film grain (1 Viewer)

[Persianimmortal]

The same argument can be made for framerate. Films are only restricted to 24 FPS due to a decision during the formative years of film, not because that's an optimal framerate for the human eye. In fact human eyes don't see things in terms of a certain number of "frames per second", and 24 is definitely not a smooth framerate regardless.

So with that in mind, is it appropriate to recommend that motion interpolation be used on older movies, giving a smoother appearance to film, freeing the director's vision from an artificial technological restriction that they probably didn't want?

I think the basic answer is that the goal should be for movies to be reproduced as closely as possible to their original form. I don't agree with the Shane decision. I agree that if we go down the path of Director intent, or alleged intent, then things can get muddy awfully quickly (ala George Lucas and Star Wars). A safer starting point is the historical facts regarding how a movie was originally presented to initial audiences.

Then from there, I think it's up to each individual as to how they want to manipulate the movie in their own homes, with the tools at their disposal. Thankfully most modern display devices allow for a range of adjustments to be made to suit individual tastes. But the Blu-ray release should contain the most accurate representation of the original presentation to start with.

 

[FoxyMulder]

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.

That film you said looked great, Pawn, it was shot with the Red Epic digital camera, this is why you see a very clean image, it's intended to look that way, no argument from me about it's presentation on blu ray, other movies have film grain, see the post by Mr Harris about silver halide crystals.

As i have been saying from almost the start of this thread and on the other thread we discussed this, you need to calibrate your television set using the Spears and Munsil or Disney WOW disc, Spears and Munsil 2nd edition would be the better choice, they have made it more user friendly now and it can also calibrate 3D and audio, so if you ever upgrade that disc will come in handy.

Colour at 100 is a no-no, i also think the contrast and brightness and sharpness are all wrong, did you switch adaptive and dynamic contrast off too, all very important things to do, also check the blu ray player settings, switch 24p on if it isn't enabled, if you like the video look then switching the 120hz on at a higher level on your particular set can give you it at the expense that movies will look like soap operas, i don't recommend it.

Persian and i share the same opinion, you need to calibrate your television set, not by eye but by a basic calibration using a disc.

 

[Yorkshire]

You know my opinion on this, film grain needs to be retained, if it's a newer digital shot film then i actually prefer them to add a little film grain otherwise it looks wrong to me...

Foxy, I largely agree with you, but I can't agree with that at all. Indeed, I think that's every bit as bad as what you're arguing against.

I like my Blu-rays to look like the film they came from because that's (presumably) how the director wanted it to look. If a director wants a film to look grain free, then that's what I want, too.

Loving directoral intent is laudable. Loving grain for its own sake against directoral intent isn't.

That aside, I think we share the same general opinion, but maybe differ in extent. Just looking at the history of film stocks, and those used when making film, it's pretty clear that in the vast majority of cases directors went for the least grainy stock available, or if they used a particularly grainy film it was for cost considerations, rather than artistic ones.

That being the case, unless I know a director chose a particularly grainy look for a film, the absence of grain doesn't bother me to the clearly huge extent it bothers others - as long as detail is not also stripped out.

But there's a difference between what bothers me and how much it bothers me. In general, give me the film, leave it alone.

Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

Foxy, I largely agree with you, but I can't agree with that at all. Indeed, I think that's every bit as bad as what you're arguing against.


Steve W

My point is though, and i didn't get it across in that post you quote is that they do add some grain to digitally shot films, even Avatar had some, usually it's just a tiny amount, sometimes it's more, film texture is important and they realise this, take Zodiac, super clean looking film, highly detailed, it looks more like HD video to me than actual film, i'd have liked a small amount of film grain added to give it a film texture look, i know you and Bruce will certainly disagree with me on that, now having said that i can live with the fact it has no grain because that's what the director wanted.

 

[Yorkshire]

Cheers Foxy. I know we've kicked this one around for years, and whilst we don't have identical points of view, I think we have the same general idea.

There are all sorts of things I want, but which I'll never get. Some people call it settling for second best, but for me I've just learned to live with a few things.

I wish every film could have the attention (and money) lavished on it that The Godfather and LoA restorations have. But it's not going to happen.

I wish everyone mastering a film for Blu-ray Disc could have RAH stood over him to slap his wrist if he turned the DNR round a little too much. But it's not going to happen.

I wish every release came from the OCN. But it's not going to happen.

These standards - this attention to detail - didn't happen to every film in equal measure when original prints were mass produced, when films were being transfered for TV, for VHS, for LaserDisc, or for DVD. It's not happening for Blu-ray Disc in equal measure, nor will it for 4k.

The options are for me to learn to live with - hoping for the best, but expecting a mixed bag - or to get another hobby - or to live a miserable life where I'm constantly angry, upset, bitter and hugely disapoponted. I've learned to live with it, if only for my own sanity.

