film grain (1 Viewer)

[FoxyMulder]

Well, about half the information on the imdb is questionable so there's that.

Aspect ratio, yes, i think the basic info on whether it's shot 35mm or 70mm is usually reliable.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi foxy,

after watching the film from yesterday, it is obvious to me that what causes the flickering is because of the old film.

what i am not sure of is whether the film itself is simply much inferior to today's film (which would not surprise me, being that there is some 50+ years of technology improvement), or is it simply that there is some degradation in the film, being that it is too old.

for example, there was already some explanation about the indoor scenes in the first 2 years of beaver, but i dont recall what it was.

since the film from yesterday would have had some grain (?), i may have been able to see it if i really studied it. but i just want to sit back and watch the show.

i will restate something that i have said several times before. the grain is not what bothers me. it is the constant flickering.

butch had the worst flickering of every blu-ray that i have watched. but there were still plenty of times where the flicker, if there, was not noticeable. or at least small enough that it was not distracting.

distracting is really the best adjective for it. if it is not distracting to me, then i dont mind it being there, cuz for all intents and purposes, it is not there, for me.

i guarantee you that the flicker is not caused because i have too much sharpness, too much color, or any other setting on my tv.

i get no flicker with videos, none last night with a current film, and less than 50% with older movies. the flicker comes 100% from the information on the disk.

i can only speak for my tv. the +20 sharpness is what looks best to my eyes. at 0, the image is a bit too soft. in other words, a face in real life would have more clarity and definition than a face on my tv with +0 sharpness.

if i had another tv, i would have to look at it all over again.

i have seen no benefit at all from dnr. if anything, a high dnr seems to have some degradation to faces that is not quite as good for me.

i am taking foxy's advice on most of the settings, including the 120 hz, dynamic contrast, etc. the white and black settings are at completely neutral. the tint is completely neutral - my eyes are sensitive to that, in that even 1 notch either way gives me a look that no longer looks natural.

i do like color in my life. so it is not surprising that i like a lot of color on my tv. but it still looks natural. i like clarity a lot. moreso than most people i know. so i couldnt stand those soft fuzzy large screens of yesteryear.

and i dont think i would ever want a large screen, cuz no matter how you look at it, there are a certain number of pixels that get spread out over the entire screen. this tv is by far the biggest i have ever had.

and i would be more apt to get a smaller one next time, than a bigger one. it is just that this model was one of the smallest that they had. i think this one is considered to be a 32-inch tv.

in some ways i admit that i have very different desires than you guys. i enjoy sitting up close to a small screen. i like lots of clarity, lots of color, and most importantly, a good story.

rather than desiring an escape from life, i tend to watch stuff that causes me to relate to real life. i have never liked guy-movies, if they are basically about car chases, gun shootings, etc. basically what are referred to as "action" movies. i dont mind having some action in the show, as long as it's main focus revolves around the characters in whatever story is being told.

i have never liked comedies. i find them to be silly. but i love to laugh. it is just that the things that are funny to me mirror real life. i chuckle at beaver all the time. june and ward are great. but i do not consider beaver to be a comedy.

 

[haineshisway]

Okay, this discussion has officially entered The Twilight Zone. I think someone is having us on

 

[jimmyjet]

for example, fiddler on the roof is one of the most serious movies ever made. its main theme is about a person's inner struggle with change.

but there are plenty of times that i laugh out loud.

one is where tevye feels he is losing control of his family. so he jumps up and down about how he wants to see the sewing machine. he opens the door for one second, and then says it is now time to go.

there aint a person alive such that feeling has entered his mind.

 

[Mark-P]

Okay, this discussion has officially entered The Twilight Zone. I think someone is having us on

Jimmy's new to the forums and hasn't heard of a lot of things the rest of us take for granted. Also he seems to think that since he started this thread, that it's his own personal playground which is why he keeps going off on wild tangents. He is also blissfully unaware of the fact that some of the participants in his personal thread such as you and Mr. Harris are actually in the film business with real-life screen credits!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Okay, this discussion has officially entered The Twilight Zone. I think someone is having us on

Ya, think????

 

[jimmyjet]

just because someone has real life screen credits, does not necessarily mean he knows everything about film.

but i am happy to hear from someone with said real life screen credits the questions i gave to foxy.

is old film quite inferior to film that they use today ? on most of the older movies, has the original film degraded in any substantial way ?

 

[ahollis]

just because someone has real life screen credits, does not necessarily mean he knows everything about film.

I think if you do some research on a few of the members of this forum, you will find that they just about do know everything about film. No one knows everything but they are very well respected and have directed film and restored classics films. One of the truly great aspects of this forum is the number of well respected and talented people that take the time to explain subjects to the novice, such as I, from 3D to Aspect Ratio to film grain to restoration. As you read through the threads of this forum you will learn a lot. I know I have and still can learn more.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

just because someone has real life screen credits, does not necessarily mean he knows everything about film.

Come back when you've seen the restored Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[jimmyjet]

allen,

i have no doubts that there are many knowledgeable people on this forum. which is why i feel confident that i will get an answer to my 2 questions that coincides with the evidence.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi steve,

i think that is one of the blu-rays that i bought, but havent watched it yet.

btw, i am half way thru chitty chitty bang bang.

so far, it has been too dumb that not even dick van dyke can save it for me.

however, the picture quality has been excellent.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

You are in for a treat with Lawrence. It is how most of us first heard of the esteemed Robert Harris.

