The Digital Bits: grain is not a defect on the disc! - Page 9

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

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

Originally Posted by amirm

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn

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

Art

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.

Originally Posted by lgans316

Is FOX entering the DNR bandwagon with Patton ?

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

Originally Posted by bjmarchini

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

Originally Posted by lgans316

Is FOX entering the DNR bandwagon with Patton ?

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

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

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

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

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

Originally Posted by Mr.D

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

Originally Posted by bjmarchini

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

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.

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

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

Originally Posted by mhafner

Not if you are an 'expert'.

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

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

Originally Posted by lgans316

Thanks a ton Vincent for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

Couldn't. Agree. More.

Originally Posted by jpco

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?

Originally Posted by amirm

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!

Originally Posted by mhafner

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.

Originally Posted by jpco

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?

Originally Posted by bjmarchini

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

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

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.

Originally Posted by bjmarchini

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?

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?