The Digital Bits: grain is not a defect on the disc! - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 12:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Faceless Rebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodshed View Post

cough *300* cough.

Yeah, and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within if you want to talk about purposely added grain. They didn't have any grain until the filmmakers purposely put it in to give it a more "filmlike" appearance.
Faceless Rebel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 12:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 37
I wonder how the portion between grain/nograin people is when you look at how they display the movie.

When you watch movies on a projector, its really great with grain, to recreate the cinema experience.

But when I watch on TVs, its not really that important since its just a TV im watching the movie on.

Anybody agreeing?

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #93 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 01:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SirDrexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 4,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A lot of this comes down to how much you see films as art or entertainment.

My take, as someone who sees them as art first, is that we should preserve the original look as faithfully as possible. Yes, there are things that could be considered flaws, but if they are there we should see them. Yes, grain is a byproduct of film and sometimes not explicitly intended, but it's there. It doesn't matter if it was intended or not; all that matters is what was produced. You take it or leave it.
SirDrexl is offline  
post #94 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 04:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I started a thread months ago before I got into HD about this. People thought that I was nuts thinking that the SD version looked better on older films. It appears that I am not so nuts.

So here is a question, do you think it would be better to have studios remove the film grain or leave it.

It would have to be on a case by case basis.

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #95 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 05:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Walking the fine line between restoration and artistic intent. Or was it just low cost production user cheaper film stock or side effects of shooting in low lighting conditions?

The common fear is that in a HD future grain removal will become the norm in hd prodution to please the mass market expectation of how HD should look like.

Once HD gets into mass market territory with as many releases per week as we now qet each quarter there will be standard workflows used with the EE, noise filter, etc. knobs at settings most of do not like at all.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #96 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 05:26 AM
Member
 
HDBlurayFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The issue is that it is not clear that the artist wrote in the script that there needs to be X amount of grain in those shots . It is true in some sense that the final approved copy had grain. It is unclear if the reverse is true. That is, if the grain were not there, it would have been an issue. Heck, for all we know, the creative decision maker may have liked it better!

In my experience I have seen both types. The first type of the creative director uses the existence of grain as a measure of the medium was faithful to their work. They also object to anyone having a "right" to modify their product in any way. I sat through tests of our codec 5 years ago at Sundance with them having this position. Once they saw grain, and noticed that WMV digital was actually better than their film copy, they were happy.

The second type is perfectly fine if the grain goes away. For them, the story, acting, lighting, etc. are the key components, not the grain that came with it.



I don't think this is like black bars. I think if we did a poll here on black bars or not, members here would be in favor of them by 90%+. Yet, if you poll the very people on the issue of grain, as evidenced in this thread, it would not get anywhere close to that level of support. I give it 60 to 40 in favor of grain .

Getting rid of black bar gets rid of some part of the content for good. Getting rid of noise doesn't have that effect.

Here is a somewhat related story I have told once before. When we first did T2, WMV-HD (red laser HD) DVD, we had the fortune to meet and show it to its director, James Cameron. We asked him what he thought of the quality. After watching for just a few seconds he said it was awesome! Surprised that he could tell so fast, I asked what he liked so much about it. He said that he could see the makeup line on Arnold and that any format that could have that level of transparency, had met the quality bar! Needless to say, preserving that unfinished make-up line would not be a good characteristic that is meant to be preserved .

my whole point is...if the director wants grain to be there...it will be there...
HDBlurayFan is offline  
post #97 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 05:37 AM
 
tbrunet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Question for folks here . Fast forward 10, 20, 30 years. Do you think most movies will be shot on film?

Film is a powerful esthetic tool, directors and audiences crave film because it delivers pictures as close to reality as we're likely to get in an "artificial" perceptual environment. With high resolution, random grain, wide contrast, and a seemingly-infinite palette of colors.

Film will still be the "artistic" medium of choice in 20 or 30 years.
tbrunet is offline  
post #98 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 06:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet View Post

Film is a powerful esthetic tool, directors and audiences crave film because it delivers pictures as close to reality as we're likely to get in an "artificial" perceptual environment. With high resolution, random grain, wide contrast, and a seemingly-infinite palette of colors.

Film will still be the "artistic" medium of choice in 20 or 30 years.

