or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › The Digital Bits: grain is not a defect on the disc!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Digital Bits: grain is not a defect on the disc! - Page 10

post #271 of 338
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.

Excellent post! Thank you for saying this.
post #272 of 338
Was Clockwork Orange really on 65mm? The BD version really lacks the detail you'd expect to see.
post #273 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert View Post

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).

No one claimed any new invention here. Nor is the goal to reproduce the "film look." To do that, you want to use different profile noise than I did.

The idea here was to show that an ideal noise reduction algorithm produces an image which subjectively is "softer" even though it is more perfect representation than the one without noise.

How your eye perceives things is important consideration in evaluating a picture. For example, a worse encoded title that causes random block noise may be thought to be "sharper" due to above effect, even though in reality, it is less transparent.
post #274 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert View Post

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).

Quite as a matter of fact.
SD broadcast cameras having being doing this as part of their "sharpening" circuitry since before an old coot like me swept the studios.

ted
post #275 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Was Clockwork Orange really on 65mm? The BD version really lacks the detail you'd expect to see.

I have the HD DVD version, but I am imagine they are the same encode. They usually are.
post #276 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Was Clockwork Orange really on 65mm?

Nope.
post #277 of 338


The image that has less grain also has significant areas that totally lacks texture. Skin has texture. It looks less sharp because our eye looks for edges even on freckles pores etc that do not exist there. The grain gives the look of texture and edges without halos.

Art
post #278 of 338
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.

Super35 is an abomination.
post #279 of 338
I am the author of the AddGrain Avisynth filter, still on my web page. Though I no longer remember whether that was also the basis Milan used to add to ffdshow.

So while I don't like high grain film I obviously do think grain has some value.

What I believe is that the human visual system can easily notice an image that has no energy at the higher spatial frequencies. That is, no detail, plastic faces, excessive smoothness. This can be caused by blurry telecine practices, excessive filtering, repeated filter processing, over-compression, or simply by upscaling an image from some lower resolution as done with TV upconverts.

Either way the softness sticks out and can seem annoyingly artificial even if it is otherwise a very clean image.

Enter grain. It is mostly high frequency random noise. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate the human visual system has evolved to see meaningful images even in the presence of rain, dust, fog, tree branches, etc. So with some grain we may make allowances for noise in the image instead of just seeing an overly soft picture. In other words, we may think the picture is fine even though we may have some trouble seeing it.

This can probably be useful for hiding the fact that something was filtered or upconverted somewhat.

However totally random grain can also have course detail that obscures some of the lower frequency visual information that we could actually see and use. Meanwhile grain is fairly expensive to encode. For this reason I'm a fan of FGT-like technology where we just add the random noise at the time of decoding (AFTER possible upscaling). And most recently I've been considering ways to only add hi-pass filtered semi-random noise/grain that does not interfered with the lower frequencies of the image that were actually captured and encoded properly.

Just some thoughts.

- Tom
post #280 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post



The image that has less grain also has significant areas that totally lacks texture. Skin has texture. It looks less sharp because our eye looks for edges even on freckles pores etc that do not exist there. The grain gives the look of texture and edges without halos.

Art

To me it make the skin look scaly. Actually the rest of it I am ok, but think less grain on her arm looks better.
post #281 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

Super35 is an abomination.

There is nothing wrong with Super35. It offers the most flexible solution with regard to use of the negative area vs lens speed.
post #282 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

There is nothing wrong with Super35. It offers the most flexible solution with regard to use of the negative area vs lens speed.

And considering the praise Super35 titles get on this site, its seems to deliver.

But it would be cool to see the results if they used Vistavision for modern HDM release.
post #283 of 338
Like Tom says our visual system is very good at adding in and interpreting incomplete data, if it couldn't we wouldn't even be able to see the way we can. If you were to take the raw "data" from our eyes you would have a very different picture. For example one commonly known "defect" is the hole in our visual field when our optical nerve is, there are no cones there.

I never realised there was a grain effect filter for fddshow, I'm going to have to try it.

It's obvious there are markets that want both sorts of presentation. I don't mind being in the minority that wants grain and the true artist intent of the film as long as they can give us the choice of both presentations. This it will push the adoption of HD media, and all the benefits that will bring.
post #284 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

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.

Fair enough. Live and let live.
post #285 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Soderbergh's films are in Cannes. They should give a good indication what you could do a year ago.

Feedback coming now.
http://www.variety.com/VE1117937244.html
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/05/2...es-review-che/
post #286 of 338
Cant judge a cameras quality when Soderbergh uses it. He sometimes goes after a look that doesnt do the camera justice.

Not that its any wrong with it, but I think its easier when they shoot more traditional motion picture to see how far the cams have advanced.
post #287 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Cant judge a cameras quality when Soderbergh uses it. He sometimes goes after a look that doesnt do the camera justice.

Ain't that the truth. People were throwing out their HDM players out the window after watching Oceans Thirteen.
post #288 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert View Post

Ain't that the truth. People were throwing out their HDM players out the window after watching Oceans Thirteen.


I was refering to full frontal (I havnt seen it only heard what other thinks)

That it didnt do the cam justice (and that was the same SD cam they shoot 28 days with...)

On the other hand Solaris looked beutiful.
post #289 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert View Post

Ain't that the truth. People were throwing out their HDM players out the window after watching Oceans Thirteen.

He shot "Bubble" (a movie made for HD-Net) on an HD camera, and it still didn't look like it was shot in HD.

I enjoyed that movie btw.
post #290 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

To me it make the skin look scaly. Actually the rest of it I am ok, but think less grain on her arm looks better.

