Film Grain Allowed - Survey Poll

Foxy, I generally avoid the thread. I've voted 'other', so here's why.

Overall I think the thread is a great idea, and very necessary. There's too much nonsense spoken by people who do not understand that film has grain, and that it's often supposed to be there. So I'd like to say well done for starting the thread.

However, I feel the tone of the thread is tilted too far the other way. The tone of the thread is that wherever you see grain it's a good thing.

For many films directors choose the least grainy film stock they can. This doesn't make them bad films.

Often a print is grainy because it's several generations old. In this case 'grain is bad'.

I've yet to read a single discussion at that thread, or anywhere else, where the more grainy version of a film isn't seen is automatically being considered as the best. This may well not be the case, but I've yet to see the possibility even considered.

In addition, there are many, many other factors when considering whether or not a transfer is any good. Sometimes a little DNR may have been used and grain removed, but the transfer is better in every other way, and there are 'grain fans' who'll buy/argue for the grainier version every time.

Even the title of the thread has a mild implication that, if a film doesn't have grain, it's not 'artistic'. This isn't overt and probably wasn't intentional, but it's there, and it's born out by many of the comments in the thread.

Finally, I feel it's symptomatic of internet discussion in that everything becomes black and white. If a single grain is not present that has been seen elsewhere some people will whine until the cows come home.

I'll tell you a fact about cinema. The quality of prints varies. That's a fact of life. I'll tell you a fact about home video. Be it VHS, Beta, LaserDisc, DVD, HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc, some releases will have more time, money, care and attention thrown at them than others, and that's always been the case. That's a fact of life. I'll tell you a fact about enjoying films. If we wait for a 'perfect' transfer of every one of our films to appear, we'll never see some of our favourite films ever again. That's a fact of life.

I enjoy reading people standing up for the allowance of grain. It is right that if a director wants his/her film to be grainy, that we should hope to see as much of that original vision on our Blu-ray Discs as possible.

But, as I say, I think things have swung to an extreme.

Best wishes and I hope these comments are taken in the spirit intended.

Steve W

First and foremost, I believe that my screen is too small (50") to notice many of these issues from my 10-12' seating distance. I have a number of BD that people complain about here that I'm perfectly happy with. I just bought CutThroat Island (hey, it was only $9.99) and, while I have read people complaining about excessive DNR in this release, I do not see it with my eyes. The BD looks great and 10 times better then the DVD ever did plus, the DTS HD audio is pretty impressive.

Threads like this tend to become so negative that it is just no fun reading after awhile. I do not remember people being so negative and hate the quality of release after release when DVD first came out. Some here seem to find something negative with every release and just keep bringing it up and I don't understand why one would continue supporting BD if the end up hating it so much. Oh wait, I do know why, because, even the bad releases, look better then DVD (but people don't like to hear that around here).

Look, I love film grain and I wish there was no such thing as excessive DNR, EE or whatever else they a do to some transfers. I wish everything would come out looking perfect, pristine and film like; untouched by digital tools. I also don't like how the general public veiws film grain as a bad or negative thing that must be removed at all cost. I don't like seeing the studios cut corners but, I also don't notice the problems as much as others. I'll be honest, I have been quite happy with the Star Trek box set. Do I wish they could look better, yes, do I wish I had not bought the BD and stuck with the DVDs, ...hell no! Here is another line people hate to read around hear but, it is true and all I really have to go on: to my eyes, every BD I have bought has looked good to excellent. I just do not pick up on the majority of the problems some of you see, and I'm very thankful for that because it seems like I am enjoying my BD collection more then some of you.

Sometimes these threads just become comical as well, especially when people start using photoshop to alter or invert colors or whatever they do. They then zoom in on screen grabs 200x to reveal even more problems or to find a pixel out of place and I'm just thinking, who watches movies like this? I just feel that some of this stuff is just going a bit overboard. It seems that every release now people are looking for the bad and have forgotten how to just watch a movie with out analyzing every detail of every frame. I think it is kinda sad that the first thing some people do when they get a new BD is pull out there old DVD and start doing comparison screen grabs. Me, I just rip it open, toss it in my PS3 and sit back and enjoy it. I usually only find out about the faults of the transfer when I come here and see the thread about the problems. I then, and others like me, get labeled as less of a movie fan and not a true HT hobbyist because my eyes do not see the majority of problems that others notice (even if they have to freeze frame and zoom in to notice them sometimes).

I'll say it again, I enjoy my BDs of CutThroat Island and the first 6 Trek movies! Are they perfect... no. Are they fun to watch in full HD on my 50" HDTV... like you wouldn't believe!

Well, I posted in the film grain thread after seeing this poll.

