoided (except using DNR but I don't see it as a solution).

I don't know how the negative used on film cameras works, but if it's like in photography (my hobby), it would be logic to have darker scenes with more grain because of a more sensitive film being used. Am I right?

BTW, please don't fight about this. I think there are director's who like to have grain in his/hers blurays transcriptions (Coppola comes to my mind), other directors who want cleaner images without grain and others who just don't care about this.

Also, to avoid confusion about the topic, I've never said "grain is better", I've just said I like grain.

We all support Bluray format and that's what matters

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

They plan for it regardless. Think about computer generated effects in post production. They don't see those things on the set either, but would you claim its not "director's vision" to have CG effects? How about color correction?

Obviously, but the discussion isn't about post production digital effects. It's about grain.

Repeat, about GRAIN, not post production special effects.

That's a pretty big reach, do you need someone to check on you to see if you fell off your chair?

VHS can't resolve grain like that, nor can it resolve fine detail as well as that either.

35mm has a resolution generally regarded as 4K or better, and yet most digital movies are shot at 2K. Not to mention color or anything else. I hear there are 4K digital cameras, but I haven't heard of any movies using them yet. And don't forget about different film formats like 70mm or IMAX. Digital isn't anywhere near that level of quality.

The Red Camera can do 4k and the Genesis Camera apparently can do better than that.

As I've said, it's up to the film crew itself to determine if a picture looks better on digital or film in the end product. You get a good crew on digital, it'll look better than film and vice versa.

But guys, if you don't like seeing the fine detail in grain, you can always turn on the DNR setting on your hardware. Don't complain about it, just fix the it on your end. Same as people complaining about "black bars". You have a button that will zoom in and "fill the screen". Don't complain at us about the aspect ratio, and CERTAINLY don't demand that they HARDCODE the discs with detail scrubbed out or incorrect aspect ratio.

Good point there indeed.

Logan

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by TTC1984

I'd rather have a detailed transfer with the film grain intact than one that has been DNRed to death, sacrificing a bunch of detail in the process.

But long story short, give me a faithful catalogue remaster.

Ditto.

[Hep]

I don’t think I have ever commented on my grain preference before. I see this as two distinct questions:

1) Do you like the look of grain?

That is to say, do you prefer a grain free picture to a grain filled one? The answer for me depends on the type of film and artistic intent of the director. A documentary looks great crystal clear and grain free, so digital cameras work well. However some films, like The Godfather, look great with all the beautiful grain intact.

Today directors do in fact have full freedom to choose grain or no grain by their camera and/or film stock selections; so yes, when grain is present, it must be part of the director’s vision. Having said that, when film is used I generally prefer very light grain (i.e. Baraka).

2) If grain is present, do you believe it should be retained?

I like grain because it carries the information that makes up the movie; without it we have nothing really. So for me the answer is always absolutely, yes! It should be retained, in so far as removing it is removing detail. From my understanding those who fault a film for having grain must by default agree with some level of DNR. I would not be averse to removing some grain if it could be done without any loss in detail, but to my knowledge this is not possible.