As I watch more and more titles on BD I have become introduced to grain, something that I rarely saw on sd DVD. Many say its the directors intent for the grain, but my opinion is that i think its makes a hd pq look horrible and distracting. Just wondering what everyones opinion is on grain. Do you like it,hate it?

I personally dont care for grain whether it was intended or not.

-Tom

Same here but I suppose I can live with it if its relatively low level, such as in Kingdom of Heaven and Tears of the Sun, but not if its overdone as seems to be the case with Miami Vice on HD-DVD, The Italian Job, etc. I especially don't like the concept of applying artificial grain to movies that did not originally have grain.

Absolutely hate it, be it the intention of the director or not. Who came up with the idea that intentionally reducing the quality of the film makes it better? Take Traffic on HD-DVD or the The Devils Rejects for instance. I know these movies intentionally had a grittier look because of the subject matter, but seriously, I don't think a less hazy, cleaner picture would detract from the subject matter at all. Drug deals, and homocidal maniacs are not automatically more interesting when the picture looks like you smeared your screen with vaseline.

interesting...
Does anyone think Saving Private Ryan would be better if it were grain free with fully saturated colors instead of the way it now looks (which was indeed intentional) ?

interesting...
Does anyone think Saving Private Ryan would be better if it were grain free with fully saturated colors instead of the way it now looks (which was indeed intentional) ?

Can't speak for anyone else, but it wouldn't bother me one bit. Besides, due to the drab locales in the movie, it would never look as vibrant and colorful like Crank for instance. Grain is just something I can't appreciate. I've tried, but I simply don't care for it, intended or not.

:) You just made my point, actually. Why do you think the locales are "drab"...?
Do you know what the beach at normandy really looks like..? It doesn't look drab in actuality. They used a bleach bypass process specifically to de-saturate the film and give the locales that "drab" look. The French countryside does not actually have that bluish, desaturated cast to it in reality.

http://www.redpawmedia.com/bleachbypass.html

and here's a computer program that simulates it. If you move your mouse over the pic. you will see a similar image to what they did on SPR... However, in reality, the actual image was normal, much less grainy and more saturated.


http://www.redpawmedia.com/

oh, there's grain at 720P, TRUST me!

;)

I just want my HD media to look the way it was supposed to, just like with OAR. If say, Spielberg wants SPR to look grainy and be desaturated to more closely resemble WWII newsreel footage then that's what I want. I don't want some studio tech. slapping DNR all over the image. We had plenty of that with dvd....

but that's just me.

I just want my HD media to look the way it was supposed to, just like with OAR. If say, Spielberg wants SPR to look grainy and be desaturated to more closely resemble WWII newsreel footage then that's what I want. I don't want some studio tech. slapping DNR all over the image. We had plenty of that with dvd....

^What he said. I think the reason people didn't notice it as much with DVD is because the resolution wasn't high enough to resolve all of it.

I actually loved the blues in KOH. Thought it was really interesting.
Was also my first BD experience so it was like, a whole new level of blue!

:)

SirD

One thing that always annoyed me even with SD dvd was when a film would have LOTS more detail say, in the deleted scenes than the film. Road to Perdition to me looks awful, filtered, soft, edge enhanced, basically a very disappointing transfer on my 92" screen.
Then when I was watching the deleted scenes it was like a veil had been lifted. There was SO much more detail and virtually no EE. In one deleted scene they actually switched from a shot from the final film to the deleted scene and in the same shot, (no cut) the PQ increased so dramatically it was ridiculous.

:)

Road to Perdition to me looks awful, filtered, soft, edge enhanced, basically a very disappointing transfer on my 92" screen.
Then when I was watching the deleted scenes it was like a veil had been lifted. There was SO much more detail and virtually no EE. In one deleted scene they actually switched from a shot from the final film to the deleted scene and in the same shot, (no cut) the PQ increased so dramatically it was ridiculous.

:)

Yeah, I remember being disappointed with RTP when I saw it using TheaterTek on a computer monitor as opposed to a standard DVD player and television. I'll have to look at the deleted scenes again to see the difference. Hopefully we'll get less filtered titles this go-around.

oh, there's grain at 720P, TRUST me!

;)

I just want my HD media to look the way it was supposed to, just like with OAR. If say, Spielberg wants SPR to look grainy and be desaturated to more closely resemble WWII newsreel footage then that's what I want. I don't want some studio tech. slapping DNR all over the image. We had plenty of that with dvd....

but that's just me.

Agreed. No more EE and other studio "improvements". With BR and HD DVD we are getting close to original master quality; let's keep it that way.

and I could tell it was such beautiful cinematography too, Conrad Hall.
However, it was like looking through a foggy window watching it.

Wait a tic... Why does Miami Vice have grain at all? Wasn't it shot digitally?

If they added grain to the movie to give it a "film-like" appearance, then there's your answer.. "Director's intent".

Personally, grain doesn't bother me that much. It's film.. film has grain, the end. The only time it's a problem is when they make no effort to remaster the film at all. Excessive grain, which is easily removed, can lead to compression problems. But there are only few films that have this type of "excessive" grain.. most have "normal" grain.

digitally shot "films" can have video "noise". Similar to grain.

Even as a modest filmmaker I've never been a fan of grain/noise. It usually isn't as bad/annoying in the theatre, however it did ruin Miami Vice for me. To me, Mann is giving HD filmmaking a bad name which is sad since he does some great stuff. There are shots in MV that look like they were shot with a VHS camcorder.

There are very few times when grain is appreciated, so I voted it is distracting.

If the grain is intended, fine. If it's not, then not fine. By the way, how do you know if it was intended or not?

I dont like grain, but I also dont want someone to try to blur it out of existence. What ever is there, is there.

I want the films to look like they looked in the theatre if they were shot on film. If it was shot in HD like Crank then I want the disc to take advantage of that and not use a film print as a source. I don't want the studios airbrushing out all the grain making every film look like Ultraviolet.

If the movie was intended to have grain, I want to see it on the HD disc.

Jeez, not many votes yet, but about 40% already say they hate grain... unbelievable. I hope the studios won't get any funny ideas and start to use filters on transfers to remove grain. It's how a movie was shot and there is a reason we have grain in movies. Accept it, or don't buy the movie. If studios should really start with their filters again (just like they did on DVD), I wish that both HD formats would fail... they should then give us a brand new format (with grain) and price the movies at $150 each. Reminds me of the good old Laserdiscs... at least back then, stuff didn't have to be mainstream.

You don't like grain, go watch cartoons.

Removing would be a "lossy" transfer, grain is information. I want as close as possible to exact transfers to the masters, nothing more.

I agree with everyone that I dislike grain. I love movies shot in video and wish every director would switch.

Jeez, not many votes yet, but about 40% already say they hate grain... unbelievable. I hope the studios won't get any funny ideas and start to use filters on transfers to remove grain. It's how a movie was shot and there is a reason we have grain in movies. Accept it, or don't buy the movie. If studios should really start with their filters again (just like they did on DVD), I wish that both HD formats would fail... they should then give us a brand new format (with grain) and price the movies at $150 each. Reminds me of the good old Laserdiscs... at least back then, stuff didn't have to be mainstream.

How do you know when grain is intended and when it isn't? I do not like lots of grain in movies in which it looks out of place.

whoever voted for the first 2 needs my foot in their ass promptly :mad:

when will people understand that compression issues don't cause grain :( if grain is seen in something then it is supposed to be there either intentionally or by nature of film

I also seriously doubt any form of "screwing the pooch" during mastering could cause grain to suddenly appear either

where these ideas came from I have no idea

people that voted for the first 2 need to educate themselves on this issue and quickly, because this is just sad, that or forget films

if you want nice "grain free" images go watch some putride TV dramas, all in glorious shiny HDcam

-Gary

Removing grain from a movie in an effort to 'improve it', is as much a travesty as if someone were to suggest removing brush strokes to improve the look of famous works of art.

Outrageous that so many people here want to alter the intent of the orignal film maker.

Whatever the director intended is fine by me.

I like it, it adds a film like quality to the super high glossy releases on hd. I also like when its ment to be there to add grit to the film.

I guess I dont mind it if they movie "should" in my opinion look like that. Saving Private Ryan is a good example. However when I watch X3 and it is grainy as all get out in a few parts, it bothers me.

Alas, if the early adopters are screaming for cleaned up video-like HD movies, how can anyone expect the studios to resist the screams that would come from the general and mass adopters?

Some grain is intentional. In other cases it may be due to the realities of making a moving on time, and on budget. If the director and/or DP approves a grain removal cleanup for home video, who are we to declare their original "vision" was the right one and condemn the change?

This is why I think a director/DP approval process is mandatory.

There is no choice for me in this poll. It's black and white in a colour world.

Gary

It's a slippery slope we could be on. Start removing grain to appease the masses and OAR is the next to go. Soon we all have nice 16x9 (regardless of the OAR) scrubbed clean, filtered, supersaturated eye candy on disc to make everyone feel good about the $ they spent on their HD display and it won't even look like we're watching "films" anymore.
The idea behind "home theater" was originally to as closely replicate the theatrical experience as possible....
Nowadays even here on a supposed "AV enthusiast forum" everyone just wants pretty pictures, even with a film like Saving Private Ryan...
Let's start colorizing too while we're at it...

eesh...

As I watch more and more titles on BD I have become introduced to grain, something that I rarely saw on sd DVD. Many say its the directors intent for the grain, but my opinion is that i think its makes a hd pq look horrible and distracting. Just wondering what everyones opinion is on grain. Do you like it,hate it?

if it was there in the theaters, rather have it there on the disc instead of filtering and stuff messing things up. otoh, i not a big fan of grain. i don't buy all that crap about how without grain movies just don't have character. get with the times. grainless movies and top flight digital projection looks more like looking through a window into some world. grainy movies look like starting at some footage of something being projected on the wall 30' in front of you. although IMAX and 70mm prints (not these are just about ever shown anymore) do look good, so much detail.

for most part i don't think there was any directors intent, imean sure, stuff like traffic and certainly plenty of others, but that said, the majority of films have grain simply because they were shot on film that had grain, that's the technology they had. (also didn'tall the film and photo forums used to brag abotu how this new formula of film had less grain than the previous, and yet now grain was supposedly a universally sought after holy grail).

Start removing grain to appease the masses and OAR is the next to go. Soon we all have nice 16x9 (regardless of the OAR) scrubbed clean, filtered, supersaturated eye candy on disc to make everyone feel good about the $ they spent on their HD display and it won't even look like we're watching "films" anymore.
The idea behind "home theater" was originally to as closely replicate the theatrical experience as possible....
Nowadays even here on a supposed "AV enthusiast forum" everyone just wants pretty pictures, even with a film like Saving Private Ryan...
Let's start colorizing too while we're at it...

eesh...

I think what we may be seeing is that people won't accept degrees of graininess. If SPR looks grainy and desaturated, fine, that's director's intent (and could even be "critic-proof" as actual flaws with the transfer could be chalked up to intent), but they think a "normal" movie shouldn't look grainy. They'll think it either has to be very grainy or not grainy at all.

We also have to realize that grain is a natural thing in some instances. When Rob Marshall was shooting "Chicago," it's not as if he said "I want this to look grainy." Rather, it was a byproduct of getting the details out in key lighting.

get with the times. grainless movies and top flight digital projection looks more like looking through a window

That's the point. Motion pictures want to let you escape from reality (TV).
They have their very own, unique look and style, and I love it. I don't want my movies to look like the latest high-def TV show.

I always thought of going to the movies as "let's go see a movie!", not "let's look out a window!"

but what do I know...?

;)

and me? give me the good old slightly grainy look of The Empire Strikes Back any day over the synthetic, digital video look of the last 2 prequels. To me, they look MUCH less realistic.
The HUMAN actors in those "films" don't even look real!

The idea behind "home theater" was originally to as closely replicate the theatrical experience as possible....

Does that include the screaming baby, the girl who won't put her cell phone on vibrate, the guy with the afro that sits in the front row, the people who won't shut up, the gum, popcorn and spilled soda on the sticky floors? j/k :)

My home theater was to escape the theatrical experience. It's a nightmare going to the movies here in NYC.

Nowadays even here on a supposed "AV enthusiast forum" everyone just wants pretty pictures, even with a film like Saving Private Ryan...
Let's start colorizing too while we're at it...

I think this is just hyperbole. Pretty pictures are not everything, but it does matter significantly. If it didn't, you wouldn't have a blu-ray or hd-dvd player in the first place. You didn't get a 1080p player and high end display to appreciate extra director intended graininess. Why do we even have a tier thread for movie releases? Why do we seek out reference quality films when alot of them are indeed crappy, guilty pleasure movies? (Crank, Riddick etc) Look at any screenshot thread here, what are the unspoken pre-requisites for posting screen grabs? Almost unanimously it's all top tier quality stuff. Have yet to see a screen shot of The Devils Rejects or any of the bottom of the barrel releases in terms of PQ. Why is that? We all love eye candy, so let's not get all elitist and brand anyone who states this publically as somehow less of a film enthusiast, I beg to differ.

You didn't get a 1080p player and high end display to appreciate extra director intended graininess.

Wrong, I do want my high-def releases to look as close as possible to the 35mm prints. And I'm sure that I'm not alone.

are you telling me grain is acceptable?


i hate grain and it shouldnt be there

I hate grain. When I bought the add-on for my 360 and watched Kong, I was blown away. When I put Tears of the Sun and other BD titles in my PS3, I wanted to return the console. Now the only HD-DVD title I've watched that had grain in it, but not as bad as any BD, was We Were Soldiers.

Heres what I don't understand. I compared the two version of of MI:3. The BD version had grain on faces and backgrounds. It still looked good, but the HD-DVD was superior.

Sometimes, there are scenes in a BD movie where it looks worse than a VHS scene because it looks so pixelated from all the grain. Anyways, because of this, I'm going with HD-DVD if I have a choice for a movie on both formats.

I watched Superman Returns on HD-DVD last night and it looked fantastic. I wouldn't be surprised at all if I popped in the BD version and noticed grain.

see thats what i question, i read somewhere that the side by side comparison between mi3, sky captain, and superman returns, there is more grain on the ps3 then the hd-dvd version but the hd version is the better looking.

now with that said, if the picture looked better with the less grain, why is grain acceptable?

As long as I'm seeing actual film grain, I'm fine as that's normal.

Compression artifacts or video noise grain from poor mastering I am not fine with.

I always thought of going to the movies as "let's go see a movie!", not "let's look out a window!"

but what do I know...?

;)

and me? give me the good old slightly grainy look of The Empire Strikes Back any day over the synthetic, digital video look of the last 2 prequels. To me, they look MUCH less realistic.
The HUMAN actors in those "films" don't even look real!

I personally cannot stand the digital look of the last two prequels. The OT looks much better.

Wrong, I do want my high-def releases to look as close as possible to the 35mm prints. And I'm sure that I'm not alone.

No you are not. Thats the only reason I got HD. I want to be able to see a film in HD and know thats its as close to the print as possible. Thats one reason why I am so happy with my BD player. I pop in Black Hawk Down, saw 3, etc... and it just amazes me that finally we have this in our homes. I love film grain and I love films without it. However, only if a film was intentionally made not to have film grain. Cars for example is great! Can't wait for it on BD. Monster house is a digital film that the director added grain to for a look he wanted. Personally I love it, it gives the film a 3d texture to it.

Some prefer it and some don't. I personally don't mind the grain.

heres a review from highdefdigest on superman returns.

"I'll start with what I find lacking about 'Superman Returns' -- it is so pristine looking that it feels sterile. HD cameras tend to flatten images out a bit to me, with backgrounds resembling pixel paintings, and the image impossibly clean. Though I can't say I want to go back to wholly analog filmmaking, I do often miss the realness, the grain, the simply aliveness of celluloid."

I always thought of going to the movies as "let's go see a movie!", not "let's look out a window!"

but what do I know...?

;)

and me? give me the good old slightly grainy look of The Empire Strikes Back any day over the synthetic, digital video look of the last 2 prequels. To me, they look MUCH less realistic.
The HUMAN actors in those "films" don't even look real!


Those were real actors!?!?! :eek: I thought they were CG.