Just my opinion but just give me a BD the way the film directors and his staff believe is as close to their vision and the master and i'm satisfied. I love every BD with grain like 300 to films like Bolt. Who am I to tell them what to make their movie to look like. Just my opinion on the subject.

Rolltide, nice post and analysis (even if you are a tide fan and I am a Gator)

I have a 100" screen and sit about 11.5ft away (using a 1080p projector) and, too be honest, I don't always see every minor little issue either. Yes, I can see DNR and EE from time to time and I can see where some folks get upset by it (Patton, for me, was very disappointing), but it is my opinion that some folks seem to go out of their way to point out issues, and things tend to get blown way out of proportion.

I have owned VHS, DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-Ray (skipped LD because I was too young and it was too expensive). All of them have movies that looked good. All of them have movies that look bad. Yes, it is disappointing when a movie that you love (say "Gladiator") gets a disappointing transfer. We know what Blu-Ray is capable of. What we don't know is why the transfer turned out poorly. Bad master? Bad encoding? Only the studio insiders really know the true answers and I doubt many of them read the threads at AVS anymore because how extreme some people have become. It has become very hard to have a rational conversation in many of the PQ threads.

For me, at the end of the day, the movie itself always comes first. Using Star Trek as an example, I really enjoy Star Trek II, and IV. Could the Blu-Ray versions have looked better? No doubt. But the fact of the matter is that the Trilogy, in my opinion, on Blu-Ray looked better than it ever has at any point on home video. The fact that it was also sold at a very good price (I paid just over $10 per movie) was a huge bonus for me. Had these movies been perfect encodes (is there even such a thing?) but sold for $30 apiece, I would have passed on them most likely due to the economy. Like you, I really just try to enjoy the movie and get engrossed in it first and foremost. Trying to pick out issues during the movie would just not be very enjoyable (I have caught myself doing that from time to time after reading a PQ thread). As an example, The Dark Knight. Many people kicked and screamed about this movie on Blu-Ray after seeing the PQ thread. Some people cancelled their pre-orders. People get bent all out of shape (granted many of them had not even seen the movie on BD yet).

I watched it. Yes, there was some EE. No it was not a 5 star transfer in my book. But it was, overall, pretty solid for me. The IMAX scenes looked stellar. It was a great movie with a good transfer. Several friends came over and watched it on BD, and they ranted and raved about how good it looked on Blu-Ray and we had a blast. It was fun. I cannot imagine depriving myself of that fun night at my house because of some EE.

For the folks (such as Xylon, eric.exe, etc) who take the time to post the screencaps, I say thank you. I may not always agree with your opinion and analysis, but I do appreciate the work and effort you put into those threads. Several times you have made me think think twice about buying a movie, or waiting for it to go on a sale. The threads are beneficial. What I feel the threads could do without is all the posturing and rhetoric from the same people every time. It gets old. And in many cases I just look at the screenshots and ignore many of the comments.

And I will end with this. Don't judge every movie because of a few screenshots. Give it a rent and watch it for yourself on your own gear in your own environment. Do not let someone else's opinion and analysis override your own opinion and analysis. I think that sometimes gets lost around here.

And remember to try and enjoy the movie.. Isn't that what it's all about anyway?

I took other reason, because its very hard to know how close it actually are to the orginal.

Encodes try to recreate the image, with the help of blocks. 4*4 8*8 16*16 etc. Those blocks are not actually 100% accurate to the orginal image. I have seen several examples over the years, were an encode actually enforces the grain.

So without references its actually very hard to come up with anything conclusive.

That's my take, more or less. I believe a BD that accurately represents the film itself should get the highest score regardless of how it "looks". But like you said, that can be hard to do.

Also, the title of the thread may be off-putting to some. The BDs are being judged on how they compare to the actual film/master.

larry

That's the opinion of some cinematographers. They feel film grain on Blu-ray isn't that desirable because it doesn't look like normal film grain most of the time. It's much more distracting since compression causes it to affect larger areas of the image in random ways. What was once a light mist of grain turns into blizzard of blinking square blocks.

Some people here would think the people who shot these films would be screaming about DNR but they're more concerned about the 1.85 AR they composed for being zoomed to 1.78.

I opted for "other". My reason for "other" is generally by the time I've seen movies, they're already placed & I have nothing more to add. I also feel I'm limited by my equipment with regards to your thread Foxy, as I have a 58" Panny plasma. I know I've posted a couple of times in the thread, but nothing major. I generally participate in the (often hated) PQ thread, as I feel I can contribute more in that one than in the Film Grain thread, but I don't have a dislike for the Film Grain thread and have a lot of respect for artistic intent as well as Blu's looking pretty. I appreciate all the work involved to keep both of the threads alive, and love reading both of them.

