The Digital Bits: grain is not a defect on the disc! - Page 9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 12:00 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 MovieSwede View Post

I would like to add that adding grain has the advantage of masking compression artifacts aswell.

Wouldn't adding grain create compression artificacts? I guess it would depend at which point they add them. If they did a straight compression of the original 4K source to 1080p, I would think it would. Or the hand, if the source was 1080p or they "remixed" it to 1080p it wouldn't.

My understand is these artifact come from when the compression software gets "confused" in a block and "decides" incorrectly how it relates to the rest of the image. I would think adding grain would increase the likelihood of the software becoming "confused"

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 12:21 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I should also point out something counter intuitive with grain. That is, presence of it makes you think the source is sharper. If you did a perfect grain removal, with nothing but grain removed, your eye will consider the resulting image softer than the source, even if zero detail is removed from the picture itself! Indeed, some photographers rescue soft images by adding a touch of noise to them. The presence of such "high frequency" component makes the picture seem sharper.

If there is interest and I find the time, I will come up with some demonstrations of above.

Please find the time ,I would be very very interested in seeing this.

art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



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 #243 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
When you add grain in post, it will create a problem for the encoder.

But since a compressionist doesnt have to work in realtime with the encode, he will have a better chance of preserving the grain.

A camera compresses the video in realtime.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #244 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 12:39 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
I was reading about the Red one camera in wiki. This is interesting

Quote:


According to Red's official website, director Steven Soderbergh is currently shooting the first of his two upcoming features Guerrilla and The Argentine entirely with the Red One camera.[5] Soderbergh is very enthusiastic about the camera, saying that "this is the camera I've been waiting for my whole career: jaw-dropping imagery recorded onboard a camera light enough to hold with one hand. I don't know how Jim and the Red team did it--and they won't tell me--but I know this: Red is going to change everything".

Red One digital camera has been tested during shooting of the film Wanted. The movie was shot entirely on 35 mm film, but some scenes were shot twice, once using the Red One, once using 35 mm film to compare the results for the future use of the Red One camera. The film is directed by Timur Bekmambetov and stars James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie. Production began in April 2007. Wanted has a target release date of June 27, 2008..[6]

The upcoming motion picture Game is also to be shot on the Red One. [10]

The feature Sensored, starring Robert Picardo, currently in post-production, was shot using the Red One camera. [11]

It would be interesting to see the comparisons

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 #245 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 05:21 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
No doubt, the rock image in that article appears sharper, very interesting.

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



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 #246 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 06:01 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 Art Sonneborn View Post

No doubt, the rock image in that article appears sharper, very interesting.

Art

I definitely have to agree with that. it makes the other rock look like SD DVD versus HDM.

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 #247 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 07:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,095
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 760 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Here is perhaps a more realistic simulation of what grain can do to image sharpness. I took one of Xylon images (thanks pal ), the MPEG-2 version of King Kong, and added noise to it. If you look in the original thread, the MPEG-2 version looks soft as it has lost all of its grain: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=827529

Here are the after+before pictures. The one on the left has Gaussian noise added to it. Look at the arm and cloth at the bottom. It looks sharper/better, no?

Note that I added more noise than would normally be necessary to make this point. Dialing it down still gives the illusion of more sharpness without the grain being as visible. BTW, do check out the better encodes in Xylon's thread. You see that they have similar grain in them!


Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #248 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 07:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Is FOX entering the DNR bandwagon with Patton ?

http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2834.shtml

Quote:


20th Century Fox Home Entertainment has now brought to Blu-Ray Disc the spectacular Special Edition that was previously released on DVD. Offering a high definition transfer of the movie in its original 2.20:1 widescreen aspect ratio, I swear that I did a double take when I first put in the disc. The film's opening sequence showing Patton in front of the American flag is simply mind-blowing. The image is so razor-sharp and stable that it looks as if you were looking at a static image on your computer. The colors are so rich, the edges so perfectly defined that it is hard to believe you are looking at a motion picture if it weren't for George C. Scott strutting about in front of it. It will leave you gasping.

However, this kind of stellar cleanliness in the presentation is also one the transfer's shortcomings. In order to achieve this kind of perfect look, a lot of clean-up has been performed on the transfer. You won't find a hint of film grain or dirt anywhere on this release - and I mean anywhere. It is so clean that it is unreal already. Using digital technologies the studio seems to have eliminated all grain from the transfer and while that creates a very clean image, it also has side effects. As a result skin tones look very pasty throughout the movie, as if every actor was wearing a little too much make-up, as if someone forgot to dust of the excess powder on their faces. It is kind of weird to look at Scott's craggy face, hear his throaty, bellowing voice and looking in his super-smooth, glamour-shot style face while body parts explode around him in the battlefield. I am sorry but for all the cleanliness it may have given the transfer I would have preferred the film's original grittiness and edge. Fox clearly went overboard here creating a transfer that no longer represents the original filmmakers' intentions, and while this may please the masses I do not think it is the way to treat a film.