 

[jimmyjet]

i know that is a huge blockbuster movie, but i dont think i have ever seen it before. i was hoping i might like chitty, because of dick van dyke.

i think they tried to capitalize on mary poppins.

but unlike poppins, chitty has no story behind it that i can see.

just a bunch of scenes. i dont mind fantasy, when there is reality behind it. but at this point, i am hoping it ends as quickly as possible.

i am under the impression that lawrence is a serious type of movie, so i am pretty sure that i will like it.

 

[jimmyjet]

re-reading my last post, i may have given the wrong impression. i was referring to lawrence as the blockbuster, not chitty.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I think if you do some research on a few of the members of this forum, you will find that they just about do know everything about film. No one knows everything but they are very well respected and have directed film and restored classics films.One of the truly great aspects of this forum is the number of well respected and talented people that take the time to explain subjects to the novice, such as I, from 3D to Aspect Ratio to film grain to restoration.As you read through the threads of this forum you will learn a lot. I know I have and still can learn more.

Completely agree. This is what sets this forum apart from all the others, aside from the fact that the discussion here is also at a much more mature level. The bottom line is that there are experts here who should, quite simply, be listened to, not argued with, when it comes to their fields of expertise. They should only be challenged if you have hard facts to back up what you are saying, not just personal opinions.

Jimmy, you may have particular tastes, and that's all well and good. But be aware that there are tradeoffs in every area. For example, Robert Harris has made it clear that grain is part of the way images are captured on film. To quote a Frank Sinatra song, it's like Love and Marriage: you can't have one without the other.

Another example: you keep suggesting that raising the Sharpness control above 0 makes things look more crisp. It does. But it's entirely artificial. With each digital enhancement setting on your TV, you are either subtracting information from a movie, or adding information to it that was never there to begin with. The results might be pleasant, but they're not ideal. The ideal situation is to see the movie with as close to 100% of its information intact. That's why Blu-ray was invented, to provide a higher sample rate, which in turn reproduces more of the image stored on film. It tends to defeat the purpose of playing back a movie from a Blu-ray disc if you then want to scrub the grain, sharpen the edges, radically alter its color, and lose subtle detailing in the process. In that case, it's probably cheaper and much more convenient just to view streamed movies on DTV or netflix.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi persian,

i have had the opportunity now to view parts of several movies in both formats, because they have come in a blu/dvd pack.

the blus are better. so i will continue to invest in them as they go on sale, if i think i may like it. i just rewatched "think like a man". that was especially cute, and very real to life.

i think the "ideal situation" is to view the movie in the way that you like it best.

starting with the blu-ray gives me better resolution over a dvd. so it would seem, for me, that the blu-ray is a better starting point, since i very much appreciate clarity. so much so, that i much prefer a smaller monitor, in order to get that clarity.

i guess with sharpness and color, i prefer to add something that was not there. and i certainly dont fault anyone else for having different preferences than myself. if you like your sharpness and color to have no additions or subtractions, then that is how i think you should watch it - just like you like it.

 

[jimmyjet]

but with regards to not arguing a point with someone who is more knowledgeable than one's self on a topic - i sincerely hope that no one here follows that guideline.

i dont care if you are albert einstein, your theories and statements need to support the evidence. and never bow to someone else simply on the basis that said someone else is more knowledgeable than yourself about a topic.

i dont claim to know even 1/100 % of what mr. harris knows about film. however, i do know that the flicker i see is not an optical illusion.

if i do not get an answer to my questions about why these films have flicker in them, i may never find out. i am curious about it, so i hope i do find out why they do.

NOTICEABLE flicker exists in the digital transfer of some old films, during some of its scenes. videos do not seem to have this. some of the newer films do not seem to have this. chitty did not have it, and if i recall that came out in the 60s.

but butch had a lot of it. and that came out in 9th grade (about 1969). i recall it well.

denying that the flicker exists reminds me of the story about the emperor without clothes.

is the flicker on these movies because of 1) degradation of the film ? 2) shooting particulars ? 3) poor quality of the original film ? 4) or some other reason ?

i dont know. but i do know that a correct answer must be in line with the evidence. that is part of the scientific method. if your theory does not match the evidence, then your theory needs adjustment.

the evidence is that the films that have flicker do not have flicker in all scenes. it only occurs in parts of the film. and even in butch, it was noticeable still less than 50% of the time.

but butch was the only film that had enough in it, that it really served as a detriment to my enjoyment of watching it. in others, i would notice it here and there, but sporadically enough, that it did not really interfere with my viewing of it.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I'm curious about your use of the word "flickering" to describe what you are seeing. To many here, myself included, "flickering" means a rapid change from dark to light and back again. That doesn't sound like what you are experiencing. Can you describe it differently? Also - please post the names of the movies you are seeing it with. I assume "butch" is "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", but some of your other title shorthand is unclear.

 

[Professor Echo]

I guess using capital letters must be as distracting as "flicker."

 

[Persianimmortal]

Older films can flicker or pulse if damaged (e.g. on The Man Who Knew Too Much BD), but I still believe that whatever this flickering is that's being referred to is either caused by, or exacerbated by, your settings. It sounds like it's occurring far too often and in too many sources for it to be source related.