Gain or No Grain - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 06:09 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
joshd2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
With all the discussion about grainy footage (especially in relation to the Terminator disc), I thought it would be a good time to discuss the impact of grain on the source data, and if policies should be changed to remove grain before the disc is pressed.

Using Terminator as a case study, we know the original film has grain. In fact, it has a lot of grain. With a budget of $6.4M (source Box Office Mojo), you aren't going to get the same results as a movie with 10 times the budget. Nobody is going to watch Clerks in HD and say, "Would you look at all that grain. That's horrible." These films have grain and will always have grain, but should they?

Now that we are seeing these movies in HD, the grain is much more apparent. Where compression took care of hiding the problem before, now we can see the film as it truely is. But should we still want to see that original source? With the amazing work on films such as Lord of the Rings, where every scene has been digital filtered to perfection, it is easy to want the same for every film ever made. It certainly is possible to make Terminator look perfect, but is that what you really want?

The question then becomes, should we be pressing the studios to keep the original grain in the movies, as many of us stated previously, or should we pressure them to clean up the discs before getting in our hand to make it "more watchable"? Will movies like Clerks become unwatchable if not filtered? After seeing how Terminator came out, how do you now feel about this subject?
joshd2012 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Topweasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshd2012
With all the discussion about grainy footage (especially in relation to the Terminator disc), I thought it would be a good time to discuss the impact of grain on the source data, and if policies should be changed to remove grain before the disc is pressed.

Using Terminator as a case study, we know the original film has grain. In fact, it has a lot of grain. With a budget of $6.4M (source Box Office Mojo), you aren't going to get the same results as a movie with 10 times the budget. Nobody is going to watch Clerks in HD and say, "Would you look at all that grain. That's horrible." These films have grain and will always have grain, but should they?

Now that we are seeing these movies in HD, the grain is much more apparent. Where compression took care of hiding the problem before, now we can see the film as it truely is. But should we still want to see that original source? With the amazing work on films such as Lord of the Rings, where every scene has been digital filtered to perfection, it is easy to want the same for every film ever made. It certainly is possible to make Terminator look perfect, but is that what you really want?

The question then becomes, should we be pressing the studios to keep the original grain in the movies, as many of us stated previously, or should we pressure them to clean up the discs before getting in our hand to make it "more watchable"? Will movies like Clerks become unwatchable if not filtered? After seeing how Terminator came out, how do you now feel about this subject?
I Vote, Instead of wide screen and Full screen which is prety stupid. They Should have a Filtered&Cleaned and Original version.

Me I would rather watch a filtered version because the grain often times are distracting and pull me out of a movie, I would rather see a movie and be completely in it, then to get pulled out of it to retain that Film feeling.
Topweasel is offline  
post #3 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 07:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gosawx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: other side of MA
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
this is a very slippery slope though. I assume (what happens when we assume...) that Peter Jackson had control over the look of LOTR. To have someone not associated with the film making decisions on the look could be problems. Look at the colorization that was the rage in the 80's (we can remember the 80's, right?)
gosawx is offline  
post #4 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 07:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
Innerloop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Marin County, CA
Posts: 711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think ideally it would be left up to the director to decide how much, if any, grain cleanup on older films would be used. The choice of film stock (budgetary restrictions notwithstanding) is an artistic choice of the director or DP and clearly some movies achieve their intended look better with grain than without.

To make a true "Director Approved Version" it would be great to know the Director or DP was given the chance to dial-in the filtering level and approved it.
Innerloop is offline  
post #5 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 07:55 AM
tsb
AVS Special Member
 
tsb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No grain here please. I want the movie perfected frame by frame by experts.
tsb is offline  
post #6 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 08:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
I strongly oppose the elimination of film source grain in digital transfers. Grain is an inherent, structural part of many films. It's an aspect of what film IS. If you don't like grain, don't watch grainy films. You have no business changing the look of films just so they fit your notion of what they should look like. A high fidelity transfer is faithful to the source, and changing the look of the film means it's NOT faithful to the source.
RobertR is offline  
post #7 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The thread title is misleading because unless a place like Lowry Digital works on a film and uses their complex film defect removing system then what you'll get is crappy pasty skin DNR which intoduces a bunch of ugly irreversible artifacts like the loss of fine skin textures. That isn't HD. I much rather have old 70s/80s films look like actual film then a bunch of smoothed over wax images.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #8 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Topweasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
I strongly oppose the elimination of film source grain in digital transfers. Grain is an inherent, structural part of many films. It's an aspect of what film IS. If you don't like grain, don't watch grainy films. You have no business changing the look of films just so they fit your notion of what they should look like. A high fidelity transfer is faithful to the source, and changing the look of the film means it's NOT faithful to the source.
Life Doesn't have grain, I don't see grain in the trees when I look over a persons shoulder, so the Source (Real Life) Doesn't have grain. To say that I should be seeing grain because its not faithful to the source. Now if its intentional thats another thing, Tony Scott puts grain into some scenes for Artistic value, those are the types of movies I try to aviod, because its destracting and he is doing it on inttentially, but if someone is recording on film and grain is inherent on Film, they are still stuck with gain and I think most of the time they would rather not have it but don't think its enough of an issue to clean up (and why since the reels in the theators will have grain anyways).

