film grain (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

Exactly, we don't look at film grain but when it's missing you can sure as hell tell, detail goes with it and all too often they compensate with too much sharpening which adds it's own distractions, this is something we shouldn't have to explain to people.

I want to also add that the reviews mention film grain because film fans want to know it hasn't been scrubbed clean with DNR, if they don't tell us we won't know and might end up buying a poor release.

The last film i saw in a theater was The Hangover, a digital presentation and yes i noticed the film grain, i can't say i was looking for it, it was just there, i was enjoying the film, pity about the sequels, i have never seen the blu ray so don't know if they preserved it, but it was pretty obvious in the digital presentation i saw that there was film grain, so yes some of us notice these things, it doesn't mean we are obsessed with film grain, i'd like to think i know more than the average Amazon reviewer.

Yes some film makers from the past would have loved to have shot digital with no grain, i'm sure of that, the whole point is that we should preserve the films of the past, warts and all, and present it on blu ray as close to perfection as we can, that perfection includes film grain if present when it was shot, just because we have the tools to lessen film grain or eradicate it, it doesn't mean we should, of course we then get into the argument that going off the original camera negative actually improves on the resolution of the average 35mm cinema print and we get to see things not intended in more detail, wires etc etc, and i suspect that might also mean a sharper film grain than was seen at the cinema.

Sorry, if you're sitting in a cinema seeing grain then you're looking for it - that seems pretty obvious to me

 

[jimmyjet]

but foxy,

this is what i have been saying.

you guys are all saying that you like this grain.

but then you complain about the lack of detail, color, etc. when they scrub the grain away.

as i said, i understand that.

when i look at a film closely, i can see the grain. that is not the bothersome thing to me.

it is the constant flickering. and that is really the correct word, so i will revert back to using it.

if the grain was constant, then it would not affect me in the least. the only reason you get flickering is because of the CHANGE in the grain.

so a still shot will not show this. it is the ongoing of frame changes that produce the flickering. and that can be darn right irritating to my eyes. it almost reminds me of what we used to refer to as "snow" in the olden days, when our reception was less than stellar.

clarity is much more important to me than to most people. and it may even be more important to me than for many of the htfers, here.

but it seems as though the flickering is much more of a nuisance to me than to anyone else posting on this thread, anyways.

so much so, that i am willing to lose some clarity to get rid of it, or calm it down.

i have zero nostalgia for old technology. someone made the comment that i have just gotten used to video. that is totally incorrect, for it implies that it took time for me to adjust.

heck, from day 1 - video was tons better than film, just as cds were tons better than vinyl. i love the old shows, cuz of the content in them. i would be in seventh heaven, if they had originally been shot with today's video technology, and super high resolution.

in the olden days, what most of us did to determine the quality of the picture was simply to see how much halo showed up around the faces. the poor sets were really bad about that !!!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Sorry, if you're sitting in a cinema seeing grain then you're looking for it - that seems pretty obvious to me

Now you are trying to wind me up Bruce.

You are also wrong.

 

[schan1269]

JJ...

"the only reason you get flickering is because of the CHANGE in the grain."

What??????????????????????????????????

 

[ahollis]

hi allen,i was just commenting on what you wrote, or at least what i garnered from it.i have heard the "waxy figures" comment from others, so no doubt there is truth to that.

Understand. One great thing about this forum is when we disagree we try to do it politely. And we have.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi foxy,

is the movie "pawn" in video ? i am currently watching it. i have seen no flicker at all, so far.

 

[jimmyjet]

btw, i left brightness and contrast at a neutral 50. they are supposed to be about blacks and whites.

i put the color all the way up to 100. but i left the tint at 0. i do not favor a green or red face. i like it completely natural.

the sharpness i left at +20. i even tried +50, and it seemed okay.

i turned the backlight all the way up to 30.

i saw no difference in the noise reduction being off or on, so i turned it off.

if this was a video, i am suspecting that the noise reduction doesnt do anything, anyway ?

but it was great viewing. lots of natural color, sharp definition, and no flickering.

 

[John Hermes]

btw, i left brightness and contrast at a neutral 50. they are supposed to be about blacks and whites.

i put the color all the way up to 100. but i left the tint at 0. i do not favor a green or red face. i like it completely natural.

the sharpness i left at +20. i even tried +50, and it seemed okay.

i turned the backlight all the way up to 30.

i saw no difference in the noise reduction being off or on, so i turned it off.

if this was a video, i am suspecting that the noise reduction doesnt do anything, anyway ?

but it was great viewing. lots of natural color, sharp definition, and no flickering.

Color on 100???? If I did that it would look like Carmen Miranda on LSD.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I think this issue is less about grain, and more about Jimmyjet getting his TV calibrated.