Other than that the transfer does look fantastic with great detail throughout and strong colors that truly pop off the screen. You will see seams and details that you could never see on the DVD. I doubt you could even see them during theatrical presentations either. Contrast is wonderfully balanced with great blacks and strong highlights. There are a few minor coloration issues where shots are slightly off-colored and skin tones suddenly appear with yellow or green tinges but given the film's age and brutal length, a handful of slightly faded shots are certainly excusable.


Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #249 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 08:11 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
Ok. please dont hate me for saying this, but I actually like the one without the noise. The one without looks clearer to me.

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 #250 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 08:12 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 lgans316 View Post

Is FOX entering the DNR bandwagon with Patton ?

http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2834.shtml

For better or worse, I think this will be inevitable from certain studios. They are getting alot of complaints from J6Ps like me that dont like the grain.

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 #251 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 08:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,095
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 760 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

Ok. please dont hate me for saying this, but I actually like the one without the noise. The one without looks clearer to me.

Hence the reason some people like pictures with no noise . Here is higher fidelity versions of the same using VC-1 on HD DVD. As you see, it has plenty of grain that was lacking in MPEG-2:


Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #252 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 09:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vincent Pereira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Is FOX entering the DNR bandwagon with Patton ?

http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2834.shtml

PATTON was shot in 65mm, so it should be practically grain-free without the need of any "DNR". I wonder if the reviewer, shocked at the lack of grain and not understanding that PATTON, although a dreaded "old movie", was filmed in 65mm which is practically grain-free, perhaps imagined some of the so-called "DNR artifacts" that they thought they saw in the transfer simply because it didn't have the grain they were used to from more recent, often Super-35mm shot films? His comment about the film's supposed "original grittiness and edge" certainly doesn't jive with the look that any movie shot in 65mm would ever have had originally.

Vincent
Vincent Pereira is offline  
post #253 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 09:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

PATTON was shot in 65mm, so it should be practically grain-free without the need of any "DNR". I wonder if the reviewer, shocked at the lack of grain and not understanding that PATTON, although a dreaded "old movie", was filmed in 65mm which is practically grain-free, perhaps imagined some of the so-called "DNR artifacts" that they thought they saw in the transfer simply because it didn't have the grain they were used to from more recent, often Super-35mm shot films? His comment about the film's supposed "original grittiness and edge" certainly doesn't jive with the look that any movie shot in 65mm would ever have had originally.

Vincent

Thanks a ton Vincent for the clarification.

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #254 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 09:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

PATTON was shot in 65mm, so it should be practically grain-free without the need of any "DNR". I wonder if the reviewer, shocked at the lack of grain and not understanding that PATTON, although a dreaded "old movie", was filmed in 65mm which is practically grain-free, perhaps imagined some of the so-called "DNR artifacts" that they thought they saw in the transfer simply because it didn't have the grain they were used to from more recent, often Super-35mm shot films? His comment about the film's supposed "original grittiness and edge" certainly doesn't jive with the look that any movie shot in 65mm would ever have had originally.

Vincent


Couldn't. Agree. More.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #255 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 12:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

They are having problems associated with the rolling shutter : not necessary latitude. The people using it are extremely experienced.

Ah, yes. There is distortion if you move the camera too quickly or objects move too quickly. You have to know what type of motion creates little and what a lot. Apparently it's a potential problem for sfx when motion tracking needs to be done. Also, strobing lights flickering as in discos create artifacts with the rolling shutter.
mhafner is offline  
post #256 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 01:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
So basicly if you take a good quality SD frame, upconvert it and then add HD noise, would the image be percived as HD???
MovieSwede is offline  
post #257 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 01:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

I love when folks look resort to rip others apart by insulting them or degrading them. Shows alot of class. I hope ripping me makes you feel better.

I have not ripped you apart or insulted you. But here on AVS you have to be prepared for your arguments to be looked at closely and your views questioned.
As far as I'm concerned you can not claim that you know about art and the medium film and at the same time rant against grain and how movies look with statements like
Quote:


I like my movies how I would like to see them. Not someone else's point of view.

Quote:


I know alot of people would hate me for this, but I hate screen grain. I want it to look as real as possible which is why I went HD. There is no screen grain in real life..... unless you need glasses or are in a super dusty room.