No you are not. Thats the only reason I got HD. I want to be able to see a film in HD and know thats its as close to the print as possible. Thats one reason why I am so happy with my BD player. I pop in Black Hawk Down, saw 3, etc... and it just amazes me that finally we have this in our homes. I love film grain and I love films without it. However, only if a film was intentionally made not to have film grain. Cars for example is great! Can't wait for it on BD. Monster house is a digital film that the director added grain to for a look he wanted. Personally I love it, it gives the film a 3d texture to it.

Exactly!,
If you don't like Film.
Stick with Discovery- HDnet

Exactly!,
If you don't like Film.
Stick with Discovery- HDnet

Digital films look like Squaresoft CGI sequences in video games.

Wrong, I do want my high-def releases to look as close as possible to the 35mm prints. And I'm sure that I'm not alone.


No you're not alone. I can't believe some of you guys think removing the grain from a film like Saving Private Ryan is ok. Ridiculous.

While I agree that there are films that get their 'look' from grain (and that's fine), many films have grain only in certain scenes and my guess is that it is simply from inadequate lighting.

Just watched Miami Vice last night and it's only really grainy in the dark scenes. I have a difficult time imagining that this is the desire of the director (which everyone seems to assume) as opposed to a technological limitation (trying to ensure we could see enough details in the scene). Looks pretty much like my camcorder when I record without enough light...


This is just speculation on my part.

As for my opinion, I don't like looking at grain when it's excessive to the point of distraction without a good reason. I think subtle grain is fine - and that's what makes film look like film.

When I watch a movie, I like to feel like I'm 'there'; HD on a large screen can give me that sensation, but seeing a bright sky awash in dancing pixels destroys the immersion for me.

Only film that really bothers me with grain is "Minority report". I saw it in the theaters and didn't look so bad but on DVD, its almost unwatchable.

personally i'd prefer little to no grain at all. i love action eye-candy movies and in those cases i want the picture to look as close to perfect as possible. i was completely blown away with how fantastic King Kong looked in HD. right now that's the top movie i use when i want to show off the equipment and "wow" my friends.

i question how much of this grain is "director-intended" for the usual movies. something like Saving Private Ryan... yeah the grain makes it look more realistic... kinda like a documentary... and i actually like that look. but your usual run-of-the-mill movie, how much of that grain is really director intended? how do you know it's not a side-effect of filming limitations or a result of lower quality transfers? if they could go back in time to the beginning of shooting and eliminate the grain with better quality film, i would prefer that.

but now that the film has already been shot, i guess i'm fine with the grain as long as it's part of the original film and not a result of a crap video transfer or whatever

oh, there's grain at 720P, TRUST me!

;)

I just want my HD media to look the way it was supposed to, just like with OAR. If say, Spielberg wants SPR to look grainy and be desaturated to more closely resemble WWII newsreel footage then that's what I want. I don't want some studio tech. slapping DNR all over the image. We had plenty of that with dvd....

but that's just me.

It's not just you! :D

How do you know when grain is intended and when it isn't? I do not like lots of grain in movies in which it looks out of place.

Just look at the master or film print, if grain is there so it should be on BD and HD DVD.
Besides that, removing grain from a transfer results in other artifacts.



I also seriously doubt any form of "screwing the pooch" during mastering could cause grain to suddenly appear either

Actually, you can add grain during mastering, you could even do that during processing of the digital intermediate. The only reason someone wants to do that would probably be that the movie was shot digitally and a specific scene calls for grain.

Encoding a movie will not result in grain either, but depending on the encoding process, it may reslut in noise which some people mistake for grain.



If the director and/or DP approves a grain removal cleanup for home video, who are we to declare their original "vision" was the right one and condemn the change?

And what director would approve that? None...



for most part i don't think there was any directors intent, imean sure, stuff like traffic and certainly plenty of others, but that said, the majority of films have grain simply because they were shot on film that had grain, that's the technology they had.

Not true, if you want less or finer grain, you simply pick a different film stock. Contact any manufacturer or film (such as Kodak) and they will probably send you samples to find out what amout of grain you need. Certain type of film has so little and fine grain that you won't be able to see it on a 2k transfer, you can barely see it on a 4K DI.

Now with over 60 year old movies (Casablanca, ...) I agree. Back then, they simply didn't have much of a choice.



You didn't get a 1080p player and high end display to appreciate extra director intended graininess.

Of course I did! That's the whole point about it. If I had to pick a single disc at this time, it would probably be Sleepy Hollow. This is an absolute reference transfer, that is as close to a pristine 35mm print as possible. It simply looks stunning. Of course once we get new formats and projectors it will look better in 4k resolution and 4:4:4.
For now, this is as good as it gets.




Heres what I don't understand. I compared the two version of of MI:3. The BD version had grain on faces and backgrounds. It still looked good, but the HD-DVD was superior.

Sometimes, there are scenes in a BD movie where it looks worse than a VHS scene because it looks so pixelated from all the grain.

While I agree that the HD DVD version of MI:3 looks better, it's not because of grain. Please do not confuse grain with other type of artifacts, such as noise.

Another thing you have to realize is that grain does not cause pixelization. Removing grain from a transfer would result in less detail and other artifacts on the other hand.

Grain is cool. 9 times out of 10 it is director/cinematographer intended. The problem I have with a lot of BD discs is that what I thought was grain turns out to be, upon closer inspection, compression artifacts (a good example is The Transporter - an overall solid transfer but scenes involving shade or darkness it stands out like a sore thumb.)

You didn't get a 1080p player and high end display to appreciate extra director intended graininess.
Yes I did
Why do we seek out reference quality films when alot of them are indeed crappy, guilty pleasure movies? (Crank, Riddick etc)
To "WOW" our friends who really don't "get it". Reason why I put on some R&B with a lot of bass to "show off" my sound system to non audiophile friends. They do not appreciate how crisp my system sounds to me. But they do go "wow" when the room shakes.
Either that or some of you are so self conscious about the small fortune spent on the home theatre experience. You need that “wow” movie once and a while to justify the expense. I don’t. Look at any screenshot thread here
I try not to
Have yet to see a screen shot of The Devils Rejects
I cannot wait for my BD copy to show up. If it's as bad as you make it out to be, I'm going to love it. The way that movie "looks" is what Rob Zombie wanted us to see when viewing that movie. If you cannot appreciate that, then put a different movie in. Don't take the original, "clean it up" to suite your tastes. If you hate the way this movie looks so much, put together a budget and make your own.
We all love eye candy, so let's not get all elitist and brand anyone who states this publically as somehow less of a film enthusiast, I beg to differ.
So watch Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over and over. Leave the rest alone.

We should call Spielberg to remake Schlinder's list in color. How dare he make a “modern” movie in B&W wasting that 1080p system I purchased. Who does he think he is?

to all those ppl that said if the director intended to have grain or not...how do u really know if the director really intended?

last time i check...threatre equipments doesn't compare to the 1080p hdtv we have...1080p tv > threatre cam.

and one last thing...y is the same movie release in hd format looks totally different? mi:3 and superman returns in HD-DVD have very little or NO grain compare to the blu-ray version.

things that make u go hmmmmmmmmmm.

if blu-ray keeps going at this rate...i may sell my ps3....and stick with my dvd player. no point getting a blu-rau player.

Don't like it. It's not so often the director's intention either, it's due to the equipment used. I've seen people say that old movies are soft by intention - give me a break, if better equipment was available decades ago, would the directors have chosen not to use it? Hell no.

But hey, at least it's not dot crawl or something. There are many worse things than grain. Grain is only a minor annoyance to me.

and one last thing...y is the same movie release in hd format looks totally different? mi:3 and superman returns in HD-DVD have very little or NO grain compare to the blu-ray version.

.


Probably due to VC-1. This is one reason why I am reluctant to accept VC-1. It has a processed look to it. Both films you mentioned are using different codecs. VC-1 on HD-DVD and Mpeg-2 on Blu-ray. To me the Blu-ray version looks sharper.

Film also has more resolution than 1080p. Why do you think we can get a film like forbidden planet mastered in HD?

last time i check...threatre equipments doesn't compare to the 1080p hdtv we have...1080p tv > threatre cam.

Sorry, I'm not getting this... what is theatre cam?
If we're talking about film vs. HDTV, then HDTV has lost already. True film has better quality than HDTV, simply because the available technology has many drawbacks and flaws. So we need something new, which I have said before.



and one last thing...y is the same movie release in hd format looks totally different? mi:3 and superman returns in HD-DVD have very little or NO grain compare to the blu-ray version.

They have equal amount of grain, again do not confuse grain with artifacts. Alot of people do that.



I've seen people say that old movies are soft by intention - give me a break, if better equipment was available decades ago, would the directors have chosen not to use it?

Please explain again what softness has to do with grain... :rolleyes:
What is soft in older movies? The transfer? Film itself? The DI? The master?
There is a difference between all of that, in some cases one depends on the other.

Stephan: im talking about the threatre projector that show the movies in the threatre...1080p hdtv > most threatre projector.

last time i check...threatre equipments doesn't compare to the 1080p hdtv we have...1080p tv > threatre cam.


Actually, theatre equipment cameras are better than the 1080 i/p that we have w/our HDTV sets.

Actually, theatre equipment cameras are better than the 1080 i/p that we have w/our HDTV sets.

not in most threatre...most are still using the same old crappy equipment from god knows how many yrs ago.

and one last thing...y is the same movie release in hd format looks totally different? mi:3 and superman returns in HD-DVD have very little or NO grain compare to the blu-ray version.


I completely agree. I guess every single director whose movie is on HD-DVD doesn't happen to like grain. :rolleyes:

This thread is rather revealing of the level of sophistication of 36% of the forum respondents who have written off grain completely. :(

Art

not in most threatre...most are still using the same old crappy equipment from god knows how many yrs ago.

What are you reffering to? Digital projectors? Most digital projectors in theaters are 1920x1080 or 2048x1080. The latter ones have been around for many years now. Some theaters went for lower res projectors (for the first Star Wars prequel and to show commerials before the feature). But in general, digital projectors in theaters are the exception, not the rule.

If you're talking about film projectors, those have way more resolution than 1080p.
Take Casablanca as an example, the film was made in 1942, more than 60 years ago. It was shot on 35mm and if you could still find a prestine print, this will be higher resolution than 1080p. Even 20 or 30 year old projectors will show this higher resolution without any problem.

All this back and forth discussion on film grain reminds me of another hobby of mine, photography. Again with photography there is a certain group of people who always want clean, 'plastic', grain free images, but that is not always the intent of the photographer.

To cite an example here is a photo I took of the main 'ballroom' of a hotel built in the 1920's. While this photo was shot digitally and therefore is a fairly clean image.....I decided to add significant grain, and to convert it to sephia color because I wanted to convey the fact that I was photographing something built in the 1920's and I did not personally feel that a 'glossy, vivid, color image' did this very well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/IeraseU/Forums/sephia-test.jpg


I bet many people would cringe at the amount of noise in that photo and immediately want to run it through various noise reductions programs. Doing so, however, would significantly alter the intent I had when I took this photograph.

Removing grain from a flim such as Saving Private Ryan any other such film where the film maker intentionally included it, would be equally be altering his intent for the final look and 'feel' of the picture.

All this back and forth discussion on film grain reminds me of another hobby of mine, photography. Again with photography there is a certain group of people who always want clean, 'plastic', grain free images, but that is not always the intent of the photographer.

To cite an example here is a photo I took of the main 'ballroom' of a hotel built in the 1920's. While this photo was shot digitally and therefore is a fairly clean image.....I decided to add significant grain, and to convert it to sephia color because I wanted to convey the fact that I was photographing something built in the 1920's and I did not personally feel that a 'glossy, vivid, color image' did this very well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/IeraseU/Forums/sephia-test.jpg


I bet many people would cringe at the amount of noise in that photo and immediately want to run it through various noise reductions programs. Doing so, however, would significantly alter the intent I had when I took this photograph.

Removing grain from a flim such as Saving Private Ryan any other such film where the film maker intentionally included it, would be equally be altering his intent for the final look and 'feel' of the picture.

u took this pix in 1920's? damn u r old...lol.

u took this pix in 1920's? damn u r old...lol.

The hotel was built in the 20's, I took this picture in August 2006, but processed it in such a way as to look older.

The hotel was built in the 20's, I took this picture in August 2006, but processed it in such a way as to look older.

sorry..my mistake.

i understand about the grain in your case and in movies like saving private ryan.

but for mi:3 and superman returns...i dont see how grain fit into these type of movies? do u? do any1 here?

If the movie was intended to have grain, I want to see it on the HD disc.

Agreed.

but for mi:3 and superman returns...i dont see how grain fit into these type of movies? do u? do any1 here?

I do.

this thread is as out of contol as "the black bars" threads!!!

If you've ever walked up to an actual painting, you will see the texture of the canvas and the brushstrokes. I guess to some, that gets in the way of "the image" but to others that is part of the image. If you somehow digitally removed the strokes and the look of the canvas then you are left with much more of a cartoon image. It's not REALLY a "painting" anymore. Same with "film".
If one prefers the IMHO sterile and soulless look of digital video, that's fine. To each his own. But to want the original work of art Altered just to suit one's taste is selfish and sets a bad precedent. "Black Bars" are next.
"I don't care if that's how the director wanted it to look! I don't like it!"
Same argument can then be applied to both.

And theater projectors don't "make or cause" grain. All they do is pass light through a piece of celluloid.

;)

If grain is so great why are we trying to push the resolution envelope? So we can see the grain more clearly? Maybe we should all go back to 480i and Black and White. Or perhaps the directors should learn to produce media for a more sophisticated audience. It may mean the have to work a little harder as the detail aspect of their work will become much more visible. As consumers we should not let them off the hook so easily. Then we can fully enjoy the Fruits of there effort. For anyone who cannot appreciate clarity they can create a whole new market and sell sandblasted and tinted viewing glasses to create the "grainy experience"

Give me HD... All of it.

I couldn't vote because none of the opinions represented my own. I am not a huge fan of film grain, and there are a number of films where the grainyness seems to be more an aspect of the production budget or the time period, and I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced. On the other hand, there are clearly many movies where it is intended (e.g. BHD) and it would be a shame to remove. I would like to see directors get to take a look at how movies appear on small screens before finalizing an encode so they could choose how they want it to look (let's face it, some effects work better on 75 foot screens than on 42 inch screens).

So, I'm not a purist, but I don't really hate film grain either (and would miss it in films where it's obviously an intended effect).

If grain is so great why are we trying to push the resolution envelope? So we can see the grain more clearly? Maybe we should all go back to 480i and Black and White. Or perhaps the directors should learn to produce media for a more sophisticated audience.
The moaning about film grain showing up on HD is as sophisticated as complaining about the music in the films coming from 'nowhere' (Where is the orchestra?? It's fake!). :rolleyes: I'm all for a sophisticated audience, by the way...

The problem is that grain seems to be either exaggerated or the result of compression on Blu-ray and HD DVD and the actual display they are shown on. Unless it is a film where it obvious a style choice such as Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, etc when I watch them at a theatre I never notice the grain. On a new print, most movies look incredibly crisp and detailed and give you that 'through a window' look at the theatres I watch at. I remember being at the very first screening at a brand new theatre with a virgin print of The Two Towers. I have never seen a film look so good. So that is how I expect that film to show up on Blu-ray.

The most recent movie I can think of that had a similar effect is Pirates 2. That was a very clean image at the theatre, so we'll see how it fairs on Blu-ray.

So far for me, of the movies I've watched on Blu-ray I haven't noticed any excessive grain.

I have seen some fantastic old films in HD with no objectionable grain. I fail to see why new films claim to need it to be impressive.

They could also introduce a scratchy mono soundtrack. I would not be impressed with that either. More range and clarity in the soundtrack make for a more immersive experience. Yes it becomes more challenging to produce and the quality comes to the fore. The studios and distributers are then compelled to step up to the plate.

The same should be could be true for video. I fail to see how blurring our senses makes a experience more immersive. Make the effort on the input correct to the experience will speak for itself. They need to take the time to frame it and detail the set properly. To portray something as being shot with a old or cheap camera use one! Great for depicting a short scene. If a whole movie is done that way what you have is a movie shot with a old or cheap camera. No offense to IeraseU nut those chairs will not look old no matter how "grainy" the picture is. For a scene to look old the details must be attended to. If that is done properly then the clearer the picture the more convincing and immersive the experience becomes.