There will be the odd director that will use film to make an artistic statement once in a while 20..30 years out.

The other movie makers will have moved on.

There is simply too much conservatism.
Using digital will give directors much more control and saves them time. For film look they will simply use a plug in to create the desired effect or print to film to create the desired effect instead of waisting film stock on 33 takes.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #99 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 06:12 AM
 
louigi222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirDrexl View Post

A lot of this comes down to how much you see films as art or entertainment.

My take, as someone who sees them as art first, is that we should preserve the original look as faithfully as possible. Yes, there are things that could be considered flaws, but if they are there we should see them. Yes, grain is a byproduct of film and sometimes not explicitly intended, but it's there. It doesn't matter if it was intended or not; all that matters is what was produced. You take it or leave it.

Nice post....indeed, that is the question; do you see movies as ART or ENTERTAINMENT.

I see movies as ENTERTAINMENT. If the studios can improve an image (take out the dots/lines/scratches from ole movies) - than, for me and J6P, by all means....DO SOOOO!! ( A good example is How the West Was Won and I'm glad they removed those friggin lines.)
If I want to see ART, I'll go to an art museum or an art movie house---if any are left. Frankly, I'm more concerned about Fox and the rediculous prices they charge for their titles. Sure wish The Bits would take it to the studios for that!
louigi222 is offline  
post #100 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 06:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by louigi222 View Post

Nice post....indeed, that is the question; do you see movies as ART or ENTERTAINMENT.

I see movies as both art an entertainment. Movies that just one of the two, I usually avoid.

And my only criteria is that film should look like film, thats why I went into the HDM in the first place, if it just looked like high resolution DVD. I would have stayed with DVD, because it wouldnt really be worth it.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #101 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 06:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jgatie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I think if the question is the key. I'm pretty certain that if you ask if grain could be eliminated without detriment to the image would one want grain , I bet there would be almost no one wanting grain. The issue is that grain reduction has been detrimental to the final image.

Art

Sorry, I would definitely want grain. If the grain is part of the original, I want it to be reproduced in the copy. You cannot separate the art from the medium without doing a disservice to the art. I would no more want a crystal clear, grain free version of The Godfather than I would want a brush stroke and paint clump free Starry Starry Night.

And before anyone starts with the "Only a few films are art, and all the rest are just entertainment" crap, I wouldn't want a fingerprint and paint clump free copy of my nephew's "My Day at the Zoo" finger painting, either.
Jgatie is offline  
post #102 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 07:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jpco's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 1,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgatie View Post

You cannot separate the art from the medium without doing a disservice to the art.

Isn't separating the art from the medium exactly what we are doing with digital encoding of films? I really can't see how brush strokes from the hand of a master are to be compared to random film grain, which is a product of the physical medium and most often not the work of the artist him/herself.
jpco is offline  
post #103 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 07:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by louigi222 View Post

Nice post....indeed, that is the question; do you see movies as ART or ENTERTAINMENT.

I see movies as ENTERTAINMENT. If the studios can improve an image (take out the dots/lines/scratches from ole movies) - than, for me and J6P, by all means....DO SOOOO!! ( A good example is How the West Was Won and I'm glad they removed those friggin lines.)
If I want to see ART, I'll go to an art museum or an art movie house---if any are left. Frankly, I'm more concerned about Fox and the rediculous prices they charge for their titles. Sure wish The Bits would take it to the studios for that!

Can't you see them as both. I look at 2001 as a work of art. The same with other movies. On the other hand, I see a movie like armageddan as both art and entertainment. Yes I know there are alot of people that hate armageddan. I am one the few that has seen it close to 100 times.

Another great example is the Matrix.

Now there are some movies that need film grain. the film grain itself was used to hide flaws in the filming. A good example is star wars. And I am not talking about the vasoline under the hover car. Lucas tried to create a sense of a throwback era in the first film. Those soft grainy views of look looking over the horizon on tatooine are incredible. On the other hand, I think if they could have removed film grain from some movies like Logan's Run, they would have.

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #104 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 08:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Burke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by louigi222 View Post

Nice post....indeed, that is the question; do you see movies as ART or ENTERTAINMENT.

