Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo

Film Grain is it good or bad?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 of 54 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 15 2002 - 05:57 PM

[quote] ...the absence of film grain does take a way the feeling that you're replicating a movie theater experience when watching this dvd. [quote]
Are you advocating film grain?
I thought every video-phile known to man HATED it when they see even a single speck of grain on a DVD. Posted Image

#2 of 54 OFFLINE   Peter Kline

Peter Kline

    Screenwriter



  • 2,409 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 1999

Posted November 15 2002 - 11:56 PM

Grain is the essense of "film". Brush strokes is the essense of painting. Take them away and the soul is gone as well IMHO.

#3 of 54 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 16 2002 - 09:36 PM

[quote] Grain is the essense of "film". ... Take them away and the soul is gone as well IMHO. [quote]
Then WHY do so many people bitch 'n moan ever-so-loudly when confronted with "film grain" on a DVD?

#4 of 54 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,881 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted November 16 2002 - 09:43 PM

Because they either don't care or understand the difference between watching a dvd that's filmlike in appearance versus a dvd that has all grain removed from it, therefore, losing the appearance of watching film. Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#5 of 54 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 16 2002 - 11:44 PM

[quote] Because they either don't care or understand the difference between watching a dvd that's filmlike in appearance versus a dvd that has all grain removed from it, therefore, losing the appearance of watching film. [quote]
This seems very odd. Because I'm sure Mr. Epstein (who provides the masses here @ HTF with all those fabulous reviews, which I love to read each week) "understand(s) the difference between watching a dvd that's filmlike in appearance versus a dvd that has all grain removed". But (it seems to me anyway) that he places VERY high praise upon a given DVD transfer that is totally free of grain. (As if a grain-free image is the ultimately perfect way to view a DVD.)

I'm now kinda confused on this "grain" issue.
Is grain GOOD, or is it BAD?

Mr. Epstein, in his recent AOTC review, states......

"The transfer looks so absolutely clear and defined
that it comes just short of looking high-def. .... a picture that is virtually flawless in every aspect. What you have is absolute picture purity with no underlying film grain or noise."


Is this lack of grain not a good thing?
Or should we sprinkle in some additional grain and imitate VHS results? Posted Image

#6 of 54 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,881 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted November 17 2002 - 12:49 AM

First off, I have split off this discussion from the Sunset Boulevard thread so that we can discuss this subject matter without hijacking that thread.

Secondly, Ron needs to answer your inquiries about his preferences regarding film grain.

Thirdly, there are people who understand film grain, but prefer seeing dvd presentations without any grain or very little of it.

Below are a couple of threads that have previously discussed film grain:

http://www.hometheat....ght=film grain

http://www.hometheat....ght=film grain

http://www.hometheat....ght=film grain



Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#7 of 54 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted November 17 2002 - 02:22 AM

[quote] "What you have is absolute picture purity with no underlying film grain or noise." [quote]
I can't claim to speak for Ron, but this statement makes perfect sense to me. Many people were dissatisfied with the release prints of AOTC, because, among other things, they introduced analog noise into images that had been created solely in the digital realm. The DVD doesn't suffer from that problem.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#8 of 54 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,486 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted November 17 2002 - 02:26 AM

99% of the time, when there is film grain, it's supposed to be there. Period. ...but it's not entirely awful to have properly done digital video restoration like the kind from LDI and Criterion. They don't do thoughtless stuff like what Artisan did with High Noon and The Quiet Man. (which were likely automatically DVNR'd)

#9 of 54 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 7,983 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted November 17 2002 - 03:23 AM