And since nobody (or very few at least) people here likely have access to the film itself how can so many people claim to know what does or doesn't look like the original? So many people make claims like "well when I saw this in the theatre in 1986 it certainly looked just like that". Honestly who knows what should be right or wrong without the real source in your hands?

The predatory attitude of many people on those whose opinions they don't agree with in that thread and in general at AVS likely also throws off many from posting.

I have a 46" 1080p and watch at 6-7 feet. In general I agree with most of what ack_bk said. I notice many of the issues pointed out here from time to time but so many things get blown so far out of of proportion it just turns me off from reading most of it all. The best advice is for people to rent if they are not sure and then make your decision yourself. In general I'm not going to avoid watching some movie X in Blu-ray if I don't already own it (and I only almost zero DVD's) even if it has some problems. Most of these movies will not be released again for many years if ever.

I chose Other as well. I'm a faithful reader of the thread and think it's got a place here at Avs. Film grain is a very subjective subject. Sure, I would like films to look as close to what a director/cinematographer intended. However, this may NOT be to have grain.

There's a similar analogy in photography. When I go out shooting, I will choose the lowest ISO (i.e., least amount of grain visible) I can get away with for the given lighting situation. When I shoot action, in low light, I'm forced to up the ISO and live with the grain. Sure, my style may be "artistic" where I purposely put in grain for effect. That is few and far between. I think it's true for moving film. You will, once in a while, find film purposely made grainy to achieve a desired look/effect. But, I don't think that's the norm. I can also see a more grainy sequence intertwined within a normal sequence to signify a flashback, etc. One of the many artistic uses of intentional grain.

So, until we find that "perfect" film that does not show grain unless completely intended, we will have varying degrees of grain to talk about.

Foxy, it says reasons for taking part or not, but there is no option for us who do take part

Bad and confusing poll...Sorry.

I love the thread, as its full of like minded people

And if someone posts that has different opinions what would happen?

Honestly, I find the whole thing maddening. People are posting about "fake" and "added" film grain now and it feels like some kind of extreme DNR advocacy or just general agitation. I generally participate in the *PIX* comparison threads when it's for a movie I like but I often don't feel knowledgeable enough to comment.

I'm not sure what I could ever add to your other thread besides, "yeah, I don't like DNR (or edge enhancement or old masters made for DVD or anything that screams of laziness or catering to the lowest common denominator)".

So I just took a look at the thread again (have not looked in a long time) and the list you have at the beginning of releases looks reasonable to me. I have not gone through the posts but the ratings seem quite fair.

I may try to participate more myself in the future.

Didn't even know the thread existed until this poll. I usually hit the usual suspects when thinking about buying. The "Tier" Thread, highdefdigest, etc. I'll definitely look at the film grain thread now also. I like my movies to be presented as intended. Without grain removal or EE/DNR, but if I like a movie I'll probably get it anyway despite those issues.

But there are somethings I don't even notice, like EE. I just went to the film grain thread and saw that Black Hawk Down had negatives because of EE/no fine detail. I've never noticed it before, and consider it reference. I guess I shouldn't be reviewing any BD's.

As of now I'm watching BD's on my 61" samsung LED DLP, and BD-30 sitting about 7 ft away, but hopefully in the future I'll be building my dedicated space with a 100"-115" wide CIH scope screen. Then maybe I'll see a bit more.

They do things get changed and moved from list to list

1.85:1 movies are almost never zoomed to 1.78:1. They're open matte, and I doubt anyone in the industry is up in arms about the few scan lines of difference between those two ratios.

I assume that you meant to say 2.35:1 movies zoomed to 1.78:1 (as per Steven Soderbergh's recent article on the subject), which is a different matter entirely, but also rarely happens to Blu-ray transfers.

It is incredibly common for film makers to use grain for artistic effect. They even congratulate each other on it. They select stocks on which has the most appealing grain structure, not the least grain. Kodak advertising attacks digital video saying its clean look doesn't look as beautiful as film and people believe it.

They also love distracting flares which all still photographers avoid like the rabies and they love the soft look of Cooke lenses that still photographers would say look cheap, and they love the artifacts of anamorphic lenses like streaking highlights, ugly bokeh and everything out of focus vertically stretched. They don't think like still photographers.

But the people posting on forums like these generally have no way to know what was running through the mind of a DP or Director. In some cases these people (Director or DP) may have stated their intentions or feelings but in most cases they likely have not and people are just guessing or talking out of their ass.

Jason Reitman who directed Juno said he was pleased to see that the DVD had the proper black bars at the top and the bottom for his 1.85:1 film instead of being zoomed to 16:9. That's just one example.