For me, movies are for entertainment. I have no problems with someone tempering with the original to produce a movie that would increase my enjoyment of it, whether it is technical (better PQ/SQ) or artistic (different camera angles, different ending). Perhaps a new profession will someday be created, the "Re-director".
Steve Burke is offline  
post #105 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 08:47 AM
Senior Member
 
Dregun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The whole argument of saying the "artist" wanted grain is actually pretty funny if you ask me. It's like saying "I wanted to pay $3.00 a gallon for gas" only because on the outside you saw me paying for it; yet I would rather hove only payed .10 a gallon. Do most of you honestly believe that 20+ years ago that directors were given a choice between grain and no grain for producing film and CHOSE grain? It's been said in this thread multiple times, grain is a byproduct of film; for the rare occasions when an artists wanted grain they generally bumped it up!

I mean we know the artists wanted washed out colors, grain, mono sound, poor visual effects, bad dubbing etc etc. We can't assume just because these defects are present that the artist WANTED it that way, they made due with the best they had at that moment in time. If you want to appreciate the "Art" of the film you are then appreciating the defects not because thats what the director wanted but because you get to see the movie the ONLY way it was possible to see it when it was produced.

You can't compare film to paintings for the simple fact that when it comes to painting and drawing on canvas nothing new today can allow someone to express that differently then in the past. Artits/painters were not limited 300 years ago compared to today when it comes to painting life like images; so why do we assume that Directors fall into that same catergory when clearly they do not?

I'm not saying we shouldn't appreciate movies from our past, but I would hope that many would see film grain for what it is; a defect. Seriously guys you would laugh if someone said they prefered to watch a 1980's straight to video movie on Blu-Ray on their HDTV via coax because its the way the artist meant for it to look on their TV! The cry's about using such a poor cable and the director would have rather it not look so snowy but thats all that was available would be pooring over...but not with film grain?

Appreciate the movies un-altered so its captured in time; so you can see what others saw when they witnessed that movie so many years ago. Just don't say you wan't the movie unaltered because the artist wanted those defects. The director may not have wanted grain but the movie is thier child and hadicapped or not they would never trade that child/movie for the world,

Dregun
Dregun is offline  
post #106 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Woodshed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dregun View Post

The whole argument of saying the "artist" wanted grain is actually pretty funny if you ask me. It's like saying "I wanted to pay $3.00 a gallon for gas" only because on the outside you saw me paying for it; yet I would rather hove only payed .10 a gallon. Do most of you honestly believe that 20+ years ago that directors were given a choice between grain and no grain for producing film and CHOSE grain? It's been said in this thread multiple times, grain is a byproduct of film; for the rare occasions when an artists wanted grain they generally bumped it up!

I mean we know the artists wanted washed out colors, grain, mono sound, poor visual effects, bad dubbing etc etc. We can't assume just because these defects are present that the artist WANTED it that way, they made due with the best they had at that moment in time. If you want to appreciate the "Art" of the film you are then appreciating the defects not because thats what the director wanted but because you get to see the movie the ONLY way it was possible to see it when it was produced.

You can't compare film to paintings for the simple fact that when it comes to painting and drawing on canvas nothing new today can allow someone to express that differently then in the past. Artits/painters were not limited 300 years ago compared to today when it comes to painting life like images; so why do we assume that Directors fall into that same catergory when clearly they do not?

I'm not saying we shouldn't appreciate movies from our past, but I would hope that many would see film grain for what it is; a defect. Seriously guys you would laugh if someone said they prefered to watch a 1980's straight to video movie on Blu-Ray on their HDTV via coax because its the way the artist meant for it to look on their TV! The cry's about using such a poor cable and the director would have rather it not look so snowy but thats all that was available would be pooring over...but not with film grain?

Appreciate the movies un-altered so its captured in time; so you can see what others saw when they witnessed that movie so many years ago. Just don't say you wan't the movie unaltered because the artist wanted those defects. The director may not have wanted grain but the movie is thier child and hadicapped or not they would never trade that child/movie for the world,

Dregun


On a related note. I believe sometimes movie fans just want the movie they saw the first time they saw it. Regardless of director's intent or anything else.