Several points re: film grain... Film grain is good. and bad. Initally it takes a reasonably trained eye to discern film grain from video noise, especially on smaller display surfaces. Video noise is most generally seen in darker areas of transfer. On modern films, the grain structure of the taking and replicating stocks is so fine that it normally cannot be seen except in a theatre with high quality lenses or when a high speed stock is used. A knowledgable DP will know precisely what affect film grain is going to have on his/her final product, AND what the various duping steps are going to do to the product. Also, dependent upon the intermediate stocks used AND upon the generational elements used, film grain can be and often is all over the place in terms of what it looks like and how it controls the preceived image. A few examples: Chaplin knew precisely what grain would do to the image he presented on a screen. Hence, we when view an extremely miniaturized version of his work today on DVD of, for example, The Circus or City Lights, we are seeing "analogue artifacts" within and as a part of that image, which Chaplin did not mean us to see. I'm speaking here of wires and things of that sort. Chaplin knew that those artifacts would be lost in the grain structure (still fine grained) of the release prints which had been derived from a dupe negative, in turn derived from a lavender derived from the original negative. When David Sheapard and Pat Cousans of Image worked with the Chaplin preservation elements to create the current transfers, they used lavenders (or possibly fine grain masters). These elements did not cover the artifacts. When 2001 was initially printed in 1967-8, the floating pen appeared to be floating. Now, thanks to (because of) higher resolution printing stocks and intermediates, we can see the circular piece of glass on which it is mounted. It is the silver halide (grain) particles, which catch and preserve the light which makes it way through the lens creating the original exposure. The size, granularity, texture of those grain particles give a film a unique and individual look dependent upon the era in which it was created. The overall look of the film and the way that the grain is represented as black or gray or the varying shades in between is based solely upon that initial exposure plus the way that the grain stucture is then represented in the printing process. If one begins to lose generations, or if the wrong elements are used... or if all we are left with is a print, rather than a fine grain or lavender, or if all that remains is a dupe negative, we begin to lose the grain structure of the original and begin to see different grain (BAD grain) begin to grow, contast (gamma) begin to lose its middle tones of gray and go black or white, with a resultant image which is no longer representative of the desire (art) of the filmmakers. Which is why, within certain parameters, that I can accept a film like Roman Holiday, which is no longer representative of the look of the original, get yields a very positive experience. In certain ways, the same situation exists with Sunset Blvd., but with certain variations. Which is why these two releases, while not perfect, and while neither is representative of the original, are at least pretty. Therefore, in answering the question of whether film grain is good or bad, the answer is yes. And no. RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#10 of 54 OFFLINE   Dan Brecher

Dan Brecher

    Producer



  • 3,452 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 1999

Posted November 17 2002 - 03:28 AM

[quote] Because they either don't care or understand the difference between watching a dvd that's filmlike in appearance versus a dvd that has all grain removed from it, therefore, losing the appearance of watching film.
[quote]
Sadly rather true. Many just want their pristine digitial clarity, it's just what they expect from the technology we have right now. These people will embrace digital cinema as they embrace the (impressive but somewhat flawed) AOTC digital transfer right now. It's frustrating hearing people praise AOTC for it's lack of grain as it makes them sound like they're foolishly saying that grain is a bad thing, a defect of a "lesser" film based transfer. It's anything but...

It's funny, the higher resolutions of HD will yield more fine grain from film based source material, so we're never going to hear the end of this from a lot of people even when we ultimately progress to HD-DVD.

Oh I can't wait for Minority Report DVD on Dec 17th. Posted Image

Dan

PS: Blast, posts coming directly after that of one from Mr Harris always seem so very pathetic in comparison. Posted Image

#11 of 54 OFFLINE   Josh Davidson

Josh Davidson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 83 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 07 2000

Posted November 17 2002 - 04:19 AM

This is my view: Older movies had film grain in their original theatrical showings. I agree that if you prefer to keep things as true to source as possible, the film grain should be on the dvd. However, let's just pretend that everything had always been shot in digital. Then nobody would want film grain in the dvd transfer. Furthermore, I can say with fair certainty that if digital was the older technology most people would hate analog when it came out because of the film grain. Let's face it, would you purchase a still camera that had film grain?
Me

Help bring an Uncut version of Conan the Destroyer to DVD

#12 of 54 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 7,983 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted November 17 2002 - 05:03 AM

Had our classic film heritage been captured on digital, the majority of it would no longer exist. This is not a matter of opinion, but rather, fact as based upon precisely how film elements have been handled over the years. The condition of digital elements would, however, be much worse. There is no difference between a still camera and a motion picture camera as far as exposures are concerned, with the single exception that, via persistance of vision, moition picture grain appears to be much finer, as its position continously changes within the frame. If one considers the modern "digital" still camera, what you have in place of grain as a capuring medium, is the surface of the CCD or other chip and its own inherent grain or pixel pattern, which is far more course than film grain until one reaches a density of over twenty megapixels, which is by comparison, the resolution of a 35mm still or VistaVision motion picture frame.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#13 of 54 OFFLINE   DarrylWHarrisJr

DarrylWHarrisJr

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2001

Posted November 17 2002 - 05:14 AM

I hate grain. Give me my digital clarity a la Pixar/Dreamworks animation, NxNW, AOTC

#14 of 54 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,486 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted November 17 2002 - 06:10 AM

Speaking of Mr. Harris' comments about the wires visible in The Circus and City Lights... When LDI was restoring North By Northwest for the DVD, they made the wires visible on the crashing airplane. They had to digitally erase the wires since they became visible after cleanup.