I don't want more grain for it's own sake and films like Miami Vice ( HDDVD VC1 by the way) with it's static grain as the images move around is laughable. But at the same time HD shows what film is, better than we have ever had it. Some of you( 36% it looks like) are just not going to get that. You want movies to look like XBox,Monday Night Football or Discovery HD. Thank God it doesn't since this would be so homogenized, so bland ,so dumbing down.

Polishing off grain is a bad idea ,look at the DVD of Citizen Kane if you want to see it's most evil incarnation.

Give me great HD give me the very best looking transfers of the very best example of a films not a perpetually morphing trend of what someones thinks it should be today.

Art

I always found that without the grain a movie dont look like a movie. More like live news. While frame rate also has to do with that, I find movies with a grainless video style to look fake and dont feel or look like a movie.

...They need to take the time to frame it and detail the set properly. To portray something as being shot with a old or cheap camera use one! ...
No offense to IeraseU nut those chairs will not look old no matter how "grainy" the picture is. For a scene to look old the details must be attended to. If that is done properly then the clearer the picture the more convincing and immersive the experience becomes.

^^^^ TOTALLY AGREE.

If grain is so great why are we trying to push the resolution envelope? So we can see the grain more clearly? Maybe we should all go back to 480i and Black and White. Or perhaps the directors should learn to produce media for a more sophisticated audience. It may mean the have to work a little harder as the detail aspect of their work will become much more visible. As consumers we should not let them off the hook so easily.....

^^^ ALSO TOTALLY AGREE.

Do those of you who like grain, drive around with a dirty windshield?

Would you eat food with sand in it, if that is the way the Chef wanted to prepare it?

Personally, my theater is about escaping to an alternative reality. My aim is to make it as lifelike and convincing as possible. This is why I try to get the very best quality image possible. I find it extremely difficult to get caught up in the movie, if the grain keeps reminding me it is not real.

That's the point. Motion pictures want to let you escape from reality (TV).
They have their very own, unique look and style, and I love it. I don't want my movies to look like the latest high-def TV show.

well, maybe not quite as video-like as some hidef TV since some have a different contrast and tonality that doesn't seem entirely reality based either and mostly jsut screams video, so not sayng I'm into that so much, do like more of a film style tonality (although HDR, beyond film type video, doen the right way might be cool), but yeah I do like the smoothness, whenever possible or not needed for legitimate artistic intent.

i guess we have to agree to disagree. IMO, movies (with exceptions, of course) have that look because that was the technology, not for any magical reasons, not because grain=unique movie style, look. Movies are just moving pictures, a movie is a motion picture, nothing more to me. If a picture that moves can move without grain (and grain would not create a neat specialized look for that paticular film,which it might now and then), then I am glad if the grain is all relegated to the dustbin, same for all the jitter as the mechanically projected frames slightly bounce and shimmy all over, i'd be fine with that gone too. I think grain = "that's the film stock technology they had and that's about it".

I do prefer ones that have been filmed to be left with grain and not muddled up though.

HD Cams will soon enough have the res, dynamic range and all to be just like film, except without the grain and bouncy projection.

anyway, you will probably disagree, but well, we just see things differently.

I always thought of going to the movies as "let's go see a movie!", not "let's look out a window!"

but what do I know...?

;)

and me? give me the good old slightly grainy look of The Empire Strikes Back any day over the synthetic, digital video look of the last 2 prequels. To me, they look MUCH less realistic.
The HUMAN actors in those "films" don't even look real!

when was the last time you walked around outside and saw grain all over people's facesand scenerey and had your visuals jitter back and forth (as film projected mechanically does)?

side note: I did see ESB projected in 70mm on a ridiculously huge screen once, that was pretty awesome (although it is true that the FX scenes were not really true 70mm detail).i love those mega size screens. too bad, they just about all got junked into 8 mini screens and the like almost everywhere over the past 20 years.

Do those of you who like grain, drive around with a dirty windshield?

Would you eat food with sand in it, if that is the way the Chef wanted to prepare it?

Personally, my theater is about escaping to an alternative reality. My aim is to make it as lifelike and convincing as possible. This is why I try to get the very best quality image possible. I find it extremely difficult to get caught up in the movie, if the grain keeps reminding me it is not real.


^^^^^ THANK U!!!

Actually, theatre equipment cameras are better than the 1080 i/p that we have w/our HDTV sets.

only if they use decent quality lenses and focus carefully and the film they got was not a poor rush from the master that lost much of the original resolution, etc.
of course, i'm sure in time digital projectors will also set out of focus and have cheap lenses stuck on them too, so that may not be fair.

the best digital projections I've seen seem to show more detail than the avg projection of the avg film these days, pretty clearly. ideally, projected 35mm film does have more detail (at this point).

a master shot on fine grain stock with the best lenses probably does have 4x (6-7x?) more info in it in select scenes. not really familiar with motion film stock though, a still photographer myself (switched to digital though almost two years ago, although only for color stuff, what little B&W I do, do more with film that digital). the transfers released to theaters will also have a good deal less res than theshot film though, but could still have noticeably more detail, if more grain.

it is ironic that there is a sticky for tiers in blu-ray movies' pq...yet grain isn't even considered as a factor.

this thread is as out of contol as "the black bars" threads!!!

If you've ever walked up to an actual painting, you will see the texture of the canvas and the brushstrokes. I guess to some, that gets in the way of "the image" but to others that is part of the image. If you somehow digitally removed the strokes and the look of the canvas then you are left with much more of a cartoon image. It's not REALLY a "painting" anymore. Same with "film".
If one prefers the IMHO sterile and soulless look of digital video, that's fine. To each his own. But to want the original work of art Altered just to suit one's taste is selfish and sets a bad precedent. "Black Bars" are next.
"I don't care if that's how the director wanted it to look! I don't like it!"
Same argument can then be applied to both.

And theater projectors don't "make or cause" grain. All they do is pass light through a piece of celluloid.

;)

so as they released finer and finer grain emulsions, I guess the ones with the finest grain are only quasi-film then? I guess color film is not really film because it is not black and white like the stuff before it?

once again, i don't want them to go in a try to erase grain though.
i don't quite buy the painting analogy. anyway, we obviously have different viewpoints.

this thread disappoints me sadly in that the AVS forum would have this many people that would want something that is just plain ignorant

grain is inherent in all films, DVD never showed it because the resolution and data rates weren't high enough, film grain is very high frequency, if you are seeing it then that means we are getting what we are supposed to, the ultimate in resolution and detail

the insanity of this type stuff, along with the tier thread and OAR stuff is enough to get my shorts bunched :mad: my beloved AVS is slipping away :(

movies to some people are entertainment or even less, to others they are art and a hobby in addition to the best entertainment and enjoyment there is

the painting analogy is a good one Dave, I have always liked that one, lets go into a art gallery and demand all texture and brush strokes be removed, while we are at it, lets take a old antique frame we like so much and chop off the sides of a classic painting to make it fit our frame, finally we need to setup a tier judge of art pieces, any pieces with off non-traditional colors, or scratches and blemishes or softness, it is to be immediately disqualified and scorned

this thread is pure heresy :(

-Gary

when was the last time you walked around outside and saw grain all over people's facesand scenerey and had your visuals jitter back and forth (as film projected mechanically does)?
When was the last time you walked outside and saw Superman flying around or mingled with ancient Romans or Vikings? When was the last time you walked around and there was music from nowhere and every x seconds there was a cut in reality and you changed magically your position and viewpoint? For Christs's sake:
FILM IS AN ARTISTIC MEDIUM USED TO TELL A STORY OR CONVEY A FLOW OF IMAGES DESIGNED TO HAVE SOME (ESTHETIC,EMOTIONAL,INTELLECTUAL..) EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE! IT'S IS NOT IN THE FIRST PLACE A NAIVE AND PHYSICALLY ACCURATE REPRODUCTION OF REALITY AS WE KNOW IT!
There are subgenres which are more interested in 'objective' reproduction of 'reality' such as documentaries but they too are shaped by artistic decisions and basic limits of the technology and they are not only about some photorealistic effects. Art and film are about the world and us in it, and not just the surface, but what's below it as well, the inside and the outside. The concrete and the abstract.
Film is grain and grain is film. The visibility of the grain depends on many factors. Demanding that film grain is always invisible is utterly ignorant and in contempt of film as an art form.
The inverse is equally stupid (the demand that films must look grainy or they are ugly and sterile video). A film is what it is. What it is is defined by the film makers. As far as they were able to implement their vision into the master used for the HD disc and the disc reproduces that master faithfully there is nothing to be fixed here at all, whether one personally likes the look or not. Feel free to not buy/rent/watch. And that's the limit of acceptable interference from the audience. If you feel so strongly how 'film' should look make your own films and put them on the market. Good luck. :)
( We need a FAQ for this as the same grain discussion pops up every other week. :mad: )

this thread disappoints me sadly in that the AVS forum would have this many people that would want something that is just plain ignorant

grain is inherent in all films, DVD never showed it because the resolution and data rates weren't high enough, film grain is very high frequency, if you are seeing it then that means we are getting what we are supposed to, the ultimate in resolution and detail

the insanity of this type stuff, along with the tier thread and OAR stuff is enough to get my shorts bunched :mad: my beloved AVS is slipping away :(

movies to some people are entertainment or even less, to others they are art and a hobby in addition to the best entertainment and enjoyment there is

the painting analogy is a good one Dave, I have always liked that one, lets go into a art gallery and demand all texture and brush strokes be removed, while we are at it, lets take a old antique frame we like so much and chop off the sides of a classic painting to make it fit our frame, finally we need to setup a tier judge of art pieces, any pieces with off non-traditional colors, or scratches and blemishes or softness, it is to be immediately disqualified and scorned

this thread is pure heresy :(

-Gary

I agree with you, except for the frustration with the Tier threads. While it may be debatable how they should be ranked, all the Tier threads do is give people a guide as to what looks the most "impressive," regardless of the intent of the filmmakers. There's no mission statement informing the studios that we want everything to be Tier 0 material. It's not telling people what movies to buy any more than a guide to videogames with the best graphics is telling people what games to play.

Now, some do use the Tiers to guide their purchases, but that's their prerogative. If they want to buy mediocre movies over great ones based on Tier placement, that's their business. I don't see the harm in letting people know what is considered to be the best demo material.

Guys, believe me or not,i did catch your point but something is weird over here..;during years,SD dvd have been reviewed and PQ has been jugged based on degree of grain on the shot image...very high rate if the picture was clean and sharp...and now, pretexting that is due to HD, you said the grain must be there....why HD DVD Picture has no grain at all while it is present on very first BR movies.... Recently, Crank is presented in very beautiful , clean and sharp picture and i would rate it 5/5...the first movie picture in BR does really impress me :) ...will studios continue this way or they would release movie with aesthetic and state of art film grain? :rolleyes:

this thread disappoints me sadly in that the AVS forum would have this many people that would want something that is just plain ignorant

grain is inherent in all films, DVD never showed it because the resolution and data rates weren't high enough, film grain is very high frequency, if you are seeing it then that means we are getting what we are supposed to, the ultimate in resolution and detail

the insanity of this type stuff, along with the tier thread and OAR stuff is enough to get my shorts bunched :mad: my beloved AVS is slipping away :(

movies to some people are entertainment or even less, to others they are art and a hobby in addition to the best entertainment and enjoyment there is

the painting analogy is a good one Dave, I have always liked that one, lets go into a art gallery and demand all texture and brush strokes be removed, while we are at it, lets take a old antique frame we like so much and chop off the sides of a classic painting to make it fit our frame, finally we need to setup a tier judge of art pieces, any pieces with off non-traditional colors, or scratches and blemishes or softness, it is to be immediately disqualified and scorned

this thread is pure heresy :(

-Gary

Agreed. The state of HD movies may be ruined before it even catches on. Removing film grain and black bars seems to be the opinion of quite a few around here; sad considering this is a home theater forum.

Agreed. The state of HD movies may be ruined before it even catches on. Removing film grain and black bars seems to be the opinion of quite a few around here; sad considering this is a home theater forum.

hold ur horses...black bars and film grain are 2 totally different things. u r comparing apples and oranges here. i understand why we have black bars...but to me film grain ISNT 100% necessary depending on what movies the director wants it.

maybe u want to go back watching black and white film...maybe u want to go back watching movies w/o audio like back in the 1920's? u know one of those oldies film where it has count down from lke 10 - 1...there are like dots everywhere..maybe u want to go back watching that?

riddle me this...what are some blu-ray movies (crank) doesnt have grain and while others have?

maybe u want to go back watching black and white film...maybe u want to go back watching movies w/o audio like back in the 1920's? u know one of those oldies film where it has count down from lke 10 - 1...there are like dots everywhere..maybe u want to go back watching that?



Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.

Do those of you who like grain, drive around with a dirty windshield?

Would you eat food with sand in it, if that is the way the Chef wanted to prepare it?




Horrible analogies.

hold ur horses...black bars and film grain are 2 totally different things. u r comparing apples and oranges here. i understand why we have black bars...but to me film grain ISNT 100% necessary depending on what movies the director wants it.

maybe u want to go back watching black and white film...maybe u want to go back watching movies w/o audio like back in the 1920's? u know one of those oldies film where it has count down from lke 10 - 1...there are like dots everywhere..maybe u want to go back watching that?

riddle me this...what are some blu-ray movies (crank) doesnt have grain and while others have?

There are some truly classic B & W movies such as Dracula (1931), King Kong (1933), Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and Sanjuro. I have no issues watching old B & W movies with heaven forbid mono sound.

Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.


then u should have kept ur old black and white tv instead of getting one of those 1000" 1080p hdtv. and u should have kept ur old camara instead of upgrading to the 10 megapixel digital cam.

Agreed. The state of HD movies may be ruined before it even catches on. Removing film grain and black bars seems to be the opinion of quite a few around here; sad considering this is a home theater forum.

I wouldn't worry about it. They're not going to get their way. Most directors have the power to dictate how the film looks on home video.

maybe u want to go back watching black and white film...maybe u want to go back watching movies w/o audio like back in the 1920's? u know one of those oldies film where it has count down from lke 10 - 1...there are like dots everywhere..maybe u want to go back watching that?
So if Kevin Smith ever pushes for a Blu-Ray version of Clerks, it should be in color with all of the original B&W grain washed out?

How about Schlinder's List?

How about any B&W grainy "flash back" scene, should these be "cleaned up" and converted to color? Would that please you?

How about this - don't watch these movies & leave them alone for the rest of us who appreciate the original, as the director intended (yes I know B&W with Clerks was a budget issue).


I cannot wait for the members of the "Grain is Evil" camp to complain about Grind House when it's release this February. If you don't understand why this movie is full of grain, you will never "get it" so stop trying. You simply do not understand, so stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

i liked miracle on 34th street in color. ;)

The "I don't want grain" demand is just another sign of the of the times. Same as "I don't want black bars" and the same thing as making the delivery format of the hidef movie more important than just getting the hidef movies on a disc to watch - with black bars and film grain if it was originally there. :)

larry

Horrible analogies.

Of course you have no argument to support your conclusion, but that goes along with lumping together grain, and black bars. Two entirely different things, but when you don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you tend to try to throw in unrelated issues out of desperation.

The black bar issue, is just an issue of the shape of the screen, it doesn't affect the image itself. Grain is a contamination of the picture, and may be an artistic choice, but to get all in a tizzy because some people don't like it is really idiotic.

The painting analogy is also weak. A better analogy would be whether you want to view a painting, through dirty glasses. Come to think of it, maybe that is what is wrong with Spielberg, he dropped his glasses in the mud, and didn't notice what he has done to his movies.

I also notice that all of you "Grain Lovers" are crying.. the sky is falling, the sky is falling, just because some people answered the poll that they didn't like grain. The poll didn't say " Grain should be removed from old movies" it asked whether or not people liked grain. I don't advocate that grain be removed from existing movies, I just personally won't watch them. I have Minority Report in my collection, but I won't be watching it any time soon.

Of course you have no argument to support your conclusion, but that goes along with lumping together grain, and black bars. Two entirely different things, but when you don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you tend to try to throw in unrelated issues out of desperation.

The black bar issue, is just an issue of the shape of the screen, it doesn't affect the image itself. Grain is a contamination of the picture, and may be an artistic choice, but to get all in a tizzy because some people don't like it is really idiotic.