You interpret Grain as intgeral part of film making, I think its a by product of tools at hand, and as more and more films are recorded digitally I think you will find that very few directors actually care for grain.
Topweasel is offline  
post #9 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Topweasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul
The thread title is misleading because unless a place like Lowry Digital works on a film and uses their complex film defect removing system then what you'll get is crappy pasty skin DNR which intoduces a bunch of ugly irreversible artifacts like the loss of fine skin textures. That isn't HD. I much rather have old 70s/80s films look like actual film then a bunch of smoothed over wax images.
I only want it doen if it can be done right. And it really isn't a big enough issue for me alone to request that it be done. For me its more like a non-issue issue you won't hear me complain about it but it always bothers me a bit.

I do agree for the most part that it shouldn't be done, All I am saying is it would be kind of cool for it to be the new WS FS choice, where most people don't even understand why its their, and in certain movies I can shoose the no grain option if I wanted to Sci-Fi movies are perfect examples of movies that are not meant in my eyes to have grain.
Topweasel is offline  
post #10 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ryoohki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Repentigny, Québec, Canada
Posts: 3,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topweasel
Life Doesn't have grain, I don't see grain in the trees when I look over a persons shoulder, so the Source (Real Life) Doesn't have grain. To say that I should be seeing grain because its not faithful to the source. Now if its intentional thats another thing, Tony Scott puts grain into some scenes for Artistic value, those are the types of movies I try to aviod, because its destracting and he is doing it on inttentially, but if someone is recording on film and grain is inherent on Film, they are still stuck with gain and I think most of the time they would rather not have it but don't think its enough of an issue to clean up (and why since the reels in the theators will have grain anyways).

You interpret Grain as intgeral part of film making, I think its a by product of tools at hand, and as more and more films are recorded digitally I think you will find that very few directors actually care for grain.
Well Film aren't real life either even true story are Enhanced from real life. But something grain cleaning is pretty messy. you give up sharpness and introduce soft looking picture because some print are so grainy that you'll never be able to do anything with them..

89+ Blu-ray Disc ;)
ryoohki is offline  
post #11 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Life Doesn't have grain, I don't see grain in the trees when I look over a persons shoulder, so the Source (Real Life) Doesn't have grain.
That’s completely irrelevant, because films are meant to be works of art/pop entertainment that do NOT show “life†as it is (no one would argue that the silly physics/over the top heroics in some films are meant to be “realisticâ€). They have a certain LOOK intended by the filmmaker. If you don’t like his choices about how the film looks, don’t watch it. You have no business changing it to suit YOU.

Quote:
Tony Scott puts grain into some scenes for Artistic value, those are the types of movies I try to aviod, because its destracting and he is doing it on inttentially,
So don’t watch them, and let others watch them as is.

Quote:
as more and more films are recorded digitally I think you will find that very few directors actually care for grain.
If directors choose not to have grain, that’s THEIR decision. But you have no business changing what directors did in the past to suit YOU.
RobertR is offline  
post #12 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Personally, I prefer instances of excessive grain/noise to be filtered on a "remastered release". I like the idea of "director approved version" when considering any major retweaking of the film. I would like to see grain/noise on most modern productions to be nonexistent or just at the level of perceptibility, if it has to be there. It certainly shouldn't stand out on its own. I don't need to be reminded that the program comes from film with film media artifacts anymore than I need to hear heavy tape noise on a remastered CD or vinyl static/pops from something ripped from an LP. Artistic effects intentionally added by the director is another case, altogether, but I don't believe this automatically applies simply wherever you see noisy film. In most cases, if the director could have shot their vision on an utterly noise free medium, they would.