#15 of 54 OFFLINE   Andrew_Sch

Andrew_Sch

    Screenwriter



  • 2,156 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2001

Posted November 17 2002 - 06:13 AM

RE AOTC: Why would there be "natural film grain" on a movie that wasn't filmed on film?Posted Image
"Old theatres are irreplaceable. They could never be duplicated at today's costs - but more importantly, their spirit could not be duplicated because they remind us of a day when going to the show was a more glorious and escapist experience. I think a town's old theatres are the sanctuary of...

#16 of 54 OFFLINE   Jim Peavy

Jim Peavy

    Supporting Actor



  • 717 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2002

Posted November 17 2002 - 06:38 AM

Well, certainly if you want clarity and sharpness of image it is a "bad thing." I mean, as film stocks have improved, grain has reduced. The examples given of film-makers have been more instances of film grain being taken into account when filming as opposed to using inherent grain in the design process.
"I just pre-ordered I DRINK YOUR BLOOD, even though I have no job."

#17 of 54 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer



  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted November 17 2002 - 06:41 AM

[quote] RE AOTC: Why would there be "natural film grain" on a movie that wasn't filmed on film [quote]

It's CCD noise. Look at any camcorder and you'll see it. Stray photons hitting the imaging area

#18 of 54 OFFLINE   DeeF

DeeF

    Screenwriter



  • 1,679 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 2002

Posted November 17 2002 - 06:54 AM

Now, Voyager is a DVD where the film grain has been removed, or minimized. And you can see the pancake makeup on the actors faces -- it's too clean a picture. I myself like film grain, because it adds a texture to the picture that is pleasurable. But I think most people are reacting to something other than "grain" when they call a picture grainy. DVDs are standard resolution. There are choppy edges, dancing backgrounds, and faces that change color in the middle of a shot. My plasma has the additional problem of "false contouring," which really is pointed on a poor DVD. Some transfers seem to come from prints from several generations down, and they look contrasty and blocky, and often show banding of gradiaded areas. It is an effect that Mr. Harris once called (if I may paraphrase) "son of King Kong -- all teeth and eyes" -- in other words, very little detail, because the blacks and whites are too solid. In order to see details, and different levels of gray, there must be some areas of lower contrast, and these tend to look "grainy" on our monitors, particularly in dark scenes. On my plasma, all High Definition sources (from my cable) look amazingly good, much better than the DVD of the same piece (Forrest Gump is a good example). The high definition transfer doesn't remove the grain, but it does improve the edges without enhancement, and the banding and blockiness of background areas.

#19 of 54 OFFLINE   AaronMK

AaronMK

    Supporting Actor



  • 768 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Karp
  • LocationOrlando, FL

Posted November 17 2002 - 07:53 AM

I was always under the impression that different film stocks had different grain characteristics, and that the chioce of which film stock to use reflected an artistic intention. This would be like painter's preference towards water colors or oil based paints. With this mind set, why would the film grain being accurately reproduced on the DVD be bad? Wouldn't that be just like saying a transfer of Schindler's List is bad because it is black and white? (aside from the ocassional use of color in that film, of course) But then, what about when the intent is to create as realistic a picture as possible (like the events are happening right in front of you), and the decission of film stock reflects a "lesser of evils" choice on the part of the film makers? In this case my preference would that they don't try and remove the film grain, even if the noise and grain reduction techniques didn't have their on set of side effects. Why should the people doing the tranfer and compression try and second guess these decissions that have already been made. I don't think you can ever go wrong with transfering from the source to DVD with the end result being as close to the source as possible.

#20 of 54 OFFLINE   John Miles

John Miles

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 237 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2000

Posted November 17 2002 - 09:46 AM

This is one of those cases where the artist (DP or director)'s original intent should be followed religiously, I think. Eyes Wide Shut would be an entirely different-looking film without the ethereal, timeless quality imparted by its grainy appearance. The result was something Kubrick and his team fully intended to achieve, and this is something the DVD authors have to take into account. By the same token, a grainy look doesn't make much sense for AOTC. The analogy to brush strokes is a good one... you wouldn't run a smoothing filter on a Pointillist painting, would you?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users