Again, the grain I put in there is artificial. There is only one question: does the one with grain look sharper?
post #291 of 338
It does look sharper but details like her eyebrows appear more contrasty as a result. Net effect, no doubt, it looks sharper everywhere where there is an edge. It looks almost like there is an increase in MTF.


Art
post #292 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And considering the praise Super35 titles get on this site, its seems to deliver.

It's a lazy solution. Anamorphic 35MM has higher resolution and a lot of the films avoid that *flat* look so many Super35 films seem to possess. Master & Commander is the latest disappointment. Even National Treasure: Book of Secrets looks flat. Nice resolution, clean, but it lacks depth! There's just something about 'scope films that give them...scope!

Quote:


But it would be cool to see the results if they used Vistavision for modern HDM release.

ILM was pretty much the last company to use it in any meaningful way. Any visual effect shot in the Star Wars films (original trilogy) used it.
post #293 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

It's a lazy solution. Anamorphic 35MM has higher resolution and a lot of the films avoid that *flat* look so many Super35 films seem to possess. Master & Commander is the latest disappointment. Even National Treasure: Book of Secrets looks flat. Nice resolution, clean, but it lacks depth! There's just something about 'scope films that give them...scope!



ILM was pretty much the last company to use it in any meaningful way. Any visual effect shot in the Star Wars films (original trilogy) used it.

Scope has many drawbacks : lens size , softness ,aberration, distortion , lens-speed.

Super35 has a larger horizontal resolution , scope has larger vertical resolution.

I've used both and I would say neither is necesseraly better than the other. Super35 is certainly a lot easier in a number of ways. Lots of scope takes have softness issues (shallow depth of focus and field) that regularly get them rejected.

Scope lens distortion can be a major pain for VFX.

Generally scope is a major pain to work with and doesn't offer much in the way of image improvement (certainly not in sharpness which lots of people wrongly assume).

Think the last film I worked on that was scope is Doomsday: before that it was League oif Extrordinary Gentlemen . Scope is getting rare these days.

Vistavison cameras are still used and not solely by ILM.
post #294 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

Scope has many drawbacks : lens size , softness ,aberration, distortion , lens-speed.

Super35 has a larger horizontal resolution , scope has larger vertical resolution.

I've used both and I would say neither is necesseraly better than the other. Super35 is certainly a lot easier in a number of ways. Lots of scope takes have softness issues (shallow depth of focus and field) that regularly get them rejected.

Scope lens distortion can be a major pain for VFX.

Generally scope is a major pain to work with and doesn't offer much in the way of image improvement (certainly not in sharpness which lots of people wrongly assume).

Think the last film I worked on that was scope is Doomsday: before that it was League oif Extrordinary Gentlemen . Scope is getting rare these days.

Vistavison cameras are still used and not solely by ILM.

Great summary Mr. D!
post #295 of 338
Sorry to go OT. In the pictures of the lady above does any one know what causes that weirdness between her jaw and her shoulder? It looked at first like she was growing a beard. Is that a flaw on the film or an artifact from processing?
post #296 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvillain View Post

Sorry to go OT. In the pictures of the lady above does any one know what causes that weirdness between her jaw and her shoulder? It looked at first like she was growing a beard. Is that a flaw on the film or an artifact from processing?

If you mean screen left then its strands of her hair.
post #297 of 338
Also flatness isnt so much about the filmformat but the way you light.

Just look at Chronicles of Riddick.
post #298 of 338
Quote:
If you mean screen left then its strands of her hair.

After you said that I looked at it again and I believe you are right. It just looks weird due to the nasty macroblocking. Which brings up the next question.

With the image on the left with the noise added, the macroblocking is still there but not as apparent as on the right. Which got me wondering what the flow was. I would assume decode -> add noise -> grab capture. Rather than decode -> add noise -> re-encode -> decode->grab picture.

What I am getting at is I am wondering if the masking of the macroblocking is due to the fact that the image was allready decoded for the last time before the noise was added. If it was reencoded and decoded again would the macroblocking be atleast as bad if not worse as on the right? Or does the noise help even if it is applied before the final decode? I hope that makes sense.
post #299 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Great summary Mr. D!

As a huge fan of Lawrence of Arabia (large format 65MM) I would think you would appreciate the better cinematography of many scope films, not ones compromised for how they will look on the home video market.
post #300 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

Scope has many drawbacks : lens size , softness ,aberration, distortion , lens-speed.

And I've seen all too many Super35 films with these problems. Any cinematographer worth their salt can overcome these. The 1978 Halloween was made on a shoestring budget and looks great.

Quote:
Super35 has a larger horizontal resolution , scope has larger vertical resolution.

That horizontal resolution is lost when cropped to 2.40. Anamorphic doesn't.

Quote:
I've used both and I would say neither is necesseraly better than the other. Super35 is certainly a lot easier in a number of ways. Lots of scope takes have softness issues (shallow depth of focus and field) that regularly get them rejected.

Scope lens distortion can be a major pain for VFX.

Generally scope is a major pain to work with and doesn't offer much in the way of image improvement (certainly not in sharpness which lots of people wrongly assume).

Think the last film I worked on that was scope is Doomsday: before that it was League of Extrordinary Gentlemen . Scope is getting rare these days.

Which is unfortunate as most directors are shooting 2.40
Directors like Nolan, Bay, Abrams all prefer it.

Quote:
Vistavison cameras are still used and not solely by ILM.

I don't think ILM uses it anymore anyway. But they don't complain if the film is. Digital Domain did though (The Fifth Element).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › The Digital Bits: grain is not a defect on the disc!