Case in point. MANY Star Wars fans got pissed when Lucas started changing things in his original movies. Obviously Lucas "intended" to change what he changed. But he was summarily crushed for "messing up" the original. (or how about when Copolla "oversaw" the Dracula BR release and "signed off" on the few obvious changes)

How can we argue for "director's intent" out of one side of our mouth and then complain when the director changes his "intent", because we don't like it because it is not the original?

I am not saying everyone, and I am not coming in on one side or the other on the "grain or no grain" argument. I am simply stating that often people assume "director's intent" and "the way I first saw it" are the same thing. That clearly isnt always the case.

I think many just "want it like it was".
Woodshed is offline  
post #107 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 10:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

Unfortunately not consistent across the board.

Just watched The Golden Compass on my Epson 1080p 120", some of the close ups are lacking in detail. I will watch this again tomorrow on my Dell 24" to make a PQ evaluation and a review (and hopefully another PIX thread - Maxpower requested a pix so . . . . .)

Damn.. I screened the Golden Compass SD-DVD friday night and the video was blow us away good.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #108 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 10:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodshed View Post

On a related note. I believe sometimes movie fans just want the movie they saw the first time they saw it. Regardless of director's intent or anything else.

Case in point. MANY Star Wars fans got pissed when Lucas started changing things in his original movies. Obviously Lucas "intended" to change what he changed. But he was summarily crushed for "messing up" the original. (or how about when Copolla "oversaw" the Dracula BR release and "signed off" on the few obvious changes)

How can we argue for "director's intent" out of one side of our mouth and then complain when the director changes his "intent", because we don't like it because it is not the original?

I am not saying everyone, and I am not coming in on one side or the other on the "grain or no grain" argument. I am simply stating that often people assume "director's intent" and "the way I first saw it" are the same thing. That clearly isnt always the case.

I think many just "want it like it was".


This is a great point. It also goes to another point of who actually owns the film itself. The director or the fans.

Whenever I see a "directors" cut, I tend to cringe and watch the original first. There is alot more to a film than what the director wanted. There is the editor who can play just as much of a role in shaping the film. producers way in as well.

Good example of a directors cut: LOTRs

bad examples: star wars 4-6 (obviously). Another good example is Independence day. The directors cut a few interesting scenes but it tended to derail the movie.

On some movies, I don't think there is any harm removing the grain if it doesn't:

- bring up noticeable flaws that grain covers up
- removing the grain looks better than having grain
- the movie was not dependent on the grain for REAL artistic reasons like 300 and stars wars IV.

A great example of a film that needs the grain removed.... The Karate Kid. Has anyone tried watching this in HD? I never realized how much grain there was. yuck.

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #109 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 10:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I still think HDM has issues with grain and dark scenes in general.....

They need to fix it and make sure grain is rendered naturally. Blu-ray fails on this in my opinion the majority of the time.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #110 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 12:10 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

appears that I am not so nuts.

So here is a question, do you think it would be better to have studios remove the film grain or leave it.

If the result ios grain removal without other image detriment I vote remove it, but that isn't going to happen. Otherwise I vote maintain it.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #111 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 12:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

If the result ios grain removal without other image detriment I vote remove it, but that isn't going to happen. Otherwise I vote maintain it.

From what I understand what happened with Bladerunner is that a person spent hours and hours deciding which parts got noise reduction and which didn't. Piecing things together to make it the best this person felt it could be overall. And somebody who is a huge fan of the movie, not just somebody collecting a paycheck. If that kind of effort was put into the decisions for every older movie I think a lot of us would be happy. I imagine that some of these older movies already require piecing things together. And going from a non-grainy scene to a very grainy scene when there isn't any artistic reason for it can be kind of distracting. Of course, going from highly detailed to soft can be distracting too, but might not be as jarring. Probably damned if they do and damned if they don't to a certain degree.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #112 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 12:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jgatie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpco View Post

Isn't separating the art from the medium exactly what we are doing with digital encoding of films? I really can't see how brush strokes from the hand of a master are to be compared to random film grain, which is a product of the physical medium and most often not the work of the artist him/herself.

Yes, we are separating the art from the medium, but that does not mean we should completely change the representation so it is "optimized" for the new medium, forsaking that fact that it will no longer resemble the original work.

