Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
Grain isn't "added" it's part of film. If the film has grain in it it's likely to be sharper and more detailed than any extra's which may have been degrained.
Your assertion that grain makes a movie appear lower in quality is wrong and you really need to stop spreading misinformation.....DNR which removes grain actually destroys high frequency information and lowers detail levels. You have it backwards.
I suggest you read this article very clearly.http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris062408.html
The above article is from a film restoration expert who knows more about film than 99% of the people on this planet.
Read carefully and check out the bit where he says grain is an inherent part of the film image - It isn't "added".
No wonder reviewers get it so wrong when people think grain is added later.
You might not want to jump to false conclusions yourself because, of course, you and mproper are both correct in what you are saying. Yet you seem to be putting words into mproper's mouth that he didn't actually say. What he did say was "...it's not unusual for the movie itself to have grain (done on purpose, but makes the quality appear lower), and then the extras will be pristine because they haven't added grain to them."
He did not say that filmmakers regularly "added" grain. He implied that grain is a normal and natural part of shooting on film (as opposed to digital video shooting), that shooting on film will necessarily require some degree of grain in it. He also suggested that if grain is not added to the digital-video extras, they might look cleaner and, therefore, better to some uninformed people.
I think we all understood that when he said grain makes a film look like it has "lower quality," he meant it looked that way to the casual viewer. The fact is, like it or not, most casual, non-videophile viewers DO think that grain makes a film "appear" lower in quality. Studios also know this, which is why studio engineers unfortunately use DNR filtering too often to remove some (or all) of the grain.
In other words, you are both saying the same thing: Grain is natural and normal to good film photography. Removing grain from film stock through filtering usually results in removing detail from an image. The question is whether the casual viewer (i.e., at this time the majority of viewers) would rather sacrifice detail for what they "perceive" as a better, cleaner picture. Viewers obviously need to be educated and informed, but I doubt that calling someone like mproper out for essentially agreeing with you is the answer.