thank you for the comments - all of which are spot on- , but having worked as a projestionist for 5 years during my business study please accept that I know a thing or two about "film look"
The unconvenient thruth is that practically NO transfer from film is done without DNR applied. The remaining question is how excessive this tool is used.
And no, PL is IMHO certainly not an example of mild, hardly recognizeable DNR but as obvious as it gets (pretty much all the natural grain is gone).
You absolutely right about shooting in anamorphic 35mm. By using the whole available area of 35mm film stock sensitivity goes up (you make use of the whole film stock sensitivity). BUT shooting anamorphic 35mm, using soft focus, state of the art Kodak Vision/2 filmstock doesn't even begin to explain that way too many movie releases on HDM show almost NO hint of natural film grain (which is still very much present even when shooting anamorphic) - in return you filter away not just the grain but most of the texture of a given movie (and yes, Batman Begins (although rewarded 5 star reviews...) is another example of bad practise - it is almost as clean, smooth and waxy regarding facial features as CGI - makes you wonder, doesn't it...
Originally Posted by MovieSwede
Funny that you think anamorfic 35mm movies always has been DNR.
Last samurai = A35
Batman begins = A35
The reason why someone shoots anamorfic is that it isnt as grainy as S35. But you lose some sharpness and also gets some distortions due to the adapter.
Yes it will look different, and yes some will not like the look. But thats the way they shoot the movies.
Pans Labyrinth on the other hand is shoot in 1,85:1 aspekt ratio. That means they gonna use a smaller area of the 35mm as they crop it instead of using the adapter to get the whole frame.
That would if everything else is equal make this movie grainer. Of course you have filmstocks, lights etc that of course have an impact on the grain.