As far as your other comments, do you honestly believe the dark, grainy, shadowy look of The Godfather was not the express choice of Francis Ford Coppala/Gordon Willis or (conversely) The Mona Lisa is not a work which reflects limits in brush and paint technology of the 16th century, especially the gesso on wood process DaVinci used? Should we use some foam brushes to slap some modern acrylics on ol' Lisa (or photoshop a copy of ol' Lisa) to get rid of those nasty brush strokes and gesso cracks?
Jgatie is offline  
post #113 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgatie View Post

Yes, we are separating the art from the medium, but that does not mean we should completely change the representation so it is "optimized" for the new medium, forsaking that fact that it will no longer resemble the original work.

As far as your other comments, do you honestly believe the dark, grainy, shadowy look of The Godfather was not the express choice of Francis Ford Coppala/Gordon Willis or (conversely) The Mona Lisa is not a work which reflects limits in brush and paint technology of the 16th century, especially the gesso on wood process DaVinci used? Should we use some foam brushes to slap some modern acrylics on ol' Lisa (or photoshop a copy of ol' Lisa) to get rid of those nasty brush strokes and gesso cracks?

I don't think you can compare physical art to film.... to this extent. I used to feel the way you do myself..... until I saw how bad film grain can be in some movies. Personally, I do not remember seeing that much screen grain in the theater. Perhaps it is just my failling memory, but is everyone sure that the grainy look of many of our hdm material isn't a flaw in the transfer technique? I would imagine that the screen grain is toned down in the real world in a projector. I would also think that it is possible that the machines that do the physical transfer may pick up the grains either in a different hue or make them more apparent than the original film. I could be wrong here, but I honestly don't remember the Karate Kid, for instance, being that grainy in the theater.

And before someone says check my eyes, I just had them checked. I am 20/25 and use glasses in the theater for a crystal clear image. I am supposed to legally wear them for driving although I passed the DMV 2x before failing the third time. Why could I not pass the test the first two times?

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #114 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 02:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wakashizuma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

If the result ios grain removal without other image detriment I vote remove it, but that isn't going to happen. Otherwise I vote maintain it.

Art

+1
If removing grain means the loss of detail and blurred images, keep it.
Grain reminds of the analog hiss on tapes. Many times removing the hiss or noise also reduces detail on CDs so I don't want it. Audio got rid of hiss and noise years go thanks to digital. Hopefully future movies will completely get rid of grain in future thanks to digital film making.

A Home Theater Enthusiast!
wakashizuma is offline  
post #115 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 02:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Yes, the larger photosites help. At the same time though, a lot of that improvement comes from in-camera noise reduction -- something we have been able to do in software for quite a while.

There is no documented (in the manual) noise reduction for low ISO. It starts at ISO 2000 and can be turned off. There maybe hardware noise reduction on the sensor for all ISO as part of the sensor operating principle and design.
Quote:
Nikon has really come from behind in this generation, and Canon helped them by screwing up quality control on 1DIII. Still, I will cling to my 21 megapixel Canon against theirs . For landscapes where I use the 1DsIII the most, I use a tripod and can use long exposure so noise is not an issue. And I get images that stand cropping or enlargement far more than 10 megapixels.
.

I need short exposure times in dim interiors for some of my 'work' and want no flash so the D3 is my dream camera. A > 20 Mio Pixel version is rumoured to come as well. If it has comparable noise behaviour I might switch.
mhafner is offline  
post #116 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,883
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

Yes I know there are alot of people that hate armageddan. I am one the few that has seen it close to 100 times.

You'd think after so many times he'd know it was spelled Armageddon

(sorry, couldn't resist)


There's a difference between grain that is there by design and grain built up by printing errors, wear & tear, etc. I do not want the natural film grain removed on films like The Departed. I do want it on something like the Star Trek films with opticals and other processes that degraded the image that the filmmakers had no control over. The prints I saw theatrically were much cleaner than what we get on video/DVD/HD cable.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is online now  
post #117 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 03:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jgatie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

I don't think you can compare physical art to film.... to this extent. I used to feel the way you do myself..... until I saw how bad film grain can be in some movies. ?

So it is Ok to compare "physical art" to film (uhh, exactly when did a piece of film become non-physical???), right up until the time you stop liking the look of the film? Ever think you just started to notice it more because you are now comparing it to other HD material which doesn't have it?

