Film Grain is it good or bad? (1 Viewer)

[Stefan A]

Then WHY do so many people bitch 'n moan ever-so-loudly when confronted with "film grain" on a DVD?

I wouldn't complain if I wasn't seeing grain in AOTC. But, I see grain all over the place. Grain generally doesn't bother me - as long as everyone else isn't talking about how a movie is absent of it. Why am I seeing grain in AOTC and no-one else does?

 

[David Von Pein]

Why am I seeing grain in AOTC and no-one else does?

Vitreous floaters perhaps?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Why am I seeing grain in AOTC and no-one else does?

I don't know what you're seeing, but it can't be "grain". It may be video noise.

M.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I saw film grain in AOTC also. It was evident in any of the dark or nightime scenes. The grain was similar to what is seen in the opening nightime scenes of the Harry Potter DVD. The new extended version of LOTR had far less grain in comparison on my set-up. The new LOTR DVD is the best transfer I have seen so far. Both were viewed on a Toshiba 56" HD TV.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Like all things, it depends.

At times grain is used as an artistic element of the film medium by those creating a film. Aliens would not be Aliens without the film grain the director put there via his choice of film-stock etc.

Then there are times when film-grain has occured due to poor multiple-generation film printing or low-quality reproduction. I doubt that the excessive grain that mars some scenes in the Sound of Music was really meant to be there (at least in that level of abundance)...considering that some scenes are gloriously clear and others horribly marred by horrific grain--sometimes shots within an otherwise crystal clear scene. That's a case of splicing together good and bad elements because no one cared to create a new (worthy) print from the source elements for the HD transfer.

My personal philosophy is that the DVD or HD digital image should look as close to the best-quality/preserved print as possible if that print had been created under the direction of the director, or that the image look as close to the source elements/negatives as they can if no such print is available or in usable condition.

-dave

 

[DeeF]

David,

Admittedly, The Sound of Music looks pretty bad on DVD. But I heard that the movie itself had been "restored" in the early 90s for the LD (very expensively done at the behest of the Rodgers and Hammerstein group). If this is true, what happened? Did they not use this restored version? Or perhaps they didn't make a new transfer? Or perhaps the transfer isn't high definition?

Anyway, this is a good example. Grain or no, many scenes are too noisy, and it's distracting. Video artifacts should not detract from a film.

 

[Ron-P]

Why am I seeing grain in AOTC and no-one else does?

Sounds like you need to adjust your sharpness level.
Peace Out~

 

[Kajs]

Admittedly, The Sound of Music looks pretty bad on DVD. But I heard that the movie itself had been "restored" in the early 90s for the LD (very expensively done at the behest of the Rodgers and Hammerstein group). If this is true, what happened? Did they not use this restored version? Or perhaps they didn't make a new transfer? Or perhaps the transfer isn't high definition?

This:
http://www.dvdreview.com/html/sound_..._special.shtml
shows that apparently a lot of work was done to restore SOM, the comparisons to the laserdisc are unbelievable. But the DVD did turn out to be slightly disappointing.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I saw film grain in AOTC also.

OK, once again:
You may be seeing video noise, but there is simply no way that there can be "film grain" in a source that was generated without using film.
M.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The DVD is certainly far better than the laserdisc,

however, that still does not a "restoration" in the best sense of the word make.

Apparently, Fox did not desire to restore the original source elements and strike a new print ($$??) and therefore the DVD is a motley jumble of shots from various prints all in greater or lesser degrees of deterioration.

If Fox were to release TSOM on DVD today in the same fashion as the current disc, you can bet that the reviews would be far less favorable (Fox released this DVD when we didn't have the track record of excellent restorations and DVD releases of classic films that we now have for comparison).

-dave

 

[DeeF]

Wow, that DVDReview article is very interesting, in light of what the disk looks like compared to other movies on DVD. Compared to its own self on LD, the DVD of The Sound of Music does look quite incredible. But clearly, its the movie that needs work -- the various prints do not match up well. But one really disturbing thing -- what's up with the cropping? If you look at those side by side pictures, it appears that the DVD has been additionally cropped. What? What happened to AOR?

These R&H movies were at the very apex and forefront of cinema technology when they were produced, and they should all be returned to their original state. In addition to this one, Oklahoma!, Carousel, The King and I, and South Pacific all need new transfers, anamorphically-enhanced, and Flower Drum Song needs to be released with them. It's quite interesting that the best of the series (for picture quality) is probably State Fair, a 3-strip Technicolor movie (in the Academy 1.33:1 format) which is 10 years older than the others, and 20 years older that TSOM!

 

[Paul McElligott]

Here's my Reader's Digest version.

Film grain that was purposefully visible in theatrical presentations (a la the Mexican scenes in Traffic) - Good.

Film grain that results from a careless transfer of a lousy print - Bad.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Paul, wonder why I couldn't manage to say in 3 lengthy paragraphs what you said in 2 senteces ? @ $ % !
good job

 

[DeeF]

But Paul, in your brilliant synthesis of the central paradigm of this thread,

How do you tell the difference between grain intended and grain inadvertantly produced? (particularly in a standard resolution setting)

If we could figure this out, the "grain" question might be moot.

 

[Paul McElligott]

The obvious answer is that one would have to see the film in the theaters and consciously remember the presence or absence of film grain in the projected image.

If you haven't seen the movie, ask someone who did.

Failing that, one could judge whether or not visible film grain fit stylistically into the movie.

 

[Aurel Savin]

Call me crazy, but I actually like grain. It definetelly ads a certain character or feel to a movie. But nowadays it seems that it is used as a "style effect" like on TRAFFIC mentioned above.

All I kept thinking of as I read this thread was of MEAN STREETS. One of my favorite 70's movies whose current DVD release is pretty grainy. But to me that movie was supposed to be that way. A pristine cleaned up transfer would ruin the whole movie for me.

Bottom line ... grain is good IMHO

Grain in most movies is almost an identifier of the time period it was made. Many 80's movies that have been released so far on DVD seem to be pretty grainy.

 

[Stefan A]

Ok, so what is the difference between grain and viseo noise?

BTW, my sharpness is on 5. When I had my TV claibrated the tech set it on 30. Mike Knapp also said it was sharpness, but it can't be. Now, when I turn the sharpness way up, the picture looks bad. But going from 30 to 5 (or 0) made no real difference.

So, again, what is video noise and why do I see that on AOTC?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Ok, so what is the difference between grain and viseo noise?

Film grain is that which makes up an image on film. Video noise is a defect in a video's representation of its acquired image.

DJ

 

[Michael Reuben]

and why do I see that on AOTC?

It's impossible to answer that question without knowing more about what you're seeing -- and even then, it might be impossible to say. Video noise can enter the picture at any one of many points between the source (whether it's a print or a digital copy) and the image that reaches your TV screen.

M.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Film grain is neither good nor bad - it is inherent and often inevitable.

Grain can sometimes add immeasurably to a film's look and mood - Jacob's Ladder and Shock Waves are two decent examples. However, discs like The Scarlet Empress which have so much grain it obscures many gorgeous textures and details in the film, can clearly be considered anomalies and at odds with the filmmaker's intentions (however, it should be noted that they were the only elements available for that particular DVD).