If your TV is setup correctly, grain won't be pronounced in most titles, and flickering is due to refresh rate not grain. Jacking up sharpness beyond 0 (absolute minimum) will only artificially increase edges at the expense of loss of fine detail and the addition of white halos, and more pronounced grain. Noise reduction works on any source and needs to be turned off. Similarly, ramping up contrast or the backlight will only increase the harshness of the picture by blowing out whites.

All of these require that you research and calibrate your TV, rather than just guessing, messing around, or doing it purely by eye.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi john,

i expected it to be too colorful, like the old tvs would. but this was not. very enjoyable, but natural. but again, i suspect that this was a video (a blu-ray). the background was absolutely silent. i may find some very different results when watching a transfer from film, be it dvd or blu-ray.

this is a learning process, and at this point, i can only make statements about the settings for this one movie.

hi persian,

i understand what you are saying, but my eyes are the only tool that i use to watch it. i plan to eventually get one of the dvds that foxy suggested. however, no matter what settings the book tells me to do - i will eventually follow my eyes.

each of us has our own eye-brain connections, that probably dont work the same. what may be most pleasing to my brain may not be what is most pleasing to your brain.

they say that sharpness just does the outlines. but in testing it, i would have to say that it was completely false.

now i am mainly concentrating on the faces, not the scenery. with sharpness up, i saw no outline changes. but with faces, pores were more pronounced, wrinkles were more pronounced, etc.

i can actually say that the faces looked probably more realistic with at least some sharpness. now perhaps some of you prefer to see softer faces ? and i think i can live with a sharpness of 0. but at 0, and certainly in the minus numbers, the clarity was not as good to my eyes.

and as i said, the noise reduction did not make any difference to me, on this movie.

i am very particular about the tint. even a notch one way or the other gave the faces a bit of a hue that was not as preferable.

 

[schan1269]

Maybe his Indignia TV is defective...

 

[Persianimmortal]

Jimmyjet, if you want to learn about the basic settings, at the risk of self-promotion, you can refer to this page of a guide I wrote for HDTVs. It will give you the links and descriptions for a basic method of calibration that is reasonably accurate.

I've been down the same route myself, and it is incredibly tedious and frustrating to try to calibrate a TV purely by eye. What looks right or pleasing for one source or disc, may not look right for another, and so on. There are also a multitude of settings, both on the TV, and the disc player, that unbeknownst to you could be messing with the image.

For example, I run a Panasonic BDT-300 blu-ray player that by default automatically applies additional sharpness to DVDs (not BDs). It's an obscure setting found under a Display menu that is only accessible when a disc is actually playing, not the in the player's main settings. This means you have to go through the manual for your player, your TV, and your receiver, and check each and every setting to be sure everything is configured correctly, and that there is minimal to no interference with the image from source to output.

 

[Mike Frezon]

In case you've forgotten the mission of this Forum, it's to recreate the experience of a movie theater as faithfully as possible..

i was not aware that this forum had that mission.

Jimmy: You should make yourself aware.

The first few paragraphs of the HTF's Mission Statement:
Mission StatementThe Home Theater Forum is a place where those who enjoy watching movies in their homes can discuss all aspects of (re-)presenting films the best way they can. These discussions concern the film art itself, its products as well as the technical ways to create a theater-like experience inside a home.We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended. We respect the integrity of all artists involved in creating the original film as well as those who helped bringing the product to a form suited to be used in a home theater environment.The main goals of the discussions on the Home Theater Forum are to learn and to share: to learn more about the cinematographic art-form and the best techniques to present the films, and to share our knowledge with anyone who sincerely wants to benefit from the knowledge of his or her fellow members.Discussions on this forum are polite, cordial and respectful. We do not hesitate to express our opinion on matters involved, knowing other members may or may not share those opinions. We will always respect opinions of other members, even if we do not share a particular opinion ourselves. We will not verbally attack other members in a personal way, but instead try to contribute to the common knowledge about, and understanding of all applicable topics discussed.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi persian,

i like this statement of yours, and was actually planning to do just that. start off with what is "supposed" to be accurate, and then adjust.

i probably am one that enjoys saturated color !! but very particular about any tint changes.

In reality, some people will not like an accurate image for a range of reasons. This depends in large part on what that person has been conditioned to seeing. More often than not, the average person will be used to oversaturated colors, and will prefer cooler rather than warmer color temperatures. Thus when their TV is calibrated to the correct Rec. 709 Standard, whites will appear slightly yellowish to their eyes, and colors may seem muted. Similarly, the correct Contrast and Brightness settings may not represent a bright and vivid enough image, and the correct Sharpness may not look crisp enough to their eyes at first. Since personal taste is involved, there is scope for you to adjust the settings to reach a reasonable compromise between accuracy and the image which most pleases your senses. However it is always best to start off with the correct settings and then fine tune them as you wish.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi mike,

lets take a look at the first paragraph

The Home Theater Forum is a place where those who enjoy watching movies in their homes can discuss all aspects of (re-)presenting films the best way they can. These discussions concern the film art itself, its products as well as the technical ways to create a theater-like experience inside a home.