The painting analogy is also weak. A better analogy would be whether you want to view a painting, through dirty glasses. Come to think of it, maybe that is what is wrong with Spielberg, he dropped his glasses in the mud, and didn't notice what he has done to his movies.

I also notice that all of you "Grain Lovers" are crying.. the sky is falling, the sky is falling, just because some people answered the poll that they didn't like grain. The poll didn't say " Grain should be removed from old movies" it asked whether or not people liked grain. I don't advocate that grain be removed from existing movies, I just personally won't watch them. I have Minority Report in my collection, but I won't be watching it any time soon.

^^^^ AMEN!!!!

Gentlemen,
Perhaps we can view the "disdain for grain" not as a call to put a new face on work that has already been produced within the limits of older technology but a call to raise the bar on works yet to be produced so that we can more fully utilize and enjoy the state of the art equipment we are so fond of. There is no reason we cannot enjoy a classic and also appreciate a production utilizing the state of the art technology now available to us.

If we do not raise the demand for higher quality production many average consumers will turn their back on better resolution and more accurate color reproduction because they cannot tell the difference. Lets be honest now. How many of you have popped a new HD disk into your expensive, High Tech equipment only to find a picture that was inferior to a good SD production? Do you not feel the thrill when you experience a movie experience that fully utilizes all the resolution and fidelity of your investment? We can pat ourselves on the back and credit our ability to recognize "grain" when it persists through the entire movie. What do the "uneducated " guests in your theater perceive? Can you hear them thinking HD, whats the big deal? This is the market whose demand will make our beloved media available.

We are the emissaries. We are setting the standard and creating the demand. They are listening. Do you want to drop their jaw with a amazing experience or spend the cocktail hour explaining grain? Me, I love the sound of that jaw bouncing off the carpet and hearing " I've gotta get one of these."

The grain that I've experienced seems to be electronic in nature, probably the compression codec. I was watching X Men: The Last Stand and noticed grain in darker backgrounds but none in the brighter foreground. This points to a compression/codec issue -- film grain would be uniform throughout.

Those who use the PS3 can hit the display button on the BD remote to bring up a detailed screen containing codec used and bit rate. It would be interesting to see what codecs and bit rates are being used for the movies where we notice the most grain. Might there be a correlation?

I also notice that all of you "Grain Lovers"……….
Hold the phone here. I don’t see anyone who “loves” grain on their movies. Simply some of us realize there are directors out there who prefer their movies to have some grain. Who am I to tell Spielberg how to make movies? If he wants to release a modern movie that looks like it was filmed through a dirty lens, that is his right. You also have the right to not watch his movie.

Simple concept isn’t it?

Frankly I don’t care either way, I want to see the movie however the director intended me to see the movie.

How about this analogy: Brazil
The studio changed the movie to please the masses – IMO destroying the film (it also has some grain, but that is not what I’m talking about here).

How about Blade Runner? Do you prefer the studio version with the over dubbing to “explain” the move? Or do you like the directors cut? I prefer the directors cut myself.

This is not about preserving the “look” of older movies. Grand Prix and The Great Escape are two of my favorite movies. On LD, DVD or VHS I don’t recall a ton of grain. Some of the old film movies will produce some of the sharpest, grain free images you will ever see.

hold ur horses...black bars and film grain are 2 totally different things. u r comparing apples and oranges here.

No, they are exactly the same thing in this discussion: People don't like what they see and ask for the disc to be modified so they do not see it any longer. In the first place they want the grain removed from the disc and in the second the black bars (which means cutting off picture as well). There is no difference here. Same attitude to bend the original work to their own needs on the source made for all, not just the subset of people who have a problem with it. And it both cases there are local solutions as well that leave the source alone. Local noise filtering in the display chain and a constant height display system.

i understand why we have black bars...but to me film grain ISNT 100% necessary depending on what movies the director wants it.

Nobody asks for grain to be there all the time. We ask for it to be there when the film was shot and produced that way. The grainophobes don't care. They want no grain all the time, whether they watch a silent film, a technicolor film, an IMAX film, a 16mm source or HD Cam material.

maybe u want to go back watching black and white film...maybe u want to go back watching movies w/o audio like back in the 1920's? u know one of those oldies film where it has count down from lke 10 - 1...there are like dots everywhere..maybe u want to go back watching that?

Stupid strawman argument. We want to see the films as they were created. Not more, not less. In some cases that means lots of grain, in others little, in yet others none. And yes, we want to see black and white film if the film was made in black and white. Of course. What do you want to see. The computer colorized version?

riddle me this...what are some blu-ray movies (crank) doesnt have grain and while others have?
Crank was shot with HD cameras. So there is no film grain. There may be video noise in dark scenes. Haven't seen it. Crank has no grain on the disc and that is good because it was made that way.

Gentlemen,
Perhaps we can view the "disdain for grain" not as a call to put a new face on work that has already been produced within the limits of older technology but a call to raise the bar on works yet to be produced so that we can more fully utilize and enjoy the state of the art equipment we are so fond of....

...Lets be honest now. How many of you have popped a new HD disk into your expensive, High Tech equipment only to find a picture that was inferior to a good SD production? Do you not feel the thrill when you experience a movie experience that fully utilizes all the resolution and fidelity of your investment?...

What do the "uneducated " guests in your theater perceive? Can you hear them thinking HD, whats the big deal? This is the market whose demand will make our beloved media available....

....They are listening. Do you want to drop their jaw with a amazing experience or spend the cocktail hour explaining grain? Me, I love the sound of that jaw bouncing off the carpet and hearing " I've gotta get one of these."

AGREE WITH ALL UR STATEMENTS.

No, they are exactly the same thing in this discussion: People don't like what they see and ask for the disc to be modified so they do not see it any longer. In the first place they want the grain removed from the disc and in the second the black bars (which means cutting off picture as well). There is no difference here. Same attitude to bend the original work to their own needs on the source made for all, not just the subset of people who have a problem with it. And it both cases there are local solutions as well that leave the source alone. Local noise filtering in the display chain and a constant height display system.

Nobody asks for grain to be there all the time. We ask for it to be there when the film was shot and produced that way. The grainophobes don't care. They want no grain all the time, whether they watch a silent film, a technicolor film, an IMAX film, a 16mm source or HD Cam material.

Stupid strawman argument. We want to see the films as they were created. Not more, not less. In some cases that means lots of grain, in others little, in yet others none. And yes, we want to see black and white film if the film was made in black and white. Of course. What do you want to see. The computer colorized version?

Crank was shot with HD cameras. So there is no film grain. There may be video noise in dark scenes. Haven't seen it. Crank has no grain on the disc and that is good because it was made that way.

once again..im not talking about removing grains that is already in older films. we are talking about future movies where grains is not appropriate...y have it?

Disliking grain is akin to wanting the colorization of film, or approving of George Lucas continually changing "his" films he "completed" 30 years ago.

First you want to argue for blindly following the director's choice, then you argue against it. Make up your mind. Either you can choose to not like the directors intent, or you can't, how about some consistency.

I suppose next you are going to tell me that I can't dislike smelly cheese, or that disliking smelly cheese is akin to throwing apple pies, and desecrating the flag. :rolleyes:

I hate grain as it's shown on digital displays like plasmas.
Most of the time to my eyes it looks like digital noise not film grain.

On CRT projectors, grain is shown in a more natural (film like) way and doesn't bother me as much.

just to clarify.
I'm not a "grain lover"
I'm a "film lover"
I don't LOVE movies because they have "tons" of grain.
I also don't dislike movies if they chose a very fine grain film stock.
I want the discs I buy at home to look as close as possible to the original "film"
If the film has noticeable grain in it, I'd rather see it than have it digitally removed (which often leaves other nasty artifacts like smearing, ghosting and reduces detail)
When they "cleaned up" Citizen Kane for DVD they used so much DNR that they actally removed rain that was in a shot because it was so high frequency detail wise that it disappeared as well as any excessive grain that was in those shots.
The company (Lowry) said a big "whoops!" afterwards. Meanwhile, something that was part of the original filmed image gets wiped away!
If someone like Spielberg DELIBERATELY wants say, Saving Private Ryan to look the way it does for artistic effect, then I don't want it chenged so some guy who just dropped $1500 on his new Westinghouse display at Costco can feel better about his purchase.
If you don't like the way some of these directors choose to shoot THEIR films, you don't have to watch them. You can always try and get Hollywood to fund your artistic opus.
See that's the thing. I am not asking the studios to alter anything. Just like with OAR, I want it the way it was originally released.
I am NOT talking about digital noise or compression artifacts or any other transfer issues. Of course those should be eliminated.
I am just talking about naturally occurring film grain.
I went to NYU film school and used to shoot edit and actually do my own negative cutting. I for one, LOVE the look of film, even when grainy.
That's me. But I unlike others am not asking for anything to be altered to suit my personal tastes. I am not saying "ADD GRAIN!!!!" to anything.
I am just saying, let it look the way it originally did.

dave out

just to clarify.
I'm not a "grain lover"
I'm a "film lover"
I don't LOVE movies because they have "tons" of grain.
I also don't dislike movies if they chose a very fine grain film stock.
I want the discs I buy at home to look as close as possible to the original "film"
If the film has noticeable grain in it, I'd rather see it than have it digitally removed (which often leaves other nasty artifacts like smearing, ghosting and reduces detail)
When they "cleaned up" Citizen Kane for DVD they used so much DNR that they actally removed rain that was in a shot because it was so high frequency detail wise that it disappeared as well as any excessive grain that was in those shots.
The company (Lowry) said a big "whoops!" afterwards. Meanwhile, something that was part of the original filmed image gets wiped away!
If someone like Spielberg DELIBERATELY wants say, Saving Private Ryan to look the way it does for artistic effect, then I don't want it chenged so some guy who just dropped $1500 on his new Westinghouse display at Costco can feel better about his purchase.
If you don't like the way some of these directors choose to shoot THEIR films, you don't have to watch them. You can always try and get Hollywood to fund your artistic opus.
See that's the thing. I am not asking the studios to alter anything. Just like with OAR, I want it the way it was originally released.
I am NOT talking about digital noise or compression artifacts or any other transfer issues. Of course those should be eliminated.
I am just talking about naturally occurring film grain.
I went to NYU film school and used to shoot edit and actually do my own negative cutting. I for one, LOVE the look of film, even when grainy.
That's me. But I unlike others am not asking for anything to be altered to suit my personal tastes. I am not saying "ADD GRAIN!!!!" to anything.
I am just saying, let it look the way it originally did.

dave out

I think you have many many friends with the same view ! :)

Art

Guys, believe me or not,i did catch your point but something is weird over here..;during years,SD dvd have been reviewed and PQ has been jugged based on degree of grain on the shot image...very high rate if the picture was clean and sharp...and now, pretexting that is due to HD, you said the grain must be there....why HD DVD Picture has no grain at all while it is present on very first BR movies.... Recently, Crank is presented in very beautiful , clean and sharp picture and i would rate it 5/5...the first movie picture in BR does really impress me :) ...will studios continue this way or they would release movie with aesthetic and state of art film grain? :rolleyes:

Crank wasn't shot on film, it was shot in HD. That's why you don't see any grain on it.

Guys, believe me or not,i did catch your point but something is weird over here..;during years,SD dvd have been reviewed and PQ has been jugged based on degree of grain on the shot image...very high rate if the picture was clean and sharp...and now, pretexting that is due to HD, you said the grain must be there....why HD DVD Picture has no grain at all while it is present on very first BR movies.... Recently, Crank is presented in very beautiful , clean and sharp picture and i would rate it 5/5...the first movie picture in BR does really impress me :) ...will studios continue this way or they would release movie with aesthetic and state of art film grain? :rolleyes:


HDdvd has no grain at all? Have you SEEN the "sleepy hollow" HDdvd...?!?!?
(Looks the EXACT same on both HDdvd and BD by the way....)

To me the results are discouraging in that 1/3 of AVS'ers are J6P and drink beer from a can. I prefer bottles(green or brown) and drink from a proper glass.

A good poll would be how many in each category have professionally calibrated displays and who uses the sharpness setting to add detail aka ringing. ;)

To me the results are discouraging in that 1/3 of AVS'ers are J6P and drink beer from a can. I prefer bottles(green or brown) and drink from a proper glass.

A good poll would be how many in each category have professionally calibrated displays and who uses the sharpness setting to add detail aka ringing. ;)

I used to really dislike beer in bottle. I would only drink it if someone else provided and it was free, but lately, I've been digging Coors Light in a can.

To me the results are discouraging in that 1/3 of AVS'ers are J6P and drink beer from a can. I prefer bottles(green or brown) and drink from a proper glass.


To me this thread is discouraging, that more AVS'rs who would have liked to express their preferences, are afraid to, for fear of the hostile snobs, who are so insecure that they are compelled to pretend they are better than others, and use every lame analogy to belittle anyone who disagree with them.

Of course you have no argument to support your conclusion, but that goes along with lumping together grain, and black bars. Two entirely different things, but when you don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you tend to try to throw in unrelated issues out of desperation.
If you don't understand the connection between grain and OAR in the context of this discussion you shouldn't be so quick to comment.


The black bar issue, is just an issue of the shape of the screen, it doesn't affect the image itself.
WHAT??!! Ohmygoodness. If a 2.35:1 image is being cropped to 16:9, how is that not affecting the image???


Grain is a contamination of the picture, and may be an artistic choice, but to get all in a tizzy because some people don't like it is really idiotic.
Contamination?... not only is that ridiculous but it doesn't even make sense.


The painting analogy is also weak. A better analogy would be whether you want to view a painting, through dirty glasses.
No, these guys are actually right, you came up with by far the worst analogies.

If you're looking at a painting through dirty glasses, you're seeing things that are not in the painting. Film grain is inherent in the film stock so therefore it's meant to seen. Ergo, your analogy is fallacious and does not work on any level.

... Ergo, your analogy is fallacious and does not work on any level.

^^^^ LOL @ ergo...remind me of the old guy from the matrix movie. a lot of mumbo jumbo...

anyway...from what i gather in this thread...there seems to be 2 major camps. some like grains and some don't. for me..i dont for certain type of movies that aren't necessary.

The way I see it is that this thread has nothing to do with Blu-ray. Basically, we're asking if we want directors to stop using film cameras and shoot in HD, or not. Everybody needs to realize this.

Anyway, this is how I see it:

If the director wants a dark, gritty look and he uses 35mm film to do it, then great.

If the director wants a clean polished look and he uses an HD camera to do it, then great.

If a Blu-Ray transfer is adding digital noise (this is not grain!!!) to an otherwise clean picture, this is BAD.

If a Blu-Ray transfer is removing intended film grain from a film because of the compression codec, this is BAD.

I think a lot of you don't realize that directors and DP's will spend extreme amounts of time acheiiving an ideal film grain. Think of it like using different types of wood to make a desk. Different wood grains create different looks and moods. OR, you can get a plastic or metal desk and remove the grain altogether, but this isn't necessarily better. Just different.

As far as disc transfers, they should *always* be as close as possible to the original source material. PERIOD. Now, whether that source material should have grain or not, that's a separate issue but it's ultimately up to the artist (director) and not the viewer.