I need your sweet love, Rosetta Stone girl!
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #13 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:46 AM
Senior Member
 
vksf01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
if you don't like grain, go to the theater and watch a play. grain is an integral part of film making, and adds to the atmosphere of a film. as another poster as added, this is "art" we're talking about, not "life".....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topweasel
Life Doesn't have grain, I don't see grain in the trees when I look over a persons shoulder, so the Source (Real Life) Doesn't have grain. To say that I should be seeing grain because its not faithful to the source. Now if its intentional thats another thing, Tony Scott puts grain into some scenes for Artistic value, those are the types of movies I try to aviod, because its destracting and he is doing it on inttentially, but if someone is recording on film and grain is inherent on Film, they are still stuck with gain and I think most of the time they would rather not have it but don't think its enough of an issue to clean up (and why since the reels in the theators will have grain anyways).

You interpret Grain as intgeral part of film making, I think its a by product of tools at hand, and as more and more films are recorded digitally I think you will find that very few directors actually care for grain.
vksf01 is offline  
post #14 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:52 AM
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 joshd2012
Now that we are seeing these movies in HD, the grain is much more apparent. Where compression took care of hiding the problem before, now we can see the film as it truely is.
I don't believe that is all of it. I have been told by an insider that Digital Noise Reduction has become common with DVD mastering in the last couple of years and they have gotten the public used to less grainy images. They said that DNR was one of the reasons for the perception of image quality from DVDs improving lately (having less grain makes compression much easier in limited space) to a lot of people (I'm sure there are those who believe they have gone backwards though) and wondered how this less grainy look they've been providing with DVDs would affect the public's expectations going forward. I doubt that all the grain of the original film they could have retained actually was in the LOTR DVDs releases based on what I've seen in the theater with them and from the DVDs.

--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 #15 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
...and that brings an interesting point- if dvd's were sporting as much noise and grain that we see in these hd releases, would the public, at large, have received dvd differently (possibly, a more negative light)?

I need your sweet love, Rosetta Stone girl!
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #16 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 09:59 AM
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
BTW: If people want to see vertical scratches like they usually do in theaters, they are there on "The Fifth Element" BD.

--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 #17 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Topweasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vksf01
if you don't like grain, go to the theater and watch a play. grain is an integral part of film making, and adds to the atmosphere of a film. as another poster as added, this is "art" we're talking about, not "life".....
Thank you but I don't don't think the Directors "atmosphere" that he created was meant to pull you out of the movie he worked so painfully hard in creating. I can't help if attetion span is to low and my eyes are to sensitive to minor differences and changes in vision. Every spec that comes by is noticed and registered in my mind even if I am able to continue watching. Some movies the film blemishes are so bad that I its like a game for me on guesing which one one was bigger. I went almost 10 minutes watching TLS noticing the grain. These aren't the types of things The director wants hitting peoples homes, and its almost understandable why some people can't deal with title bars and want FS. Though I am not asking for the movie to get changed, I am just saying that if available I would like the option to pick up a grainless version of a movie. Obviously with any re mastering the Dir, or DP handles it, so obviously they would be the ones making this choice.

Picaso drew abtract to make it look different then Life. You really think DVinci wouldn't have tried to make the Mona Lisa look more photorealistic if he could, or use paint that didn't crack if it was avaiable to him. I am just saying those tools are available to these Directors and hopefully you never know some of them might decide to clean those up.
Topweasel is offline  
post #18 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 10:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kevivoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by vksf01
if you don't like grain, go to the theater and watch a play. grain is an integral part of film making, and adds to the atmosphere of a film. as another poster as added, this is "art" we're talking about, not "life".....
Perhaps this is why movie theater attendance is decaying. More people are prefering the experience of life and foregoing the film "art" every year. I bet this has more to do with the advent of HD television than anything.

I will take crystal clear images in HD where I can see dew on grass over film grain, pops and scratches any day.

k
kevivoe is offline  
post #19 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Topweasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky
...and that brings an interesting point- if dvd's were sporting as much noise and grain that we see in these hd releases, would the public, at large, have received dvd differently (possibly, a more negative light)?
No not really even with grain and such, it would have been much better then VHS, Tracking issues where a bitch and would be an issue sometimes on a new purchase people where happy to rid themselves of them trust me.
Topweasel is offline  
post #20 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 10:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topweasel
Life Doesn't have grain, I don't see grain in the trees when I look over a persons shoulder, so the Source (Real Life) Doesn't have grain.
This is officially the Dumbest Argument Ever, and anyone making it should duck their head in shame.