i do not take this to mean that we need to accept grain in movies ? do not the theaters today also show movies that were shot in video ? can someone not get the same theater like experience from a video ?

it seems to me that a theater-like experience may vary from one person to another, depending on the type of "film" being used ? if that is a criteria that you are using ?

with regards to keeping the movie as close to possible as what the creator intended - i would say that is most likely that the medium on which the movie was placed had absolutely nothing to do with the author's intentions. they were simply the medium available at the time.

i think it is a long stretch to think that the medium had anything to do with the author's intention, and more realistic to think that the medium was just the technology that the author was stuck with. in other words, if the scenes of a movie are the same, the meaning of the movie is the same, irregardless of whether it was put on film or video.

if this thread is a violation of any sort to the rules of this forum, let me know. if it is, then perhaps it is best that i leave.

if i cant state that i do not like grain in movies on this forum, then i truly do not want to be that hand-shackled in what i can or can not say.

 

[ScottHM]

i dont want it to look like a movie theatre. i prefer it to be as real-life as possible.

You can just sit on your front porch to see real life.

---------------

 

[Persianimmortal]

I'd be very careful jimmyjet. If you don't follow the rules, then someone from HTF will be sent over to your house to check to see whether your TV is displaying the correct amount of grain. If it isn't, you will be forcibly held down and have a simulated grain pattern tattooed onto your eyeballs to make sure that you can't avoid seeing grain ever again. It's no joke, I've seen them do it before, and it's not pretty.

Seriously though, I think the rules just refer to the concept that the forum promotes the viewing of film content as it was intended to be seen. No-one can tell you how to view movies in your own home on your own equipment. But arguing for the removal or reduction of grain on a forum such as this one is a bit pointless, because you're effectively arguing against accuracy, which then comes down to a matter of personal choice, for which there can be no debate.

If I were you, I'd have a crack at calibrating your TV as accurately as possible, then give yourself a chance to become used to the image. You will be surprised at just how much more pleasant an accurate image can be once you get over the initial shock of the adjustment. Give it at least a few days to adjust to the new image. Trust me, you will adjust and even come to like a more accurate image. You will come to appreciate subtle details and more natural colors, and grain will also become less of an issue to boot.

As for loving or hating grain, it should never be intrusive or distracting enough to cause either emotion to be honest. Again, if grain is causing you annoyance, then it's most likely a case of incorrect TV settings. In most cases, natural film grain just adds a nice subtle "texture" to a movie, which further adds to the escapist nature of films, separating them from reality.

In a limited number of cases, I prefer no grain at all. For example, the Planet Earth documentary series would look superb without any grain. But documentaries are meant to reflect reality, whereas movies are not.

 

[jimmyjet]

if you sit on your front porch in real life for an hour and a half, you can not be presented with what the creator of a movie was giving you.

 

[jimmyjet]

okay guys,

thanks for light hearted comments.

i simply like the clarity of video so much better, because it is more life-like.

i watch shows for its content, and what they have to say. the more life-like it looks, the better it is for my taste.

even as a young boy, i knew those tv images were fuzzy. but heck, that is all we had, so it still seemed great.

but seeing all these shows now in dvd clarity, makes them even that much better.

the content is still the same, but the clarity is so much better. the facial reactions are more clear, and arguably suits the author's real intentions. since the author is looking at real life when he shoots.

hopefully technology will get better, such that we have the option of viewing with absolutely no grain, and no degradation of color, etc.

then those who truly want to see grain in their viewing can do so, without the rest of us being forced to do so.

i am pretty sure that i am in the big majority with the masses. certainly a small minority here on this forum.

good night all.

 

[David Weicker]

I think the mission statement is vague in regards to this issue (as well as several other topics) in regards to presentation on media.
The vague word is Intent. The statement does not say that we are trying to recreate the original theatrical presentation, only what the creators were intending to do.
Grain is a byproduct of the physical medium - Analog film. As technology progressed, filmmakers attempted to have less grain (or at least less visible/noticeable grain). They developed better film stocks, VistaVision, etc. So some filmmakers, it can be assumed did not intend to have visible grain. Even with older films, it is impossible to know if the creators intended to have grain, or had to accept it as a necessary evil they had to live with.
It is possible, with today's digital technology (and enough of the right effort) to eliminate all the visible grain, and still have all the detail.
Since we don't know the filmmaker's intent - whether they wanted us to see grain, or just see the actors, scenery, etc., we don't know whether grain removal violates the HTF mission (regardless of how one feels about it personally). It really isn't much different than the argument over the forthcoming Shane release, when the non-theatrical version is embraced (at least by several HTF representatives) because we think it matches how the filmmaker ultimately intended it to be seen.