When was the last time you walked outside and saw Superman flying around or mingled with ancient Romans or Vikings? When was the last time you walked around and there was music from nowhere and every x seconds there was a cut in reality and you changed magically your position and viewpoint? For Christs's sake:
FILM IS AN ARTISTIC MEDIUM USED TO TELL A STORY OR CONVEY A FLOW OF IMAGES DESIGNED TO HAVE SOME (ESTHETIC,EMOTIONAL,INTELLECTUAL..) EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE! IT'S IS NOT IN THE FIRST PLACE A NAIVE AND PHYSICALLY ACCURATE REPRODUCTION OF REALITY AS WE KNOW IT!
There are subgenres which are more interested in 'objective' reproduction of 'reality' such as documentaries but they too are shaped by artistic decisions and basic limits of the technology and they are not only about some photorealistic effects. Art and film are about the world and us in it, and not just the surface, but what's below it as well, the inside and the outside. The concrete and the abstract.
Film is grain and grain is film. The visibility of the grain depends on many factors. Demanding that film grain is always invisible is utterly ignorant and in contempt of film as an art form.
The inverse is equally stupid (the demand that films must look grainy or they are ugly and sterile video). A film is what it is. What it is is defined by the film makers. As far as they were able to implement their vision into the master used for the HD disc and the disc reproduces that master faithfully there is nothing to be fixed here at all, whether one personally likes the look or not. Feel free to not buy/rent/watch. And that's the limit of acceptable interference from the audience. If you feel so strongly how 'film' should look make your own films and put them on the market. Good luck. :)
( We need a FAQ for this as the same grain discussion pops up every other week. :mad: )


and how exactly is film grain key to :"TELL A STORY OR CONVEY A FLOW OF IMAGES DESIGNED TO HAVE SOME (ESTHETIC,EMOTIONAL,INTELLECTUAL..) EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE!"

yes, at times, it may be used, but come on, the avg scene in the avg movie does not need grain to help portray anything. if grainless video had come out first, and film later everyone would be going on about how the lack of grain is such a terrible disrespect to the purity of the art form and so on....

and once again I never, ever said that filmn grain must be 100% elimited, i have said repeatedly that it can used to intersting effect at times. and i also have never suggested grain be filtered out of movies thathave grain.

but actually "The inverse is equally stupid (the demand that films must look grainy or they are ugly and sterile video). A film is what it is." is not far from my point. actually, i'm not sure we are quite as far apart as you think, even if liekly not quite eye to eye.

No, they are exactly the same thing in this discussion: People don't like what they see and ask for the disc to be modified so they do not see it any longer. In the first place they want the grain removed from the disc and in the second the black bars (which means cutting off picture as well). There is no difference here. Same attitude to bend the original work to their own needs on the source made for all, not just the subset of people who have a problem with it. And it both cases there are local solutions as well that leave the source alone. Local noise filtering in the display chain and a constant height display system.


keep in mind that many here who said they prefer lack of grain (when not needed for some artistic effect) are NOT asking that grain be filtered out of stuff shot that has grain, some might be, but I think even more are not (the poll didn't necessariyl make things clear, there really was no option there taht matches my views, i picked one, even though it doesn't really match my feelings all that well, probabyl shouydlntohave voted).

HDdvd has no grain at all? Have you SEEN the "sleepy hollow" HDdvd...?!?!?
(Looks the EXACT same on both HDdvd and BD by the way....)


speaking of that title, i think it has gotten an unfair flag of suffering from bad digital noise. i think the 'bad digital noise', is for the most part, at the least, just the natural grain, didn't it look like that in the theaters?

it looked like film grain to me and I saw it opening day in the theater. That's how it looked.

So we finally have a home video format that can really convey what a filmmaker intended, and we sit here and say that we don't want the grain there? If the grain is meant to be there, keep it. I think a film, on ANY medium, whether it be 35, 70, DVD, Blu Ray or gosh even back on Laserdisc, should be presented the way the filmmaker wanted.

No two films are ever going to look identical. Let's face it, the cinematography of Saving Private Ryan is going to differ from a film like Crank. It's all intentional, and we should respect the representation of that on our new, shiny, HD formats. Do we complain about the differences between a Da Vinci and a Picasso? I think we need to be glad that we are getting near master quality copies of our favorite films, and stop complaining about whether we like grain or not. Heck, if we're complaining about grain, maybe we should complain that certain things are not in color. Where does it end?

:)

If the director wants a dark, gritty look and he uses 35mm film to do it, then great.

If the director wants a clean polished look and he uses an HD camera to do it, then great.


It doesn't even need a HD camera to get that polished look. The director could simply pick another type of film stock and he would get the same or even better results.



speaking of that title, i think it has gotten an unfair flag of suffering from bad digital noise. i think the 'bad digital noise', is for the most part, at the least, just the natural grain, didn't it look like that in the theaters?

Sleepy Hollow is one of the most beautiful transfers out there, simply because it looks as close to a 35mm print as current technology allows it. There is no such thing as digital noise in that transfer. :)

true but also, Burton was GOING for a grainy look on purpose. To look like an older Hammer film. They could have chosen a stock that was less grainy but they wanted that specific look.

from Mr. Harris' review, a bit of an explanation...

"...Sleepy Hollow magnificently represents the brilliant cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki in a home theater format.

While a terrific piece of entertainment on all counts, it is Mr. Lubezki's work, which looks akin to the three-strip Technicolor productions of the 1930s and early 1940s, which still used the silver key image to both add contrast, control the black level and tone down color, which is also a star of this film. To the best of my knowledge, the process was last used by John Huston in Moby Dick (1956)..."

:)

once again..im not talking about removing grains that is already in older films. we are talking about future movies where grains is not appropriate...y have it?
This poll makes no such distinction. If you are fine with grain in older movies I see no problem. But your claim that grain in new films is not appropriate has no basis but your own taste. Grain or texture is as appropriate in new films as in old films if it is what the film makers want to show us. The only difference is that nowadays there are options to have completely grain free films/projection in cinemas. As a film maker you can use that option or not. It's a nice-to-have, not need-to-have.

and how exactly is film grain key to :"TELL A STORY OR CONVEY A FLOW OF IMAGES DESIGNED TO HAVE SOME (ESTHETIC,EMOTIONAL,INTELLECTUAL..) EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE!"

Don't turn the argument around! The claim was that grain has to be removed from films because in reality there is no grain when you watch out of the window. Meaning film has to look exactly like reality and if it does not it's broken and needs fixing. An absurd claim since film is an artistic medium and 'reality' in a very narrow definition of it is not its (only) goal. It's merely an option (where technically feasible) a film maker can use or not. My argument is not that grain is required for a film to be a film or artistic or whatever. That is a straw man. It is quite obvious though that different amounts of grain give pictures different appearances and influence the look which then (may) affect the audience in different ways. Therefore the issue of grain is not irrelevant, same as the choice of color, framing, sound effects, music, editing, story, actors, sets. etc.

yes, at times, it may be used, but come on, the avg scene in the avg movie does not need grain to help portray anything. if grainless video had come out first, and film later everyone would be going on about how the lack of grain is such a terrible disrespect to the purity of the art form and so on....

As has been stated several times before nobody here asks for grain for grain's sake. We ask for it to stay if the film was made that way and the grain is part of the authentic look of the film as intended by the film makers. If the film makers decide they don't like the grain and it's only there due to technical shortcomings during shooting or of film itself it's perfectly legitimate for them to remove it. If that adds artifacts I don't like it's perfectly legitimate for me to not like it and not buy that film, same as for others not liking the grain and not buying the film because of it. This discussion, as the poll is set up, is about removing grain or not because a part of the potential paying customers don't like it, e.g. modifying the original work to suit some (real or imagined) esthetic preferences of the audience. As such it's not much different from the question if books should be rewritten/censored, paintings repainted, music recomposed/reorchestrated and poetry rephrased if a powerful enough part of the audience prefers it that way.

To me this thread is discouraging, that more AVS'rs who would have liked to express their preferences, are afraid to, for fear of the hostile snobs, who are so insecure that they are compelled to pretend they are better than others, and use every lame analogy to belittle anyone who disagree with them.

Just poking a little fun. I can't be considered a snob if I use a ps3 for a BD player, dabbled with a 360 drive for HD-DVD, and my pj is a lowly 720p still ;)

On the serious side though, how can anyone say they don't want it like it was played in the theaters or directors intent? Afterall, we have home theaters, right? And home theater were meant to bring the theater to the home. It's an art not a science and I have to question whether or not these individuals are true videophiles or xbox gen know-it-alls and possibly BD bashers thinking grain is BAD. Not sure really.

Just poking a little fun. I can't be considered a snob if I use a ps3 for a BD player, dabbled with a 360 drive for HD-DVD, and my pj is a lowly 720p still ;)

On the serious side though, how can anyone say they don't want it like it was played in the theaters or directors intent? Afterall, we have home theaters, right? And home theater were meant to bring the theater to the home. It's an art not a science and I have to question whether or not these individuals are true videophiles or xbox gen know-it-alls and possibly BD bashers thinking grain is BAD. Not sure really.

I think you hit on something important here. Personally, I am not interested in bringing the theater experience home, I am interested in improving on it. I could make the analogy that you might want the sticky floors, crying babies, and cell phones... but I won't go there. ;) I also prefer to watch my movies at a higher FL than you find in the theater. I want day light scenes to feel like real day light, not some dim replica.

Also, you mention that it is an Art, not a Science, and that may also be where some of this debate comes from. Especially with the Tier threads, many of us are viewing this from a Scientific point of view. I imagine, that many of you who like the grain in film, do so because of the emotional nostalgia that it awakens in you. I have no such emotion attached to that artifact.

P.S. I have to emphasize that I am not for removing grain in film, but I have a personal preference not to see it, particularly in future releases.

so basically you want all the movies to look like tv sitcoms??

To me this thread is discouraging, that more AVS'rs who would have liked to express their preferences, are afraid to, for fear of the hostile snobs, who are so insecure that they are compelled to pretend they are better than others, and use every lame analogy to belittle anyone who disagree with them.


Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those of us who are OK with grain are unlikely to be in love with it but are instead very very concerned about the opinion that it has no place either as an artistic choice or as it's integral necessity of what film is. This is scary to me. I see a real risk of us being forced to have films altered to conform to a fad rather than simply letting them be displayed as what they are. If the public doesn't like grain and efforts are made in the future to minimize it in filming in the future that is one thing but to use techniques to eliminate it in fims which have it (essentially all films) is not wise IMO since the side effects are often unacceptable.

I know why this discussion is growing and was essentially nonexistant a year or two ago. It is HD video and Xbox . Folks brought up on this don't like short depth of field filming,grain or for that matter nearly any other technigue resulting in non video looking images.

I would hate to pick up an old favorite book and see passages changed based on the present idea of what popular writing should be... this isn't being a snob.

Art

Han fired first!

so basically you want all the movies to look like tv sitcoms??

No, I want them to look as close to reality as possible, otherwise, what is the point striving for higher and higher resolution, deeper and deeper contrast, and more accurate colors.

I would hate to pick up an old favorite book and see passages changed based on the present idea of what popular writing should be... this isn't being a snob.
Art

Two points:

1. Expressing your preference for one thing or another, is not being a snob, but belittleing others for expressing their preferences is.

2. To me (my preference) the grain in a film, is not text in a book, it is dirt on the page. While some may have an emotional attachment to an old book with worn bindings, dirt and smudges on the pages, as it somehow represents a sense of history and age, I would have preferred to have the text perfectly preserved and presented to me as new.

No, I want them to look as close to reality as possible, otherwise, what is the point striving for higher and higher resolution, deeper and deeper contrast, and more accurate colors.


close to reality is not what movies are for, leave that for documetrys. Personally, MI3 had lots of grain yet looked worlds better then the dvd version. If director gave the movie the look i'm fine with it. Watch Superman returns, how it was shot with digicam and no grain. I felt the movie looked stale because it was so squeaky clean.

No, I want them to look as close to reality as possible, otherwise, what is the point striving for higher and higher resolution, deeper and deeper contrast, and more accurate colors.


u make another good point.

No, I want them to look as close to reality as possible, otherwise, what is the point striving for higher and higher resolution, deeper and deeper contrast, and more accurate colors.

To more transparently reproduce the original.

Art

To more transparently reproduce the original.

Art


we are not talking about originals...we are talking about future films/movies.

close to reality is not what movies are for

I believe that this is what this whole debate hinges on. Who say's that movies should not be close to reality?

I think I understand you guy's, please correct me if I am wrong. :)

You view movies as art only, or at least primarily as art, and not a way to escape to an alternate reality. My primary aim, when I go down to my theater, is to escape in to the most convincing alternate reality possible. Art doesn't interest me (not you Art ;) ) or perhaps is only secondary to my main goal.

I say bring on Virtual Reality, the sooner the better. :)

Directors like Spielberg, really likes his film extra grainy. Like in Minority report, A.I and Saving Private Ryan. Who am I to tell him how he should make his films look, not like grain takes away from the colors and details.

Two points:

1. Expressing your preference for one thing or another, is not being a snob, but belittleing others for expressing their preferences is.

2. To me (my preference) the grain in a film, is not text in a book, it is dirt on the page. While some may have an emotional attachment to an old book with worn bindings, dirt and smudges on the pages, as it somehow represents a sense of history and age, I would have preferred to have the text perfectly preserved and presented to me as new.

And I don't want you to change films to what you consider preferences. Just leave them and reproduce them. Dirt is dirt film grain is the image in film. Age of film doesn't produce more grain.

It is very very easy to read through those who are expressing the total unacceptabilty of grain since many who say that it should be polished away are quite young based on the age poll on the HDDVD forum, with several of the antigrain guys being in their twenties.

I see potential for the first time ever for us to have films reproduced in our homes with near transparency. Then to see this segment of guys who want now to alter these films to a present fad of how they think they should be altered is tragic.

For those of us who have waited thirty years for this time the thought of having it snatched away by those who think film should look like HD video or reality is something we will resist.

Art

we are not talking about originals...we are talking about future films/movies.

The anti-grain guys say grain has no place in HD.If the original has grain then all the improved ability of HD should give us more transparency if it has no grain ,moderate grain or tons of intentional grain.

I don't like the fake looking false grain in Miami Vice for example. You can see that the grain is often static while the images behind move around which physically can't happen with real grain but that's what the director wanted.I still wouldn't take it out

Art

Art, I haven't seen my 20's for several decades. :)

Why is it acceptable for you to express your opinion that you don't like the grain in Miami Vice, and yet it is not acceptable for me to express that I don't like it?

I never said I wanted to remove grain from existing pictures, I just don't like it. I had Miami Vice in my rental que, and decided not to rent it, when I found out what it looked like.

Art, I haven't seen my 20's for several decades. :)

Why is it acceptable for you to express your opinion that you don't like the grain in Miami Vice, and yet it is not acceptable for me to express that I don't like it?

I never said I wanted to remove grain from existing pictures, I just don't like it. I had Miami Vice in my rental que, and decided not to rent it, when I found out what it looked like.

I'm not attempting to stop you from expressing your opinion ,and in fact as you can see, especially intentionally added digital false grain may not be my first choice either. I just really don't want to see DNR and this get rid of all grain mentality to win out without a fight.

If films had been made with a technology that either made grain so fine you couldn't see it or magically film was something that didn't have grain I likely would have liked it better but it is what it is.I just don't want to see this go the way it looks like it may be going with" lets make film look like HD video" mentality.

Please do not take my comments as an attempt to stifle your opinion expression even if I disagree with it.

close to 40% in this poll don't want grain in their movies for their HD content. i think the ppl have spoken.

if there are any lurkers from hollywood here...the ppl have spoken...take notes...think twice about grains when filming future movies.

like it or not, grain will never leave hollywood. Whens the last time you read a movie review that talked about having grain and runing the movie?

No, I want them to look as close to reality as possible, otherwise, what is the point striving for higher and higher resolution, deeper and deeper contrast, and more accurate colors.
Have we not gone over that 'reality' thing before? Concerning technical progress for more 'reality', well, this whole debate comes from the fact that HD is higher resolution and more accurate therefore showing you the reality of what films look like much more than a DVD. But you want another reality enforced since you don't like the reality of the film look. Poor film...
Technical progress is fine. And it will give us pictures closer to the physical reality our senses experience. But an artistic medium is a not a scientific instrument to sample physical reality. It's a tool to shape reality into something else for artistic effect. Is that so hard to grasp? As close to physical reality as possible is just one option the artist has, certainly not the only one. And that is the way it should be.

grain is no different then stylized colors like in "Fast and furious", "Sword Fish" and "Crank". Some people hate the music video squeaky clean, overblown colors look. Its all on the director to say how he wants his films to look.

