2001, Close Encounters, Pirates - Film Grain

[narrowgate]

2001, Close Encounters, and Pirates received the highest rating for video quality on this web site's reviews. As a novice, help me understand the relative absence of film grain (a "clean" look) in 2001, a nearly 40-year-old film, and the presence of film grain in Pirates: At World's End, a brand new film, and the "abundance" of film grain in Close Encounters? I'm not sure that a novice viewer would give each film the same video quality rating.

Is it the type of film used? or a filming technique? or an artistic decision?

[NoQuestion]

its a bit of all....most of the time its directors decision. Correct me if im wrong, but some movies can be put through a process of removing a majority of the grain. I dont mind it that much as long as it is not destracting me from the film.

[Verbal]

The answer is:

D) All of the above.

[Dotpattern]

And don't forget the type of lighting used.

[ryoohki]

2001 is a DNR mess.. there's almost 0 fine detail, look like closer to an actual Dvd upscale than actual HD

[sonicbox]

I (personally) think 2001 is an excellent release and was handled with care... and has excellent detail. I find it far better than any release on any format so far, including the last anamorphic DVD release. So, we can agree to disagree.

[JJ]

You know what they say, Sonic - opinions are like *******s, everyone's got one. Personally - I agree with you, it looked fantastic.


/expletive

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

2001 is a DNR mess.. there's almost 0 fine detail, look like closer to an actual Dvd upscale than actual HD

2001 is no DNR mess. That's false information.

[krazeyeyez]

as a tech noob i just dont understand why they cant remove or reduce film grain without losing detail....i just dont understand the connection between the two......minimal film grain is ok, but when its overwhelming its just unacceptable and distracting.

i don't know why but when i use the cinema setting on my tv it eliminates alot of the grain issue but gives everything a weird tint till i adjust to it.

[doctorsteve]

Many here have orgasms over film grain. Sort of like those that love the pop and crackle of vinyl records. I understand the allure of the nostalgia, but I like a nice clean look. However, grain does have it's place in contributing to the aesthetic on the screen.

Don't think a film is bad for having grain - if it contributes to the feel of the film, but when people talk about the beautiful grain structure. I cringe when people's eyes roll back in their head over grain.

Make your own choices based on your likes...

[richard lichtenfelt]

There's no grain on the blu-ray that wasn't in the theatrical version.
It's not a reason to subtract points from the blu-ray review score.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by narrowgate

2001, Close Encounters, and Pirates received the highest rating for video quality on this web site's reviews. As a novice, help me understand the relative absence of film grain (a "clean" look) in 2001, a nearly 40-year-old film, and the presence of film grain in Pirates: At World's End, a brand new film, and the "abundance" of film grain in Close Encounters? I'm not sure that a novice viewer would give each film the same video quality rating.

Is it the type of film used? or a filming technique? or an artistic decision?

2001 was photographed in 65mm which means its negative area is about 22 mm x 48.5 mm

CE3K was photographed in anamorphic 35mm which gives it a negative area of about 17.5 mm x 21 mm (equivalent to about 12.5 mm x 30 mm in flat photography)

Pirates was shot on Super-35 which gives it a negative area of about 10 mm x 24 mm

Film emulsion resolution kind of doubles every 60 years

Different emulsions (faster/grainier, slower/finer, etc) are chosen to shoot a film

When transfering to video you can enphasize or de-emphasize certain frequencies against others, giving you different looks, and also use or not various forms of grain/noise reduction.

Usually capturing higher frequencies (more detail) brings up the visibility of grain

etc etc

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

as a tech noob i just dont understand why they cant remove or reduce film grain without losing detail....i just dont understand the connection between the two......

Grain is what forms the image


(I said it louder here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...297#post478297 )

[Gremal]

Exactly. The only way to "remove grain", is to create a digital algorithm that goes in and attempts to recognize what is grain vs not grain and changes what it perceives as grain to the same color as surrounding pixels. There is no way this can happen without removing details and thereby decreasing definition in the picture. That may be fine for those who want a scrubbed, humogeneous look, but I want to see the source--or as close to it as I can get--warts 'n all. I also don't want a codewriter's algorithm deciding for me what is grain vs what is legitimate detail in the picture. I'd rather watch the screen and make that determination for myself.