So I'm still putting up with The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and appreciating it as a stepup over the DVD (and only cost me a tenner), whilst hoping it'll get a re-release. Since it was released on Blu-ray Disc I've watched it three times, so I've got my money's worth.

Steve W

 

[OliverK]

I would think that directorial intent is often misused. Most directors never intended their movies to have grain, they just were released that way as it wasn't possible to release them differently. And I would like those limitations to be respected even IF it was possible to now take out all the grain and even IF the director would be happy with it. Somebody once said that the look of a director approved print at the time of release might be what we should strive for without revisionism and I think that is a good rule of thumb.

 

[Yorkshire]

I would think that directorial intent is often misused. Most directors never intended their movies to have grain, they just were released that way as it wasn't possible to release them differently. And I would like those limitations to be respected even IF it was possible to now take out all the grain and even IF the director would be happy with it. Somebody once said that the look of a director approved print at the time of release might be what we should strive for without revisionism and I think that is a good rule of thumb.

Agreed. Of course it'll be almost impossible to know for most films, Which is why the original look is what should be re-produced. However, for the same reasons I'm not too bothered in most cases when the grain goes AWOL.

Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

Agreed. Of course it'll be almost impossible to know for most films, Which is why the original look is what should be re-produced. However, for the same reasons I'm not too bothered in most cases when the grain goes AWOL.

Steve W

Okay but if the grain goes then in most cases so does the fine detail, that's one of the reasons it needs to be preserved.

 

[TravisR]

"Please make it known that anyone who attempts to remove the grain from my work will find themselves singing with the castratti."

I think I'd rather sleep with the fishes.

 

[Charles Smith]

Hey, this ain't no cafeteria. You don't get to choose.

 

[jimmyjet]

the author was shooting real life.

i see grain, frame rate speed, etc. as simply limitations - things that only deter from the real life shooting - that which the author was shooting.

but i am not really complaining about the grain, but rather the flickering, which is caused by the inconsistency of the grain.

as far as i am concerned, i am not even convinced for sure that this flickering was part of the original product.

it certainly only serves to detract from the author's intentions.

and it is not being caused because of calibration of my tv, the refresh rate or anything else about my system.

it is 100% the information on the disk.

the videos show perfectly. most of the film-based disks do not flicker most of the time.

the flicker is caused by the CHANGE OF THE GRAIN. whether that was part of the original film, or caused by some degradation to the original film - IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT PART OF THE AUTHOR'S INTENTION. there was no way for the author to control it. and was mentioned in a previous post, the least grainy films were chosen when expense was not part of the criteria.

it only serves to degrade the author's intention.

 

[jimmyjet]

someone mentioned shane. when i did some research, the only thing i could find is that the studio was changing the aspect ratio of it.

and the son was saying that this better represented his father's intention.

well that is 100% rubbish.

the only way to change the frame dimensions it to lop off some vertical or lop off some horizontal.

so the only possibility that exists serves as a detriment to the author's intentions.

while film, shutter speed, etc. are limitations with which the author has no control - the aspect ratio is totally within the author's control.

whatever frame dimensions the author is given, he works within that framework to depict what he wants to reveal.

if said author was given different dimensions, he almost certainly would have rearranged his picture differently.

but that is beside the point. it was shot in a particular aspect ratio, and there is no way to improve the picture by changing the aspect ratio.

 

[RobHam]

Foxy, I largely agree with you, but I can't agree with that at all. Indeed, I think that's every bit as bad as what you're arguing against.

I like my Blu-rays to look like the film they came from because that's (presumably) how the director wanted it to look. If a director wants a film to look grain free, then that's what I want, too.

Loving directoral intent is laudable. Loving grain for its own sake against directoral intent isn't.

That aside, I think we share the same general opinion, but maybe differ in extent. Just looking at the history of film stocks, and those used when making film, it's pretty clear that in the vast majority of cases directors went for the least grainy stock available, or if they used a particularly grainy film it was for cost considerations, rather than artistic ones.

That being the case, unless I know a director chose a particularly grainy look for a film, the absence of grain doesn't bother me to the clearly huge extent it bothers others - as long as detail is not also stripped out.

But there's a difference between what bothers me and how much it bothers me. In general, give me the film, leave it alone.

Steve W

This one issue I think is why Blu Ray never took off as a populist medium the way it should have several years back - there are conflicting demands on what people want to see from the Blu Ray format. For many grain is the evil that should be removed at all cost, but for others grain is the one thing that makes the format look like film.

My beef with grain is when it appears in "spikes" and disrupts the flow of the film - probably not what the DOP ever intended to be seen.

Patton (v1) and Predator are the two movies that tend to be bandied around as the worst offenders for de-graining on BD and held up as examples of why it shouldn't be done. However, the other side of the coin is what James Cameron did with de-graining Aliens before release on BD - to my eyes the final result looked superb.