2. To me (my preference) the grain in a film, is not text in a book, it is dirt on the page. While some may have an emotional attachment to an old book with worn bindings, dirt and smudges on the pages, as it somehow represents a sense of history and age, I would have preferred to have the text perfectly preserved and presented to me as new.
Another poor analogy. A dirty book is not the same as a grainy film. Dirt on a book is just that, dirt on a book. The book author did not put it there, does not know about it, does not care about it, and it has no effect on the content of the book (if it's not a story book with drawings) as long as you can still decipher the words. The book is essentially the abstract content put on paper with symbols. The film on the other hand is concrete and abstract at the same time. It is as concrete as the image and sound it is made of, and abstract in the overall meaning of these images and sounds as they are interpreted by the audience. The concrete images made from grain ARE the film image, there is nothing but grain and a substrate it is suspended in. It IS the film. Dirt on the film exists too. But it is NOT the film, it is dirt on it like dirt on a book. If you ask for grain to go away you ask for the film image to go away and be replaced with another kind of image. Plain and simple. It's the same as asking for Beethoven's symphonies to get new orchestrations, or paintings to get new cloth underneath and different strokes with the brush.
You want to see the film 'as new'? We all want that when it means to go back to the original negative and show us the best quality version of the film in accordance with what the film makers intended. We don't want that if it means taking the negative and turning it with the wonders of digital into something else that has not the look, the feel and the effect of the original work as made by its creators. It's revisionism with no respect for the cultural heritage and artistic expression. Unlike film grain it is ugly.

As close to physical reality as possible is just one option the artist has, certainly not the only one. And that is the way it should be.

It is an option Exactly, and the option that I prefer. I am hoping that it will be an option that is exercised more in the future.

Do you love home theaters because you enjoy movies, or do you enjoy movies because you love home theaters?

I'm always a bit depressed when I hear people saying how they run out to buy some horrible movie like Fast and the Furious 3 because the PQ is great. I don't care if the actors come over and act it out in my house every time I slip the disc in: I'm still not bothering with junk like that. And the whole "I use it to show off my system to friends" argument seems a bit shaky. If my friends came over and I pulled out Tokyo Drift they would all start laughing at me before I even got the disc in. Even the people on this forum have to realize that movies come first and the quality of the discs come second. This is how most of the world operates, but we just place a *much* larger emphasis on the quality of the disc. But enough to trump the quality of the movie itself?

I realize this is the avsforum, but all this talk of "forcing" directors to film things in one specific style ("HDNet style") is just scary to me. It's like telling all painters they must work in oil and only oil from now on because oil paintings look "closer to reality" that way. I had no idea that so many consider more accurate recreation of the original film's grain (which is a huge plus to me) as a negative.

Quite frankly, the PQ Tier thread suddenly got a lot less meaningful now that I realize it is largely based on achieving one specific "look". I wish it were possible to have a thread based on the quality of the transfer from the original master, as that would be infinitely more useful.

In my attempt to understand your point of view, I wonder if anyone can tell me succinctly, what exactly film grain adds to a movie, for you. I am hearing " that is the way it was intended" or "It is art", but I really haven't heard any real explanation of how it makes a movie better?

You know, I don't think I have heard one person in this thread, who didn't like film grain, suggest that it be removed from existing films. The only people who keep bringing that up are the pro-grain people.

In my attempt to understand your point of view, I wonder if anyone can tell me succinctly, what exactly film grain adds to a movie, for you. I am hearing " that is the way it was intended" or "It is art", but I really haven't heard any real explanation of how it makes a movie better?

how does taking out grain make the film better? other then make it look like a hi8 home video?

how does taking out grain make the film better? other then make it look like a hi8 home video?

You refuse to answer my question, and expect me to answer yours, repeatedly?

You refuse to answer my question, and expect me to answer yours, repeatedly?

it sets the tonality and the mood of the film, honestly watching a movie like "traffic", "Saving private Ryan" or "Saw" films won't have the same emotional feeling looking squeaky clean. Hence why kodak makes film with certain grain level that a director can choose.


heres what i mean.

Highdefdigest.com

Superman returns

"I'll start with what I find lacking about 'Superman Returns' -- it is so pristine looking that it feels sterile. HD cameras tend to flatten images out a bit to me, with backgrounds resembling pixel paintings, and the image impossibly clean. Though I can't say I want to go back to wholly analog filmmaking, I do often miss the realness, the grain, the simply aliveness of celluloid."

In my attempt to understand your point of view, I wonder if anyone can tell me succinctly, what exactly film grain adds to a movie, for you. I am hearing " that is the way it was intended" or "It is art", but I really haven't heard any real explanation of how it makes a movie better?

With film, grain IS the image what more can one say ? Even those of us who don't want to see it polished off aren't saying it adds to the image in and of itself.

This just keeps going round and round . It is almost as if you do not want to understand the reason grain is important,instead you look for circuitous alternative arguments.

Grain being how the image is formed with film means it's removal is not a thing to be taken lightly, that is all there is to this.



Art

How wonderful! It seems most of agree all agree:

1) The original content is a film should be reproduced as faithfully as possible. ;)

2) We would enjoy seeing future content that utilizes more of the available potential more of the time. :) Change can be good!

Thank you all for confirming that ACS Forums hosts connisuers of the highest order. Now lets see who's listening.

Derek

No, Art, I am really trying to understand this. I must admit, I didn't like the way Superman Returns looked, but that was for a number of reasons. I suppose that I am not against grain, if it is not overdone, but I certainly will be paying more attention to this as I watch, to see if I can understand where you guy's are coming from.

Is grain much more noticeable on certain technology? I am wondering if it is much less evident on your CRT's than my DLP?

Mspeed6, My experiance was very different. Perhaps a different display would alter your opinion?

I would have thought that single chip DLP would be even more revealing of grain than LCD?? Does LCD not suffer from convergence issues the way that other 3 chip devices do?

Mspeed6, My experiance was very different. Perhaps a different display would alter your opinion?


Grain never bothered me, in sd or hd. Only film to that annoyed me to a point of unwatchable was the SD version of "minority report". Its just more then grain though, the movie is almost 3hours long with both DTS/Dolby 6.1 track on it and had alots of compression artifacts on top of grain.

I would of picked this option had it been available.

I don't like heavy grain movies on Blu-ray so far it seems to me it does not handle it well. Grain and some heavy filters often produce noise for lack of a better word in backgounds.

it sets the tonality and the mood of the film, honestly watching a movie like "traffic", "Saving private Ryan" or "Saw" films won't have the same emotional feeling looking squeaky clean."

Isn't this all subjective? When you start talking about setting the mood and tonality, there is absolutely nothing objective about that.

I do understand entirely about what a director wants to convey and that is his right to do that, but if Traffic was filmed "squeaky clean" as you put it, are you telling me that you would throw your hands up in the air in disgust about how the movie did not evoke your emotions and how you think it would be better if it went through some filtration process to make it look "grittier" to set the mood of the movie?

I just want it to look like it does in the theater and for probably 90% of the movies, I never notice any grain even if it is there. Like I said earlier, if Blu-ray or HD DVD exagerates the grain to the point of being abnoxious and distracting, then I don't want it there because that isn't how it was in the theater. Stylized films like Saving Private Ryan do not apply.

Isn't this all subjective? When you start talking about setting the mood and tonality, there is absolutely nothing objective about that.


sure, its directors intent so i'm fine by it. who am I or you to tell a film maker how he should shoot a film?? Its no different then the directors choice of having a Green filter thoughout the Matrix or Gold filter all thoughout Invincible.

I just want it to look like it does in the theater and for probably 90% of the movies, I never notice any grain even if it is there. Like I said earlier, if Blu-ray or HD DVD exagerates the grain to the point of being abnoxious and distracting, then I don't want it there because that isn't how it was in the theater. Stylized films like Saving Private Ryan do not apply.

thank u...i never noticed grain when i was watching most of these movies in the threatre either (even if it is there like u said). now the "grain-lovers" arguments are if it is intended like that...then it is fine. well well, now blu-ray exergerate some of these movies to the point where u can see the grain at your own personal home and justified it is fine.

im seeing alot of hyprocrites here.

sure, its directors intent so i'm fine by it. who am I or you to tell a film maker how he should shoot a film??

No, I actually agree with this. It's just that I don't know if my view would change about a movie if it didn't have the stylized imagery and it was shot "clean". I have Superman Returns on HD-DVD, and I didn't feel like it was lacking anything like the hidefdigest review insinuated. Like it lacked a soul because it was too pure. To me, the acting and subject matter override all of that. Can't the same arguement be made that the director of Superman Returns wanted to shoot the movie specifically that way? Why isn't the directors intent extended to that situation? You used it in your example as a negative thing. Explain.

I suspect that in some cases the film grain was the intent, and in others it was just a technological limitation.

I say if the director feels the grain adds something then leave it in. If he or she doesn't, then they should try to filter it out in the mastering process. However, I don't see how grain existing on a transfer is proof of director intent.

MSpeed6,

Are you certain that most of the grain we are seeing on these Blu Ray discs was the director's intent (and not just a poor mastering job)? The grain I see in the Spiderman 2 Blu-Ray trailer at my local SonyStyle store looks considerably more pronounced than what I remember from the theater. My assumption is not "directors intent" in this situation, it is "poor mastering."

I think you hit on something important here. Personally, I am not interested in bringing the theater experience home, I am interested in improving on it. I could make the analogy that you might want the sticky floors, crying babies, and cell phones... but I won't go there. ;)
I think you have already shown that you are not competent enough to make a valid analogy. And who said anything about bringing the theater experience home?


To me (my preference) the grain in a film, is not text in a book, it is dirt on the page.
Again, stop with the bad analogies. Grain is not "dirt", not even in the metaphorical sense. Nor is it a "contamination" like you put it earlier.

I think you have already shown that you are not competent enough to make a valid analogy. And who said anything about bringing the theater experience home?


Again, stop with the bad analogies. Grain is not "dirt", not even in the metaphorical sense. Nor is it a "contamination" like you put it earlier.

Perhaps if you read the post that I was quoting, you would see that the original poster said the point was bringing the theater home. But instead, just go ahead and throw insults if it makes you feel better about yourself. :rolleyes:

While I have you, can you answer some of the questions I put forth earlier that you didn't/couldn't explain?

The black bar issue, is just an issue of the shape of the screen, it doesn't affect the image itself.
How does the OAR issue not affect the picture of a movie? If people don't want black bars, a lot of movies in wider than 16:9 aspect ratios will have to be cropped thus losing up to 33% of the picture. Explain how that doesn't affect an image.


A better analogy would be whether you want to view a painting, through dirty glasses.
Second, explain this analogy because it truly doesn't make any sense. How is grain equivalent to dirty glasses? Grain is part of a picture, dirt on your glasses is not. A very, very poor analogy, not even weak at best. Answer this question and I will concede.

Also, since you have stated that you are not for removing grain from past movies, just against it's inclusion in future ones, then what about photography?

I mean, it's essentially the same thing so shouldn't all photos also look as realistic as possible since we have the technology? After all, black and white is so 20th century right? In your own words, I guess professional photographers who don't have the most glossy, realistic photos and use all that "old" crap in their work "do so because of the emotional nostalgia that it awakens" in them.

Pure nonsense.

While I have you, can you answer some of the questions I put forth earlier that you didn't/couldn't explain?

How does the OAR issue not affect the picture of a movie? If people don't want black bars, a lot of movies in wider than 16:9 aspect ratios will have to be cropped thus losing up to 33% of the picture. Explain how that doesn't affect an image.


Second, explain this analogy because it truly doesn't make any sense. How is grain equivalent to dirty glasses? Grain is part of a picture, dirt on your glasses is not. A very, very poor analogy, not even weak at best. Answer this question and I will concede.

First of all, I never said that I wanted to crop OAR movies, I would never do that. All I said was the the aspect ratio does not affect the image of the movie, just the shape of the screen. Grain is within the image area. I don't know why that is not clear to you.

Secondly, I see that splitting hairs is your special talent for distracting from the discussion. The results are the same, whether you have a grainy picture, or grainy glasses, it affects what you are viewing.

Also, since you have stated that you are not for removing grain from past movies, just against it's inclusion in future ones, then what about photography?

I mean, it's essentially the same thing so shouldn't all photos also look as realistic as possible since we have the technology? After all, black and white is so 20th century right? In your own words, I guess professional photographers who don't have the most glossy, realistic photos and use all that "old" crap in their work "do so because of the emotional nostalgia that it awakens" in them.

Pure nonsense.

I really don't know where all your hostility is coming from. Have you had a bad day, or are you always like this?

I never said that I wanted to stop the addition of grain to future movies, I just said that I would prefer not to buy those movies. I am expressing my personal preference. Why people are reacting like I insulted their mother or something is beyond me.

As for Photography, I could care less. I don't use photographs as an entertainment media, so I really don't care.

First of all, I never said that I wanted to crop OAR movies, I would never do that. All I said was the the aspect ratio does not affect the image of the movie, just the shape of the screen. Grain is within the image area. I don't know why that is not clear to you.
Changing the aspect ratio in any way always affects the image of a movie, I don't know why that is not clear to you.

Secondly, I see that splitting hairs is your special talent for distracting from the discussion. The results are the same, whether you have a grainy picture, or grainy glasses, it affects what you are viewing.
Ha! I have a special talent for distracting from a discussion?! Well, considering you didn't even answer my question I guess you have a talent for avoiding a discussion. Grain does not "affect" what you are viewing, it IS what you are viewing.


I never said that I wanted to stop the addition of grain to future movies, I just said that I would prefer not to buy those movies.
Omg... I can't, I just can't. It's impossible to have a semi-intelligent conversation with someone who contradicts himself the way you do. And I didn't even say you wanted to stop grain, I said you were against it. Not the same but hey, twisting words is your specialty.


As for Photography, I could care less. I don't use photographs as an entertainment media, so I really don't care.
Right, because you can't answer the question so you just brush it off with "I could care less", which actually means you care but whatever.


P.S. For someone who accuses others of sidestepping arguments and making bad analogies, you do A LOT of both.

My last words in this thread, and then you are going on my ignore list. I have heard people complain about how hostile the forums have gotten lately, from people who just signed up recently, apparently just to take out their agressions, and try to boost their tiny ego's.

I didn't realize how true that was until now. I long for the days when AVS meant a place for civil discussion. Where it was a place you could express your opinions without someone picking apart your words, criticizing your spelling, and doing anything possible to demean you, so that they could feel better about their little worthless lives.

I am done here, it is not worth one further ounce of energy. Please make sure you make some snide comments after I leave, to make yourself feel like a big man.

^ This coming from someone who accused Art (of all people) of belittling others and not respecting their opinions. And I can see why these forums can be construed as hostile what with people telling each other to "feel better about their little worthless lives" and all.

Phil,
You are not the only "old timer" (and newcomers for that matter) to say that in public or via PMs and reported posts. As I've said to a few people, AVS is only as good as its forum members allow it to be. The only discussions that seem to remain civil here is when there are real facts and some knowledge required to participate. And even that doesn't stop some people. :)

The best thing to do is never comment to somebody peronally, even if they make comments to you. It's tough, and if it's somewhat personal, just report the post and person. You'd be surprised at how many people get vacations from the forum. Permanent ones here and there. :)

larry

What kind of a poll is that?

If the film version had grain, transfer to any format should have grain.
What is there to like or dislike about it?

Most recent Blu-ray transfers are near-transparent to me, which is what I expect from HD.

If the film version had grain, transfer to any format should have grain.
What is there to like or dislike about it?
That idea had already been put forth. Since there's really no answer for it, the discussion shifted to whether or not grain is appropriate in future films. Since that is also a ridiculous question for which there is no answer, the discussion degenerated into a series of petty insults, namecalling, and one really teary-eyed grown man.

and one really teary-eyed grown man.
Perhaps he just got a little grain in his eye. :p

I understand the point of this poll..
Sure every body has the right to like or dislike grain...for five years of the DVD life, people has used to jug the PQ based on the degree of the present of grain...now we are moving forward to new step and grain suddenly reappear on the very first title of BR...
at the beginning of format war, BR camp has tried to give an explanation to BR that it 's copy exact of original...that is what HD should be etc....Ok! let it be that..but they started also to critic HD DVD image as "processed", to much clean blabla bla...! Ok let it say...but now, more and more BR title suddenly becomes clean, sharp and no grain...what is the truth here?

Quite frankly, the PQ Tier thread suddenly got a lot less meaningful now that I realize it is largely based on achieving one specific "look". I wish it were possible to have a thread based on the quality of the transfer from the original master, as that would be infinitely more useful.
I agree. Unfortunately it's rather difficult since without access to the master and/or knowing the film intimately from screenings there is quite some guess work involved as to how faithful and correct the disc is relative to the digital master, and the digital master relative to the orginal (film) master.