And as for the wisecrack about those who "enjoy cracks and pops" in their vinyl records, that isn't the reason audiophiles prefer vinyl. It has to do with the fact that the signal was never digitized and converted back to analog.

[Mayor Quimby]

Actually, you're not seeing the original film grain at all in any disc but digital noise. Film has a resolution of well over 7000 pixels (grains) per inch. BD's are showing only 1080 of that. You can't represent 7 grains of silver with one pixel. The people doing the transfers can add more digital noise (grain) or leave it clean if it that effect is so desired. My personal opinion is that they should do what serves the film best. It's a judgment call in the end.

[Gremal]

It's not accurate to compare grain to pixels.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Mayor Quimby

Actually, you're not seeing the original film grain at all in any disc but digital noise. Film has a resolution of well over 7000 pixels (grains) per inch. BD's are showing only 1080 of that. You can't represent 7 grains of silver with one pixel. The people doing the transfers can add more digital noise (grain) or leave it clean if it that effect is so desired. My personal opinion is that they should do what serves the film best. It's a judgment call in the end.

Where do you get these numbers from? Fact is 35mm motion picture film of the last decades upto now have no detail beyond 4K. Usually you get all you need between 2K and 3.5K. So on HD there is some loss from going from 3.5 to 1.9. But 1.9 is still enough to give a quite accurate rendition of the grain. More of a problem is the compression applied on HD media. And nobody adds digital noise to clean material from film unless they want to avoid banding or unify the look from shot to shot. Noise/grain is bad enough as is for compression.

[Mayor Quimby]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Where do you get these numbers from? Fact is 35mm motion picture film of the last decades upto now have no detail beyond 4K. Usually you get all you need between 2K and 3.5K. So on HD there is some loss from going from 3.5 to 1.9. But 1.9 is still enough to give a quite accurate rendition of the grain. More of a problem is the compression applied on HD media. And nobody adds digital noise to clean material from film unless they want to avoid banding or unify the look from shot to shot. Noise/grain is bad enough as is for compression.

Experience. I'm a professional photographer and while it is true that there is no real true picture detail beyond 4K, there is more info there actually. Still, it's a moot point because 4K realistically is enough. BD is not 4K. It's 1K. All I'm saying is that you're not seeing film grain itself at all when you watch a bd, hd or whatever. If you scanned a frame of film at even 2400dpi, you would see what looks like grain but isn't. You'd know once you had the film drum-scanned at 8000dpi. And yes, many transfers do add some level of digital noise to film transfers because the transfers start out looking too clean and sterile. I would think that greater compression (ie HD-DVD) would counteract grain and noise.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by Gremal

And as for the wisecrack about those who "enjoy cracks and pops" in their vinyl records, that isn't the reason audiophiles prefer vinyl. It has to do with the fact that the signal was never digitized and converted back to analog.

+1 I have vinyl records 25+ years old, and their surface is as silent as the day I bought them. Why? Because I look after them (anti static sleeves, I never touch the playing surface, use the correct tracking weight, etc.).

[reginaroadie]

I have to admit that while CLOSE ENCOUNTERS looked fantastic at 1080p, there were a few instances where the grain and digital clarity did get in the way of my enjoyment. The shot early on the movie when Roy was driving in his truck and it's completely pitch black, there was no grain on it and thought it was a fantastic shot. But then you get some other night shots that are a bit grainy, and then during the last act, when the doors of the mothership open and the people come out, you can see this black blob that separates what's obviously model of the mothership and the plywood box that opens up. You never saw that in the previous editions, but you can see it with 1080p resolution. And it kinda robs you of the "suspension of disbelief" factor. If Spielberg had pulled a George Lucas and fixed that, then I don't think anyone would have noticed or cared.

It's still a great transfer. It just has to do with which kind of shot it was. In the making of section, Doug Trumbull talked about how you have to do FX shots in 70mm so that when you add it to the original shot, the downgrade isn't too obvious.

I'm not completely against filmmakers going back and touching up their masterpieces, if it has to do with fixing gaffs and errors. Like getting rid of the plexiglass between Indy and the cobra in RAIDERS, or the black lines in the cockpit of the Rebel snowships in EMPIRE, or that shot of the woman in BLADE RUNNER running through the glass.