This example alone is enough for me not to be in either the pro or anti grain lobby, but just use what my eyes are telling me on a case by case basis.

 

[haineshisway]

I've told this story before but I'll tell it again just because the elderly like to repeat themselves (in more ways that one):

When we were doing the Nudie Musical transfer at Foto-Kem, a transfer where there was a lot of discussion about the grain on the CRI, I refused to have any manipulation done whatsoever save for getting the color right (which we did) and for opening the matte to 1.78 (negligible, but IMO necessary to retain a true 1.85 frame since we were adding image to the sides that was on the negative but not on the prints due to the soundtrack. But I wanted to see firsthand what this grain removal and, more importantly, DNR was all about. I wanted to see exactly at what stage in the sharpening these "haloes" and weird edge enhancement things actually happened and how much you'd have to blow up the image on your TV to actually see it (everyone SAYS they see it, but they mostly see it by blowing up the image so that they CAN see it - why they do this I do not know or care).

So, I was taken into the room where that stuff happens. They happened to be working on a popular Disney live-action title. Two images were on the screen, one on the left, one on the right. I was told the left was the original image as contained on the negative. The one on the right had very subtle DNR applied to smooth it out. This was a film that never ever looked good in theaters due to a huge number of process shots, green screen, and standard opticals. So, I totally "got" that they were trying to help something that they simply had no technology to help back in the day - which is not a nefarious reason for doing it, BTW. Looking at both images I would not have to have been told which was which - the camera negative image was very sharp, probably sharper than any print would have been. The image to which very slight DNR had been applied looked good, but not as sharp - it was instantly apparent that detail had been lost and I mentioned it and was told they fix that in the next step by adding sharpness back, resulting in this slightly more pleasing image. I asked to see that.

I was shown it and yes, it had the appearance of getting closer to the original shot. But it still wasn't as sharp. And no, at that stage there were no haloes and no weird edge enhancement artifacts anywhere because what they were doing was subtle. I then started a rant about certain Internet boards and the crazy cries of DNR and edge enhancement even on transfers that clearly didn't have it. I wanted to see how far you actually had to go to introduce those artifacts. And so the nice gentleman began to push the edge enhancement and you know what - it took a LOT for one to be able to see it without blowing up the image x10. A LOT. In fact, until he pushed it so crazily, I still couldn't see it - I finally did, but few movies ever push that far that you'd see that stuff without blowing up the image on the TV or screen.

In the end, I told him I preferred the original image, green screen, warts and all because that's how that film always looked. If that film were being shot by the exact same people today, let me tell you in no uncertain terms they would dance a jig that it didn't have to look like it did when they were using all that stuff they had to use back then - they would LOVE it if it were seamless and beautifully rendered as it would be with today's technology. They had to accept the green screen limitations and the overt grain - they didn't WANT it. And it's a film I know really well because I happened to see a sneak preview of it early on at the Chinese Theater before all the effects were in and when much of those scenes were still in black-and-white form or the green screen was still in.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm just talking as a HTF member and not a Moderator so forgive me for making light of this subject matter. However, there are times when I feel like I'm trapped in the Twilight Zone and Rod Serling is finishing his opening segment on film grain again. I vaguely recall having this discussion over and over again. First time was maybe, 1999, then again in 2000. Now, I'm remembering similar discussions in 2002, 2004, 2006 ,2008, 2010, 2012 and now in 2013. What's weird is the same discussion points are made in each discussion before the discussion loses steam and goes away, but it always seems to come back for discussion again. Some of the discussion participants are the same, but we do get some new participants which is why this film grain discussion is resurrected for another round of "Where the film grain turns and can't it go away".

 

[FoxyMulder]

I wanted to see exactly at what stage in the sharpening these "haloes" and weird edge enhancement things actually happened and how much you'd have to blow up the image on your TV to actually see it (everyone SAYS they see it, but they mostly see it by blowing up the image so that they CAN see it - why they do this I do not know or care).

Your post was informative but it also misses a point regarding edge enhancement and "blowing up the image" and that is that a lot of us do not watch on televisions, we watch on projectors with 100+ inches of screen, in effect the image is being blown up well beyond the television size and edge enhancement is easier to spot, indeed it sticks out a mile.

I mention the above because you often tell me i am going up to the screen to look for it, well just like The Hangover ( and the film grain ) i can tell you i am NOT doing this, my eyes spot edge enhancement, i am not talking optical screen effects issues, i am talking real edge enhancement caused by overuse of the sharpening tool, the latest film, for me, that i have spotted this problem in is Universal's release of The Wolf Man ( 1941 version ) they sharpened too much and halo's are unfortunately quite prevalent throughout the film's running time, i didn't need to walk up to the screen, it was spotted from my seating position.