I understand the point of this poll..
Sure every body has the right to like or dislike grain...for five years of the DVD life, people has used to jug the PQ based on the degree of the present of grain...now we are moving forward to new step and grain suddenly reappear on the very first title of BR...
at the beginning of format war, BR camp has tried to give an explanation to BR that it 's copy exact of original...that is what HD should be etc....Ok! let it be that..but they started also to critic HD DVD image as "processed", to much clean blabla bla...! Ok let it say...but now, more and more BR title suddenly becomes clean, sharp and no grain...what is the truth here?
The truth is that it's a pretty complex issue and easy answers are usually not to come by. There are several layers of 'processing' and on all factors that influence the final outcome one way or another. For HD discs:
- Level 1: Raw footage, original negative, original digital data from camera
- Level 2: Interpreted footage, film makers make decisions about black level, colors, gamma, shadow detail, amount of grain/noise, sharpness, detail etc.
- Level 3: Interpreted footage on digital master (may be same as level 2 if a DI was used, if not a scanning session is required followed by another round of level 2 decisions)
- Level 4: Digital master following HD disc technical specs (1080*1920, 4:2:0, 8 bit)
- Level 5: Compressed digital master as on the disc
- Level 6: Display chain and what it makes out of the data on the disc (very important)

Ideally we want to see Level 2 directly as the film makers saw it when mastering the film. We see level 6, though. Does it look like or close to level 2? The answer may be, pretty much or, nothing at all, or something in between. And there are many reasons for that. The technology is here though to make level 6 look quite close to level 2. And that is good news.

Frankly, I'm tired of the inane arguments about grain, and I'm convinced most people don't even understand what it is. I'm sorry if I'm just echoing what has already been written here, but grain on film=pixels on video. It's the little spots of color that combine to create an image. It's how film works. No grain, no image. Now if the grains are fewer and larger, it becomes visible in HD as a grittier image. It all depends on the process... whether it was intended for effect or the result of older film stocks or pushing it to increase contrast.

Anything shot on film is grainy... just in varying degrees.

Removing grain from a movie in an effort to 'improve it', is as much a travesty as if someone were to suggest removing brush strokes to improve the look of famous works of art.

Outrageous that so many people here want to alter the intent of the orignal film maker.
who cares about the directors intent, the fact is that when you look at crank and black hawk down you then know why grain sucks

high definition is advertised as the perfect picture, clear and vivid colors.

grain makes the picture look dirty and i like to see details without grain blotching everywhere

i like to pay attention to details...so because i dont like grain im destroying art? flame all you want simple matter is that grain makes the films look ugly

so because Blood Diamond was a gritty movie in some parts, does that mean it has to be grainy all throughout and wreck the beautiful african landscape shots. I hope not

who cares about the directors intent, the fact is that when you look at crank and black hawk down you then know why grain sucks

high definition is advertised as the perfect picture, clear and vivid colors.

grain makes the picture look dirty and i like to see details without grain blotching everywhere

i like to pay attention to details...so because i dont like grain im destroying art? flame all you want simple matter is that grain makes the films look ugly

so because Blood Diamond was a gritty movie in some parts, does that mean it has to be grainy all throughout and wreck the beautiful african landscape shots. I hope not


Thankfully just like you don't care for the directors intent he doesn't care for yours. No filmmaker cares what we have to say. Its his movie! His work of art! Black Hawk Down IS the perfect picture!

Anything shot on film is grainy... just in varying degrees.

Yep.
But that doesn't mean it is always visible either.

And I, for one, actually like the look of grain. It gives a film more "character" and can affect the mood it's trying to create. No self-respecting filmlover can hate grain and the last time I checked, home video was created primarily for watching movies, not a picture window.

the artistic medium of film has been around much longer than the newly created and advertised "Hd is the perfect picture!!!!"
Why should the older conform to the newer..?
HD was invented to watch CONTENT. Different content. Sure, Discovery Channel HD has the super pretty shot on HD video look many like. Why should all films have to look like that as well regardless of artistic intent...?

"Who cares about the director's intent..?"!"!"

Many of us.

who cares about the directors intent, the fact is that when you look at crank and black hawk down you then know why grain sucks

high definition is advertised as the perfect picture, clear and vivid colors.

grain makes the picture look dirty and i like to see details without grain blotching everywhere

i like to pay attention to details...so because i dont like grain im destroying art? flame all you want simple matter is that grain makes the films look ugly

so because Blood Diamond was a gritty movie in some parts, does that mean it has to be grainy all throughout and wreck the beautiful african landscape shots. I hope not

A hell of a lot of assumptions all based on your point of view. I'm not a grain lover but I pray that the powers that be don't polish off films for you. The perfect transfer is as transparent to the source as possible. If that is discovery HD so be it,but likewise if it is Miami Vice that is it's job.

Art

who cares about the directors intent, the fact is that when you look at crank and black hawk down you then know why grain sucks

high definition is advertised as the perfect picture, clear and vivid colors.

grain makes the picture look dirty and i like to see details without grain blotching everywhere

i like to pay attention to details...so because i dont like grain im destroying art? flame all you want simple matter is that grain makes the films look ugly

so because Blood Diamond was a gritty movie in some parts, does that mean it has to be grainy all throughout and wreck the beautiful african landscape shots. I hope not

I guess you must love Pixar. Grain is part of the story. Some directors prefer soft blur, others prefer an extremely high depth of field...etc.
Yet, again, I do not want my Blu-ray player to do anything that would take the picture away from its intended visual impact.

Batman Begins is a good example even though it's on HD DVD. I would have preferred if Chris Nolan shot with a dark and grainy style so as to make it feel more gritty. However, he opted for dark and soft which I thought made it look a bit too sterile. The picture just looks too smooth and IMO, a little grain would have went a long way.

Heres a review from the new movie "Babel", its all intended.

"At first glance, 'Babel' may not seem like the type of film that would benefit much from the bump to high-def. It's a grainy, battered, rough-looking film -- a visual style that perfectly suits the film's subject matter"

I got a question how is someone supposed to know what the original film looks like or supposed to look like? There is no way for me to see a master print, and dont have the equipment that the director has to see his film. Also another point how come it is that in many b&m reatailers that have a BD demo set up, none of the demo clips have grain?? Now say if youre trying to sell BD players and movies would you honestly be displaying a grainy film? Had I not known any better and i was in the market for a crystl clear image that my set is capable of and seen a grainy bd movie playing I would be like BD sucks, it looks like ass. It almost seems as "directors intent" is an excuse, how do we know its supposed to be there? Not many have seen the original print, im not talking bout theater print , because I havent seen any theater that has a 1080p display. Seriously do some of these movies need grain, of course not! I agree some do as it adds to the film and is appreciated, but majority dont. To be honest i dont see why its needed in many blockbuster action movies. I just seems like alot of people instantly say grain is directors intent, how do we know for sure? It reminds me of when someone makes a mistake and say uh well i meant to do that. Just my $.02

The "grain is just there" argument reminds me of the "pops&clicks is just there" that was used with LPs.

Guess who won that one? ;)

different because the "pops and clicks" are not actually on the record.
The grain is actually a part of the image. :)

different because the "pops and clicks" are not actually on the record.
The grain is actually a part of the image.

True.

However, I can recall folks at the time that insisted that pops/clicks are the price to be paid for listening to great recorded music (come to think of it there are still some of those guys out there ;) ).
I know it sounds a bit silly now...

If a director approves of grain, fine, let it be.
But if that isn't the case and it is distracting to the viewer....

BTW: How is Buffy? :)

Buffy rocks! She is sensing I believe that we have a new slayer on the way!
My fiancee has a giant beerbelly look going on at the moment. I think Buffy is worried that she might get pushed aside when Junior arrives.

:)

I got a question how is someone supposed to know what the original film looks like or supposed to look like? There is no way for me to see a master print, and dont have the equipment that the director has to see his film. Also another point how come it is that in many b&m reatailers that have a BD demo set up, none of the demo clips have grain?? Now say if youre trying to sell BD players and movies would you honestly be displaying a grainy film? Had I not known any better and i was in the market for a crystl clear image that my set is capable of and seen a grainy bd movie playing I would be like BD sucks, it looks like ass. It almost seems as "directors intent" is an excuse, how do we know its supposed to be there? Not many have seen the original print, im not talking bout theater print , because I havent seen any theater that has a 1080p display. Seriously do some of these movies need grain, of course not! I agree some do as it adds to the film and is appreciated, but majority dont. To be honest i dont see why its needed in many blockbuster action movies. I just seems like alot of people instantly say grain is directors intent, how do we know for sure? It reminds me of when someone makes a mistake and say uh well i meant to do that. Just my $.02

yes thank u for exposing these "grain lovers" hyprocites. one would think they are being pay by these hollywood studios defending for their graininess.

and why is that u dont notice these "grains" while u watching them in the theatre and all of a sudden it appears now on blu-ray?

oh yeah..one more thing...im watching "behind enemy line" blu-ray right now...hardly any grain...and that what a blu-ray SHOULD BE!!! HD CONTENT!!!

This poll just goes to show how many Joe Six-Packs with computer speakers and 20" screens visit this forum. It's not a bad thing by any means, but interesting nonetheless.

All I can say is that I'm glad studios have the right idea.

history also shows what the "avg. six pack joe" aka ur avg. consumers want...ur avg. consumers will get from hollywood. no more grains for u!!!!

The whole "directors intent" thing IS an excuse. If not, then the "Grain" directors all just happen to in studios that have wound up being BR supporters. Other wise HD-DVD directors would have "wanted it" that way too. What a load of crap. Any sucker that buys into this needs to re-evaluate his headstrong devotion to a format rather than PQ. Personally, I don't care who wins: I'm buying my second of each this week! BUT whoever wins needs to LOOK like HD-DVD and not BR.

Despite being a dual format supporter, I have never understood why people have held on so hard to BR when BR is a) more expensive and b) of poorer PQ (which is why we are buying TV's, HD content, etc. anyway).

BR is CLOSE to HD-DVD in terms of PQ, but NO CIGAR! I guess if we hang out long enough and buy expensive enough players (I'll be buying the Pioneer Elite this time around) they MIGHT equal the $500 HD-DVD players we have had all along.

The whole "directors intent" thing IS an excuse. If not, then the "Grain" directors all just happen to in studios that have wound up being BR supporters. Other wise HD-DVD directors would have "wanted it" that way too. What a load of crap. Any sucker that buys into this needs to re-evaluate his headstrong devotion to a format rather than PQ. Personally, I don't care who wins: I'm buying my second of each this week! BUT whoever wins needs to LOOK like HD-DVD and not BR.

Despite being a dual format supporter, I have never understood why people have held on so hard to BR when BR is a) more expensive and b) of poorer PQ (which is why we are buying TV's, HD content, etc. anyway).

BR is CLOSE to HD-DVD in terms of PQ, but NO CIGAR! I guess if we hang out long enough and buy expensive enough players (I'll be buying the Pioneer Elite this time around) they MIGHT equal the $500 HD-DVD players we have had all along.
I'm sorry, but it's hard to fully understand your rant. But are you implying that HD DVD transfers lack film grain?

Being a supporter of both formats. HD-DVD looks more High Def. comparing both with my eyes. Two things, grain and a lack of contrast on Blu-ray titles bring it down for me. There are a few titles that look really good but not as many as I would like to see. I will give Blu-ray the nod in the audio department, but picture quality goes a little farther with me than slightly better audio. If Blu-ray titles start looking a little better than I will welcome it with open arms. As it is now. If Blu-ray wins the format war and things are the same. I will go back to regular DVD's. I won't be paying a premium for an ever so slightly better picture quality than a regular DVD or in some cases the same picture quality. Its not worth the 2 titles that are noticeably better.

Being a supporter of both formats. HD-DVD looks more High Def. comparing both with my eyes. Two things, grain and a lack of contrast on Blu-ray titles bring it down for me. There are a few titles that look really good but not as many as I would like to see. I will give Blu-ray the nod in the audio department, but picture quality goes a little farther with me than slightly better audio. If Blu-ray titles start looking a little better than I will welcome it with open arms. As it is now. If Blu-ray wins the format war andf things are the same I will go back to regular DVD's. I won't be paying a premium for an ever so slightly better picture quality than a regular DVD.
Why do people keep talking as if film grain is only captured on the Blu-Ray format?

I don't know about you, but my HD DVD-exclusive copies of The Deer Hunter, Casino, Pitch Black, Miami Vice, and The Sting all capture grain. Then there are non-exclusives like The Searchers, The Dirty Dozen, Sleepy Hollow, and MI:III that capture film grain as well on HD DVD.

...If Blu-ray wins the format war and things are the same. I will go back to regular DVD's. I won't be paying a premium for an ever so slightly better picture quality than a regular DVD or in some cases the same picture quality. Its not worth the 2 titles that are noticeably better.


that's what my coworkers said. he said he has a ps3 and a upconvert dvd player with the 50" pioneer plasma hdtv..and notice a lil bit of difference. he said if blu-ray keeps up this way...avg. consumers just may as well stick with their dvd player.

I still don't see what their is to discuss. Grain is grain, it's part of a picture. Now unless you go straight to a director and force him to shoot with an HD camera and crank up the visuals, grain will always exist.


and why is that u dont notice these "grains" while u watching them in the theatre and all of a sudden it appears now on blu-ray?
Are you implying that grain isn't real?

The "grain is just there" argument reminds me of the "pops&clicks is just there" that was used with LPs.

The correct analogy is master tape hiss, not LP pops and clicks.

and why is that u dont notice these "grains" while u watching them in the theatre and all of a sudden it appears now on blu-ray?
You don't pay attention at the cinema, do you? Grain is visible all the time when watching prints, from minor to major, varying from film to film, shot to shot, same as on the HD discs.

Being a supporter of both formats. HD-DVD looks more High Def. comparing both with my eyes. Two things, grain and a lack of contrast on Blu-ray titles bring it down for me.
Do you realize how stupid such a remark is? Contrast on BR different than HD-DVD? Give me a break. Dude, they are both 8 bit 1080p24 HD and any difference in contrast is due to different sources and possible different calibrations in your chain, not the formats themselves. The same goes for grain and all other image quality aspects. What is compression related is not format specific as both formats support all 3 codecs.

I see PLENTY of grain at the theater.
We just saw Casino Royale and the opening B+W scene was INCREDIBLY grainy.

If a grainy, bleached-out look is what the director intended for the film, then that's how it should be. Changing the look of a movie is like changing a Picasso blue period piece to red.

Movies, even though they are for entertainment, are also also the art of the director.

And no, not all of them are masterpieces, but they should be presented as they were intended.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that some of the comments here regarding lack of grain in some titles, not noticing grain theatrically in the prints,that HDDVD is just a little better than DVD are experience related.

1) grain is film, it is more or less pronounced based on many factors including the directors desire to add it but it is film.

2) grain visibilty whether intentional or not is a fact in both BD and HDDVD

3) on a large 1080p display the difference between HD optical discs and DVD upconverted is striking not subtle.

4) each of the HD formats is a bit bucket so the encode or the film itself or both are the culprets in how /what the image looks like not the format.

I honestly believe that an image as sharp as we are getting from HDDVD and BD is something that reveals the warts. Many of you are suddenly expecting to see things that are other than a close approximation of the master. This is perhaps a shock but those of us who love to get it straight and unadulterated love the new formats.

Art

I got a question how is someone supposed to know what the original film looks like or supposed to look like? There is no way for me to see a master print, and dont have the equipment that the director has to see his film.
Because selected “regular Joe, non-studio types” who have shown a non-biased interest in the high-def optical disc format known as Blu-ray have seen split screen (or side by side) synched demonstrations of Blu-ray discs and the D-5 masters from which they originated……and have observed essentially transparency with the D-5 master…..grain and all.

Seth Gecko, Ifletcher et al. from AV forums come to mind for a couple of titles.
If you need a link, perhaps I can hunt it up as this was published online awhile ago.

In regards to this forum, I (and others) have personally invited other members that are considered to be knowledgeable and well respected in their search for the truth such as Kris Deering and Darin to venture down to SoCal and see first hand how accurate they think some Blu-ray discs show when compared to the masters – which are supervised transfers (from the D.P. and/or Director or some designee).

I'm sorry, but it's hard to fully understand your rant. But are you implying that HD DVD transfers lack film grain?