Real life doesn't have grain? Real life also doesn't have spaceships blasting each other in galaxies far far away, men wearing tights and capes flying through the air, or invincible action heroes outrunning giant explosions on foot.

I hate to break this to you, but movies are not real life.

Duh.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #21 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 10:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Topweasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
This is officially the Dumbest Argument Ever, and anyone making it should duck their head in shame.

Real life doesn't have grain? Real life also doesn't have spaceships blasting each other in galaxies far far away, men wearing tights and capes flying through the air, or invincible action heroes outrunning giant explosions on foot.

I hate to break this to you, but movies are not real life.

Duh.
Funny thing is those are going to be the most likely to be grainless. I mean if 50% of the Picture is CG and the other 50% is full of grain the picture would look kind of wierd. Just because the media they record a movie to originally is untrustworthy and devlops faults doesn't mean every media its written to from that point on has to include those faults along with their own.
Topweasel is offline  
post #22 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Funny thing is those are going to be the most likely to be grainless.
You’re sidestepping the point, which is that your argument that “real life†has no grain makes no sense. FILMS ARE NOT REAL LIFE.
RobertR is offline  
post #23 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 11:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Topweasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
You’re sidestepping the point, which is that your argument that “real life†has no grain makes no sense. FILMS ARE NOT REAL LIFE.
BUT THE MORE INVOLVING A MOVIE IT IS THE MORE THEY WANT TO PULL YOU IN. PULLING YOU OUT FOR THE SAKE OF LOOKING LIKE FILM DEFEATS THE PURPOSE. WHY MAKE IT LOOK ANYMORE DIFFERENT THEN HOW IT WOULD LOOK IN RL IF IT DOESN'T HAVE TO.

Sorry didn't mean to yell, but to say it needs to look like film just to look like film isn't artistic, its pointless. Like I said Don't you think Dvinci would have used Chipless paint if it was available. Most directors want their movies to stand the test of time, not to be easily dated.
Topweasel is offline  
post #24 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
PULLING YOU OUT FOR THE SAKE OF LOOKING LIKE FILM DEFEATS THE PURPOSE.
All your arguments amount to “grain should be eliminated because I, Topweasel, am bothered by itâ€. That doesn’t cut it. Just because YOU are “pulled out of†a film by that “awful evil, movie destroying film grain demon†doesn’t mean anyone ELSE is.

Personally, I pay more attention to acting, writing, sound, and overall cinematography than grain. Sounds like you don’t. I’ll thank you not to change what I see just because the presence or absence of grain is SUCH an extremely important thing to you.
RobertR is offline  
post #25 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 11:49 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
joshd2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There was mention about having two versions of films - one with and one without filtering of grain. What about a user applied filter in a player? A filter that the user could turn on to filter out the grain if the disc seemed too grainy to them. This way you could still have one release of the film (I hate having many versions of the same film on the store shelf at once), and the user could decide if they wanted to apply the filter or not.

Now, I don't work for any of these companies, so I don't even know if this would be a realistic option, but it could be a nice option to have with a player, if the grain was bothering you.
joshd2012 is offline  
post #26 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kevivoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
What about movies such as Shrek, Ice Age, Nemo? Should these also have film grain?

No way. The crisper a movie the better in my opinion. Technology is supposed to move forward not backward. Get rid of the defects.

k
kevivoe is offline  
post #27 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 11:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 169
Lowrey Digital does not remove grain. They manage it. Grain removal is not an acceptable term in Hollywood. It's all about grain management.

I can tell you grain is not going away anytime soon even if the technology exists to do so. Like was said very well above, it's a artistic tool. So is under and over exposure.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #28 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevivoe
What about movies such as Shrek, Ice Age, Nemo? Should these also have film grain?
k
No they shouldn't - and they don't at least on the masters. But then they are cartoons. Now a dramatic 1890s love novel made into a screen play. I don't think that would be well received looking like an HD baseball game.

Technology? You would be amazed at the software technology being used to manange grain these days.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #29 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Damnationdoormat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I want the image to be nearest to the appearance of the film's original materials.

That said, I love film grain.
Damnationdoormat is offline  
post #30 of 94 Old 06-23-2006, 12:34 PM
Senior Member
 
vksf01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damnationdoormat
I want the image to be nearest to the appearance of the film's original materials.

That said, I love film grain.
I totally agree!
vksf01 is offline  
Closed Thread Blu-ray Software

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