Besides, you are missing my point. I never said I want more grain than was in the theater, and if your memory is correct about the amount of grain increasing, then I'm against it. However, I want it preserved as it was in the theater, not eliminated.

By the way, you can trust me, The Godfather was that grainy in the theater.
Jgatie is offline  
post #118 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 03:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jpco's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 1,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgatie View Post

As far as your other comments, do you honestly believe the dark, grainy, shadowy look of The Godfather was not the express choice of Francis Ford Coppala/Gordon Willis or (conversely) The Mona Lisa is not a work which reflects limits in brush and paint technology of the 16th century, especially the gesso on wood process DaVinci used? Should we use some foam brushes to slap some modern acrylics on ol' Lisa (or photoshop a copy of ol' Lisa) to get rid of those nasty brush strokes and gesso cracks?

I honestly do not know the level of grain Coppola, et. al. were going for in The Godfather, and I never said that grain removal should be done if it alters the original. As a matter of fact, I never said we should have grain removal at all.

My point is that I have seen some HD presentations that actually seem to emphasize grain to a level that goes beyond what I remember in the theater (PotC movies, for example). Grain is not a distraction in the theater, and it should not be in the home. I don't know if it's the smaller screen, the brighter screen, the encoding, or what, but in some situations, grain is more apparent in the home. What I do believe is that grain should not become so evident that it becomes a presence that calls attention to itself to the detriment of the viewing experience.

This is all subjective, of course. My concern is that the presence of grain is being elevated to the level of OAR by some around here. The reality is that a film presentation can vary by theater depending on print quality, screen quality, projector brightness, and other factors. To say there's a specific, intentional level of grain desired by a film's creators is making an assumption that has little foundation in many cases. Elevating grain appreciation to a videophile status is hard for me to understand. That's all, just my uneducated opinion as a movie lover.
jpco is offline  
post #119 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 04:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DaveFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Natick MA
Posts: 17,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceless Rebel View Post

Yeah, and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within if you want to talk about purposely added grain. They didn't have any grain until the filmmakers purposely put it in to give it a more "filmlike" appearance.

And all of Spielberg's recent movies starting from AI onwards, although shot on digital camera, all had "digitally enchanced" grain.

XBOX Live: Wagmman
PSN: Wagg
BFBC2: Wagman
Steam: Wag

My Second Life character looks and acts exactly like me except he can fly.
DaveFi is offline  
post #120 of 338 Old 05-12-2008, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpco View Post

I honestly do not know the level of grain Coppola, et. al. were going for in The Godfather, and I never said that grain removal should be done if it alters the original. As a matter of fact, I never said we should have grain removal at all.

My point is that I have seen some HD presentations that actually seem to emphasize grain to a level that goes beyond what I remember in the theater (PotC movies, for example). Grain is not a distraction in the theater, and it should not be in the home. I don't know if it's the smaller screen, the brighter screen, the encoding, or what, but in some situations, grain is more apparent in the home. What I do believe is that grain should not become so evident that it becomes a presence that calls attention to itself to the detriment of the viewing experience.

This is all subjective, of course. My concern is that the presence of grain is being elevated to the level of OAR by some around here. The reality is that a film presentation can vary by theater depending on print quality, screen quality, projector brightness, and other factors. To say there's a specific, intentional level of grain desired by a film's creators is making an assumption that has little foundation in many cases. Elevating grain appreciation to a videophile status is hard for me to understand. That's all, just my uneducated opinion as a movie lover.

+1

So I am not the only one that feels it looks "grainier" on HDM at home.

----

And yes, there is a difference between physical art and the art of film and photos. This is because how the work is displayed has changed. They dont pull the paint off the canvas and stick it to a different medium or use a different type of paint. This is what is happening to film. It is a medium that allows itself to transition.

There is nothing new in updating a work of art to fit a new improved medium. Are you saying that they should not have moved the Phantom of the Opera to film as it was a live performance. While moving it to film did take some things away from it as a performance, it added more in many other areas. The same with Grease. The same with Shakespere's works. One of my favorite, albeit a little cheesey, movies is A Knight's Tale. You do realize that it is ripped from the Canterbury Tales, right?

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off