Yes, that is what I am 'implying', at to the horrid extent BR has it. If it's there, as so many have implied, it certainly isn't going to be much. Clearly I'm gonna get flamed on this forum but compare the complaints of HD-DVD titles to those of BR titles. HD-DVD has its own set of problems but grain is not one of them that is seen very often, if at all.

To say that this is a directors choice on practically 100% of BR titles is absurd. As I asked earlier, are these "grainy directors" limited to BR studios? Is grain onlt considered art on that side of the fence? In some movies, grain is used as an expression - typically in flashbacks or to express something that happened in the past (like in Casino Royale). But to say that grain isn't an issue with the way BluRay is compressed is a stretch. Where's the art in grainyness to Little Man (among others)? It's all over these forums - specific to BR and not HD-DVD. Get your head out of the sand, it's fact.

BTW, what qualified my original post as a rant? Because it offended or disagreed with you. Sorry, I'm not the only one...see the replies that immediately followed yours. I'm not interested in WHO wins, just that the one that accomplished HD the best wins. No offense intended.

Yes, that is what I am 'implying', at to the horrid extent BR has it. If it's there, as so many have implied, it certainly isn't going to be much. Clearly I'm gonna get flamed on this forum but compare the complaints of HD-DVD titles to those of BR titles. HD-DVD has its own set of problems but grain is not one of them that is seen very often, if at all.

To say that this is a directors choice on practically 100% of BR titles is absurd. As I asked earlier, are these "grainy directors" limited to BR studios? Is grain onlt considered art on that side of the fence? In some movies, grain is used as an expression - typically in flashbacks or to express something that happened in the past (like in Casino Royale). But to say that grain isn't an issue with the way BluRay is compressed is a stretch. Where's the art in grainyness to Little Man (among others)? It's all over these forums - specific to BR and not HD-DVD. Get your head out of the sand, it's fact.
What in the world are you talking about, have you ever even watched Blu-ray? It's ridiculous to say that one format is superior because there is more or less grain. And what exactly do you mean by "are grainy directors limited to BR studios"? If you watched more than a dozen HD DVD movies, or if you ever looked anywhere other than the Tier threads, you would know that many HD movies also have a lot of grain. Go watch Backdraft, or The Bourne Supremacy, or any of the first two Fast and the Furious movies and maybe you'll get a clue.

What in the world are you talking about, have you ever even watched Blu-ray? It's ridiculous to say that one format is superior because there is more or less grain. And what exactly do you mean by "are grainy directors limited to BR studios"? If you watched more than a dozen HD DVD movies, or if you ever looked anywhere other than the Tier threads, you would know that many HD movies also have a lot of grain. Go watch Backdraft, or The Bourne Supremacy, or any of the first two Fast and the Furious movies and maybe you'll get a clue.

Nothing but "Long Live Blu-Ray" will do for you, I guess. I have no axe to grind with either format, you on the other hand have made it your slogan. Since its introduction, Blu-Ray has survived, not because of its successes, but because of its promises and marketing hype. It's supporters look for nothing more than it to be equal with HD-DVD in terms of PQ. Equal? It should be 2-2.5x better judging from the price.

I have watched whatever titles interest me. I have never visited any other Tier thread than BR's. The reason I went to that one was to try to figure out if there was anything out there on BR that COULD equal the PQ of HD-DVD so I chose off the top and, even in the best of titles, there's the grain. None of us would by a high-end plasma to see the grain, why should we settle for a high end player that does....because it claims to be better?

No, I haven't watched Backdraft, The Bourne Supremacy or The Fast and the Furious 1 & 2 - although I did see part 3. All of those titles I have seen before. I tend to rent the new releases. This weekend, for example, I rented THe Guardian and Flyboys for BR and Accepted on HD-DVD. While Accepted isn't on par with the other two as far as quality of story/production, it frustratingly surpassed the other two in terms of HD presentation- again, that's why I at least, have spent thousands of dollars to see. Not grain.

I really don't need a "clue" from you dragon. I can see for myself.

I watched the Guardian on Blu-ray last night. The only grain I remember seeing was in the flashback and sea rescue scenes, which was most likely intentional and would probably be the same on HD-DVD. The rest of the movie was clean, sharp and devoid of any noticeable levels of grain at normal viewing distances.

But, like many others here, I am concerned about grain in Blu-ray and voted accordingly (I'm not advocating grain removal, but would rather it not be added or enhanced from its natural level). Some amount of grain bothers me, some doesn't. There have also been some threads in the HD-DVD section in which people are complaining about grain also and having myself seen The Italian Job and Miami Vice on HD-DVD I'm not convinced that HD-DVD doesn't have a grain problem either.

I'm also wondering if what many of us are interpreting as grain is some kind of noise because I see the same kind of "noise" when watching HD material (HBO-HD, Showtime-HD, Universal-HD, HDNet Movies, Local OTA HD programs, etc.) provided via my DirecTV HDTivo receiver.

Nothing but "Long Live Blu-Ray" will do for you, I guess. I have no axe to grind with either format, you on the other hand have made it your slogan. Since its introduction, Blu-Ray has survived, not because of its successes, but because of its promises and marketing hype. It's supporters look for nothing more than it to be equal with HD-DVD in terms of PQ. Equal? It should be 2-2.5x better judging from the price.
The "Long live Blu-ray" caption is a joke it doesn't mean anything. In case you didn't look a little further down at my sig, you should be able to tell I prefer HD DVD.

I have watched whatever titles interest me. I have never visited any other Tier thread than BR's. The reason I went to that one was to try to figure out if there was anything out there on BR that COULD equal the PQ of HD-DVD so I chose off the top and, even in the best of titles, there's the grain. None of us would by a high-end plasma to see the grain, why should we settle for a high end player that does....because it claims to be better?
Once again, grain has nothing to do with your player, or your tv, or your microwave, or your blender. It's part of a film and is not format-specific nor does it "degrade" the quality of a picture.


No, I haven't watched Backdraft, The Bourne Supremacy or The Fast and the Furious 1 & 2 - although I did see part 3.
Yeah I could have figured that out myself just by reading your ridiculous posts.

Yeah I could have figured that out myself just by reading your ridiculous posts.

Guys like you crack me up. This forum is called "Grain on Blu Ray: Opinions. I voiced mine and that's all there is to it. I'm not lying, I'm not partial (except that I don't want grain), and I really don't care if my opinion offends you.

Just like with any other BR discussion, no opposing view can be stated without someone spiraling the discussion downward. I can tolerate grain when it is used sparingly. That's how I like it. That's what the thread asks. Everytime one of these discussions is started, someone always accuses another of not watching the "correct" movies. I can't help it if The Searchers and Backdraft don't interest me anymore. It's not being selective in a biased sense, it's being selective in a "what I want to see sense".

I just don't like grain. I watch roughly equal amounts of HD & BR. I see alot more of it on BR. I can see where it could artistic in some circumstances (like your Batman example), but not in others, like Little Man. I just don't think that that is a coincidence that most BR movies exhbit grain. I believe it is a shortcoming of the format itself as it is currently, but not one that can't be overcome (hopefully).

If that's ridiculous to you, sorry. You can cry all you want or you can choose to ignore my opinion.

Enjoy your discussion.

I watched the Guardian on Blu-ray last night. The only grain I remember seeing was in the flashback and sea rescue scenes, which was most likely intentional and would probably be the same on HD-DVD. The rest of the movie was clean, sharp and devoid of any noticeable levels of grain at normal viewing distances.

But, like many others here, I am concerned about grain in Blu-ray and voted accordingly (I'm not advocating grain removal, but would rather it not be added or enhanced from its natural level). Some amount of grain bothers me, some doesn't. There have also been some threads in the HD-DVD section in which people are complaining about grain also and having myself seen The Italian Job and Miami Vice on HD-DVD I'm not convinced that HD-DVD doesn't have a grain problem either.

I'm also wondering if what many of us are interpreting as grain is some kind of noise because I see the same kind of "noise" when watching HD material (HBO-HD, Showtime-HD, Universal-HD, HDNet Movies, Local OTA HD programs, etc.) provided via my DirecTV HDTivo receiver.

The Guardian was indeed one of the best movies I have seen on BR, as was All the President's Men & Flyboys. I shouldn't have mentioned them here in a Grain discussion. It was just the lack of "WOW" that these titles were missing. I have no better or technical explanation than that. BR sound is certainly a notch above my HD-DVD player though. The Guardian and Flyboys were great in that respect. Again though, not a grain issue.

I see PLENTY of grain at the theater.
We just saw Casino Royale and the opening B+W scene was INCREDIBLY grainy.
And then after that it was an incredibly clean and sharp picture for the rest of the movie.

The Guardian was indeed one of the best movies I have seen on BR, as was All the President's Men & Flyboys.

When was All the President's Men released on BD?!?!

Edit: crap, I just realized you must have meant All the King's Men. :(

And then after that it was an incredibly clean and sharp picture for the rest of the movie.


actually, no.
Still had noticeable film grain (though Nothing like the opening) and wasn't the sharpest projection that I've seen (but that could very well be the projectionists fault...)

Yes, that is what I am 'implying', at to the horrid extent BR has it. If it's there, as so many have implied, it certainly isn't going to be much. Clearly I'm gonna get flamed on this forum but compare the complaints of HD-DVD titles to those of BR titles. HD-DVD has its own set of problems but grain is not one of them that is seen very often, if at all.

To say that this is a directors choice on practically 100% of BR titles is absurd. As I asked earlier, are these "grainy directors" limited to BR studios? Is grain onlt considered art on that side of the fence? In some movies, grain is used as an expression - typically in flashbacks or to express something that happened in the past (like in Casino Royale). But to say that grain isn't an issue with the way BluRay is compressed is a stretch. Where's the art in grainyness to Little Man (among others)? It's all over these forums - specific to BR and not HD-DVD. Get your head out of the sand, it's fact.

BTW, what qualified my original post as a rant? Because it offended or disagreed with you. Sorry, I'm not the only one...see the replies that immediately followed yours. I'm not interested in WHO wins, just that the one that accomplished HD the best wins. No offense intended.
I'm still perplexed how some people think Blu-Ray transfers introduce excess grain, and that only HD DVD transfers have grain inherent to the original film stock. Many of my 70 HD DVD movies maintain grain, and there is sometimes lots of it. Also, there are plenty of Blu-Ray movies that lack or have minimal grain; it just depends on how the movie was shot. It's funny how people like ckelly33 make insulting remarks when they spout idiotic comments that make no sense.

Also, your reference to "Little Man" is bad, because it's a Blu-Ray exclusive. It wasn't encoded separately for both formats. And art or no art, it's how the movie was shot that gives it its level of grain.

I probably own more HD DVDs than you, so there is no head-in-sand here. I just happen to have common sense and a better understanding of this subject than you.

Guys like you crack me up. This forum is called "Grain on Blu Ray: Opinions. I voiced mine and that's all there is to it. I'm not lying, I'm not partial (except that I don't want grain), and I really don't care if my opinion offends you.

Guys like you crack me up too. Whether or not a movie/format has grain is not an opinion. I know you're not lying, you just don't know what you're talking about. There is grain in lots of movies on BOTH formats. That is a fact, not an opinion. I gave you four concrete examples and you're the one who chooses to ignore them.

Now whether or not you LIKE grain can be a matter of opinion, but that's not what we were discussing. You specifically mentioned HD DVD being better than BD on the false belief that the PQ is somehow superior due to lack of grain. THAT to me is ridiculous.

dont worry...when ur avg. consumers finally upgrade their tv to hdtv and get blu-ray players...they will said wtf...i upgraded all my equipments and spend thousand of dollars so i can watch these grains? they wont bother understanding it...but will demand hollywood to submit filming their stuff in hd cam. :D

trust me...the avg. consumers will win. there are million "avg. joe" compare to a few thousand avs members who will love grains.

when ur avg. consumers finally upgrade their tv to hdtv and get blu-ray players...they will said wtf...i upgraded all my equipments and spend thousand of dollars so i can watch these grains? .

Thats exactly what I said when I saw my first blu-ray, and my buddies still say that when they see a movie here. Crank is the only movie im not embarrassed to show.

dont worry...when ur avg. consumers finally upgrade their tv to hdtv and get blu-ray players...they will said wtf...i upgraded all my equipments and spend thousand of dollars so i can watch these grains? they wont bother understanding it...but will demand hollywood to submit filming their stuff in hd cam. :D

Don't worry. Till then every HD player has a powerful degraining chip in the processing chain and Joe Average just does not turn it off since it's on by default and he can't see all the artifacts it introduces. Sharpness will be all cranked up and colors are oversaturated. He will leave these options on too. He's in nirvana at that time. :D

.... all the artifacts it introduces. Sharpness will be all cranked up and colors are oversaturated. He will leave these options on too. He's in nirvana at that time. :D

Maybe the director intended it that way! ;)

actually, no.
Still had noticeable film grain (though Nothing like the opening) and wasn't the sharpest projection that I've seen (but that could very well be the projectionists fault...)
Not on the screen I watched it on. It was very clear and clean. The only time grain became visible was during a few nighttime shots. The grain that is up there is just part of the picture. It isn't 'announcing' itself that it is there.

Since people are so big on painting analogies here, I'll add one. I find grain to be more like the texture of the canvas. It's always there, but doesn't call attention to itself. People keep saying it is more like the brushstrokes, and for a standard film, I don't agree with that. The brushstroke analogy would be more associated with purposeful enhancement of the grain such as the B&W scene in Casino Royale. As with the brushstrokes of a painting, you can exaggerate it if the artist intends to. You can also hide it if you want to much the same way. The texture of the canvas though is always there, just like the minimal grain inherent in film.

Boy, this thread scares the Hell out of me. I wouldn't want to be in that market as a format stakeholder. There is no way one can satisfy such ridiculous desires.

What's next?

Oh yeah, I remember: "HD movies should always fill my HDTV screen! Yes, all movies from now on should be shot in 1.78:1!"

Boy, this thread scares the Hell out of me. I wouldn't want to be in that market as a format stakeholder. There is no way one can satisfy such ridiculous desires.

What's next?

Oh yeah, I remember: "HD movies should always fill my HDTV screen! Yes, all movies from now on should be shot in 1.78:1!"


grains and letterbox are like comparing apples and oranges.

trust me...the avg. consumers will win. there are million "avg. joe" compare to a few thousand avs members who will love grains.

How many times do we have to explain it to you: we do not love grain. We love art. If the artist(filmmaker) intended to have grain in his films then so be it. We don't want to de-face the art by removing what's supposed to be there.

You don't pay attention at the cinema, do you? Grain is visible all the time when watching prints, from minor to major, varying from film to film, shot to shot, same as on the HD discs.
Exactly. The grain IS the picture. Think of the image as an ink-jet printout. All the tiny dots of pigment combine to form a cohesive image. That's what film grain is.

I don't see where complaining will help anything... I don't particularly enjoy the film grain, but if it is intended by the director, I have no problem with it, and honestly, if that is how the source material is, what is there to do?

grains and letterbox are like comparing apples and oranges.
Not really. It deals with the same concept. Removing grain is just like making everything 1.78:1 in that it's what J6P wants.

Not really. It deals with the same concept. Removing grain is just like making everything 1.78:1 in that it's what J6P wants.


somehow...others would disagree.

Thankfully, directors and cinematographers still dictate aspect ratio and visual presentation on film and home video. Anything else, is imo, madness.

dont worry...when ur avg. consumers finally upgrade their tv to hdtv and get blu-ray players...they will said wtf...i upgraded all my equipments and spend thousand of dollars so i can watch these grains? they wont bother understanding it...but will demand hollywood to submit filming their stuff in hd cam. :D

trust me...the avg. consumers will win. there are million "avg. joe" compare to a few thousand avs members who will love grains.

I have to agree.
Many J6Ps have their new HDTV and have watched a CSI broadcast or whatever shoot with HD Cam.
And grain ain't part of it of what they see.
For them, that defines what HD is.

Yes, they see grain in their HD movie broadcasts, but they think it is just "bad reception."

Somebody needs to develop a great algorithm to reduce grain. ;)
The adoption of HD is too important to be left to the ignorance or whims of J6P.

J6P should be focused on getting his fat self to eat whole-wheat grains, rather than worry about the grain on his screen.