Either you understand that grain is what (chemical) films are made of and that grain is also an artistic tool used to give images texture and mood, character and 'a quality', or you don't. Either you understand that art can be entertaining/entertainment but is in no way restricted to that aspect of its effect on us. Or you don't. Either you understand that film and 'real life' are not identical and the extent to and the level on which they are intended to be close can vary from film to film, scene to scene, and is the film maker's call. Or you don't. Either you are willing to accept the creators' point of view and decisions relative to his creation. Or you don't.
If you simply state a preference for watching material with no grain and do not ask for disks to be mastered with grain removed when the grain is meant to be there and part of the correct look of the film as intended by its creators, then I have no problem with your preference. We all have our likes and dislikes and shop accordingly.
On the other hand if you call for disks to be filtered on principle to accomodate your viewing preferences I do have a big problem with your views as they interfere with my preference to see a film as it was created. We can't both have what we want unless you filter locally on your display and leave the source alone, which is the fair and correct solution.
mhafner is offline  
post #258 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 01:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

So basicly if you take a good quality SD frame, upconvert it and then add HD noise, would the image be percived as HD???

Not if you are an 'expert'.
mhafner is offline  
post #259 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 02:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Not if you are an 'expert'.

It was a question of how people would percive the image, just like edge enhancment fool people that the image is more detailed.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #260 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 04:58 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 Vincent Pereira View Post

PATTON was shot in 65mm, so it should be practically grain-free without the need of any "DNR". I wonder if the reviewer, shocked at the lack of grain and not understanding that PATTON, although a dreaded "old movie", was filmed in 65mm which is practically grain-free, perhaps imagined some of the so-called "DNR artifacts" that they thought they saw in the transfer simply because it didn't have the grain they were used to from more recent, often Super-35mm shot films? His comment about the film's supposed "original grittiness and edge" certainly doesn't jive with the look that any movie shot in 65mm would ever have had originally.

Vincent

Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Thanks a ton Vincent for the clarification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Couldn't. Agree. More.


So have you guys seen this on Blu-ray and verified that the reviewer is mistaken?

I ask because, while I do not love over emphasized film grain, I find the pasty skin of excessive DNR (Face/Off HD DVD) to be absurdly objectionable. It is possible that even a non-grainy source could have excessive DNR for some misguided reason, isn't it?
jpco is offline  
post #261 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 05:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpco View Post

So have you guys seen this on Blu-ray and verified that the reviewer is mistaken?

I ask because, while I do not love over emphasized film grain, I find the pasty skin of excessive DNR (Face/Off HD DVD) to be absurdly objectionable. It is possible that even a non-grainy source could have excessive DNR for some misguided reason, isn't it?


It could be that the source wasnt in the best conditions and DNR was applied to restore the orginal look.

But the screenshots will tell.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #262 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 05:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
Corellianrogue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Here is perhaps a more realistic simulation of what grain can do to image sharpness. I took one of Xylon images (thanks pal ), the MPEG-2 version of King Kong, and added noise to it. If you look in the original thread, the MPEG-2 version looks soft as it has lost all of its grain: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=827529

Here are the after+before pictures. The one on the left has Gaussian noise added to it. Look at the arm and cloth at the bottom. It looks sharper/better, no?

Note that I added more noise than would normally be necessary to make this point. Dialing it down still gives the illusion of more sharpness without the grain being as visible. BTW, do check out the better encodes in Xylon's thread. You see that they have similar grain in them!


That's just freaky!

Stacy>>>>>>>>>>Fergie
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Kids Incorporated (original members)>>>>>>>>>>Any band since!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Corellianrogue is offline  
post #263 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 05:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Grubert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corellianrogue View Post

That's just freaky!

That's pretty old stuff. People have been using the "noise" filters in ffdshow for years to add noise on DVDs "for a more natural film look." (interestingly, you can also "denoise" it).

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=246752

BTW, last weekend I watched my last and final HD DVD: Derailed. It's a fairly grainy movie. When it finished, I asked my wife: "Did the picture quality look bad to you?" She said, "Not at all." I pressed on, "didn't the grain bother you?" And she replied, "Nope. The deleted scenes (in standard-definition) looked like crap, though."