Now let me tell you a story also, i remember years and years ago when i was watching on a 29 inch television, this was in the days before blu ray, i viewed The Phantom Menace on DVD, i thought it was a reference transfer, i thought it was great, this was before i educated myself on things, i just couldn't spot the edge enhancement or harsh noise in the image, when i upgraded to my first projector i looked at it again, what a mess, so obvious to my eyes now, so yes you are correct that on smaller screens, and when we don't know what we are looking at, and sometimes we don't care what we are looking at, the issues are not visible, on projection screens they do become visible and we don't have to look for them, they stick out by a country mile.

So what is the answer to all this, should we go back to smaller screens and total blissful ignorance of any problems or do we campaign for better transfers, i would say the latter, indeed most new films are not a problem, the issues are with catalog titles, some are stunning, some are acceptable and some are below par, that isn't going to change anytime soon but i'm all for complaining when they don't do things right.

To the two Robert's, yes this discussion always crops up time and time again, i keep saying the same things, Deja vu.

 

[haineshisway]

Your post was informative but it also misses a point regarding edge enhancement and "blowing up the image" and that is that a lot of us do not watch on televisions, we watch on projectors with 100+ inches of screen, in effect the image is being blown up well beyond the television size and edge enhancement is easier to spot, indeed it sticks out a mile.

I mention the above because you often tell me i am going up to the screen to look for it, well just like The Hangover ( and the film grain ) i can tell you i am NOT doing this, my eyes spot edge enhancement, i am not talking optical screen effects issues, i am talking real edge enhancement caused by overuse of the sharpening tool, the latest film, for me, that i have spotted this problem in is Universal's release of The Wolf Man ( 1941 version ) they sharpened too much and halo's are unfortunately quite prevalent throughout the film's running time, i didn't need to walk up to the screen, it was spotted from my seating position.

Now let me tell you a story also, i remember years and years ago when i was watching on a 29 inch television, this was in the days before blu ray, i viewed The Phantom Menace on DVD, i thought it was a reference transfer, i thought it was great, this was before i educated myself on things, i just couldn't spot the edge enhancement or harsh noise in the image, when i upgraded to my first projector i looked at it again, what a mess, so obvious to my eyes now, so yes you are correct that on smaller screens, and when we don't know what we are looking at, and sometimes we don't care what we are looking at, the issues are not visible, on projection screens they do become visible and we don't have to look for them, they stick out by a country mile.

So what is the answer to all this, should we go back to smaller screens and total blissful ignorance of any problems or do we campaign for better transfers, i would say the latter, indeed most new films are not a problem, the issues are with catalog titles, some are stunning, some are acceptable and some are below par, that isn't going to change anytime soon but i'm all for complaining when they don't do things right.

To the two Robert's, yes this discussion always crops up time and time again, i keep saying the same things, Deja vu.

I missed the part about me suggesting we go to smaller screens. I don't know that I care to project an image as large as you are doing, but I am very comfortable with my fifty-five inch Samsung, which provides a wonderful image. I'm thinking of going to the new, larger Samsung in a month or so. I have no trouble, however, telling a bad transfer from a good one on my fifty-five inch screen.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I missed the part about me suggesting we go to smaller screens. I don't know that I care to project an image as large as you are doing, but I am very comfortable with my fifty-five inch Samsung, which provides a wonderful image. I'm thinking of going to the new, larger Samsung in a month or so. I have no trouble, however, telling a bad transfer from a good one on my fifty-five inch screen.

I never suggested you said that, i was offering an opinion on what we can do if we all want to see reference transfers on blu ray, it was a throwaway comment as in lets go back in time to when we all had 28 inch sets and smaller and sat twelve feet away from them, yes i can put a blu ray on my 60 inch Samsung plasma and also see good and bad transfers but when projected you will always see more and projected offers a more cinema like experience for me.

 

[Professor Echo]

I'm just talking as a HTF member and not a Moderator so forgive me for making light of this subject matter. However, there are times when I feel like I'm trapped in the Twilight Zone and Rod Serling is finishing his opening segment on film grain again. I vaguely recall having this discussion over and over again. First time was maybe, 1999, then again in 2000. Now, I'm remembering similar discussions in 2002, 2004, 2006 ,2008, 2010, 2012 and now in 2013. What's weird is the same discussion points are made in each discussion before the discussion loses steam and goes away, but it always seems to come back for discussion again. Some of the discussion participants are the same, but we do get some new participants which is why this film grain discussion is resurrected for another round of "Where the film grain turns and can't it go away".

This is how I feel about threads dealing with copyright infringement, they just keep reappearing and always with the same participants debating things exactly the same way, but as if for the first time. Like GRAIN and the ubiquitous "What Would You Like To See Most?" threads, it seems to crop up during times when there apparently isn't much else going on in the hobby.

 

[Persianimmortal]

This is why the expression "going against the grain" has negative connotations, in more ways than one