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Grubert is offline  
post #264 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 05:36 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 mhafner View Post

I have not ripped you apart or insulted you. But here on AVS you have to be prepared for your arguments to be looked at closely and your views questioned.
As far as I'm concerned you can not claim that you know about art and the medium film and at the same time rant against grain and how movies look with statements like


Either you understand that grain is what (chemical) films are made of and that grain is also an artistic tool used to give images texture and mood, character and 'a quality', or you don't. Either you understand that art can be entertaining/entertainment but is in no way restricted to that aspect of its effect on us. Or you don't. Either you understand that film and 'real life' are not identical and the extent to and the level on which they are intended to be close can vary from film to film, scene to scene, and is the film maker's call. Or you don't. Either you are willing to accept the creators' point of view and decisions relative to his creation. Or you don't.
If you simply state a preference for watching material with no grain and do not ask for disks to be mastered with grain removed when the grain is meant to be there and part of the correct look of the film as intended by its creators, then I have no problem with your preference. We all have our likes and dislikes and shop accordingly.
On the other hand if you call for disks to be filtered on principle to accomodate your viewing preferences I do have a big problem with your views as they interfere with my preference to see a film as it was created. We can't both have what we want unless you filter locally on your display and leave the source alone, which is the fair and correct solution.

The truth is people are not two dimensional and do not fit into an "either... or" screnario. Sorry. I don't like screen grain. I am also not a big fan of Picaso or Andy Warhole. I love Van Gogh and many of the impressionists. Each has his own tastes. Just because you like one style or artist does not mean you like all styles. You can appreciate them for what they are, but not enjoy them. The bottom line is that I do not like screen grain. IMO and only in my opinion, there is too much screen grain if I notice there is screen grain. If it is to enhance an image which Amirm has shown, then I am ok with that as I have said. But when I actually notice the grain as grain alone as in a few scenes of Prince Caspian or on older films such as Caddyshack... then it is a distraction. Now, I wouldn't go back and change the original art as it were in Caddyshack even though it bothers me a little, but I would not want to see new movies like this made with film if digital was available. Not that digital is perfect either... it is just my own preference. There are a growing number of people that feel the same way.

Why exactly can't a person not like grain but be into art? I understand what grain is. I also understand that it is no longer necessary in all films as there is a new medium available albeit some flaws of its own.

There are times when I do actually like screen grain. While not the best example, the series lost uses screen grain or atleast i seems that way. In that case, I think it does look better with it.

Is there a reason that they don't use 65MM anymore? Just curious.

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 #265 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpco View Post

So have you guys seen this on Blu-ray and verified that the reviewer is mistaken?

I ask because, while I do not love over emphasized film grain, I find the pasty skin of excessive DNR (Face/Off HD DVD) to be absurdly objectionable. It is possible that even a non-grainy source could have excessive DNR for some misguided reason, isn't it?

I agree with the pasty skin tones on Face/Off but it was nowhere near the levels of PL or Twister.

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #266 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 06:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

Is there a reason that they don't use 65MM anymore? Just curious.

Cost mostly I guess.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #267 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 06:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
65mm isnt very practical either since it has to be convertet to A35 one way or the other. Of course they could use a DI, but that takes away some of the benefits of using 65mm from the start. Unless they use a 8K scan.

In the end for most movies S35 and A35 works just fine.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #268 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 07:42 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 MovieSwede View Post

65mm isnt very practical either since it has to be convertet to A35 one way or the other. Of course they could use a DI, but that takes away some of the benefits of using 65mm from the start. Unless they use a 8K scan.

In the end for most movies S35 and A35 works just fine.

What type of film did they change to in the early 90s. It seems films after around 90-94 have far less screen grain than those before or is this just the aging of the master making grain more visible?

While I don't like grain in movies for the most part (there are some that I am ok with - another TV show that comes to mind is Battlestar Galactica where I think the grain enhances the presentation, LOTRs looks better with it too), I can live with it on newer films as they tend to have less of it. Older movies like Caddyshack, karate kid, field of dreams seem to have an overabundance of grain. On the other hand, I just watched Clockword Orange the other day and it didn't look all that bad... or was that 65mm. Are these heavy grain movies a result of lower quality film, aging or something else?

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 #269 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 08:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

What type of film did they change to in the early 90s. It seems films after around 90-94 have far less screen grain than those before or is this just the aging of the master making grain more visible?

There have been improvements in the film stock itself, resulting in finer grain.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #270 of 338 Old 05-21-2008, 08:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Optics also evolve and lets more light pass. And it let the filmmakers use filmstocks that they otherwise couldnt use.

But I think filmstocks themself are what has improved the most.


Quote:


On the other hand, I just watched Clockword Orange the other day and it didn't look all that bad... or was that 65mm. Are these heavy grain movies a result of lower quality film, aging or something else?

One thing is that 1,85:1 movies crop the 4:3 negative and as a result enlarges the grain compared to a A35 movie. But also what type of filmstocks etc effects the movie aswell.
MovieSwede 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