[357mag]

I've watched four movies all of them older on my new 43 inch Samsung and it appears all movies that were shot on film have grain. Can anyone tell me why film has grain? And why would a current day director still choose to shoot his movie on film?

If we can now shoot directly to the hard drive (digitally) why not always do that?

 

[Josh Z]

I've watched four movies all of them older on my new 43 inch Samsung and it appears all movies that were shot on film have grain. Can anyone tell me why film has grain? And why would a current day director still choose to shoot his movie on film?

If we can now shoot directly to the hard drive (digitally) why not always do that?

Film grain is what creates the image. They're like the brush strokes in a painting. If you try to smooth them out or wipe them away, you lose all the texture of the image.

Why would some directors still want to shoot on film? Why do some artists still use paint and brushes when they could just use Photoshop? Movies are an artistic medium and different artists like different textures in their work.

Some directors today even shoot on digital and then add artificial grain to emulate the film look.

 

[rezzy]

There are (were) different grades of film, some smoother than others. Filmmakers today with a few exceptions (Abrams, Nolan, Speilberg, etc) are shooting to digital. Shooting to film is probably even more expensive now since it is becoming a niche.

 

[357mag]

Then explain why when watching a movie that was shot on film some areas are extremely sharp and others appear grainy? I was watching The Warriors last night and an actor's face that may be closest to the camera that was talking was extremely sharp, but other actor's faces that were several feet back were grainy?

 

[rezzy]

Results can vary. Possibly they mixed/matched differing film stock & lenses. And that could be due to budgetary reasons. One member here, Cam man who's a professional cinematographer, can explain it way better than I can. He hasn't posted on here in a long time. I've only shot a few small digital projects, whereas he's worked on major movie productions.

 

[DunMunro]

Then explain why when watching a movie that was shot on film some areas are extremely sharp and others appear grainy? I was watching The Warriors last night and an actor's face that may be closest to the camera that was talking was extremely sharp, but other actor's faces that were several feet back were grainy?

A lot of it has to do with the film type that was used and the amount of natural and artificial lighting that was used. A well exposed face will show less grain, than faces that are under exposed. Also the digitization process can increase contrast which makes grain more visible.

 

[Josh Z]

Then explain why when watching a movie that was shot on film some areas are extremely sharp and others appear grainy? I was watching The Warriors last night and an actor's face that may be closest to the camera that was talking was extremely sharp, but other actor's faces that were several feet back were grainy?

Different film stocks have different properties. Some have finer grain particles than others.

Film works by being exposed to light, which turns the grain particles into an image. The more light on the object being photographed, the smaller and tighter the grain particles appear. When you shoot in low-light scenarios, grain particles tend to be larger. A well lit close-up of an actor's face will look less grainy than a wide shot of a bunch of people standing in the shadows.

Over time, film stocks got better at working in low light, but a low budget movie like The Warriors may not have been able to afford the best film stock.

The same problem still exists on digital, but now you get sensor noise rather than film grain. Take some photos with your cell phone, some in a well lit room and others in a dimly lit room with your exposure opened up, and you'll see what I mean. It's the same principle.

 

[ADU]

A lot of it has to do with the film type that was used and the amount of natural and artificial lighting that was used. A well exposed face will show less grain, than faces that are under exposed. Also the digitization process can increase contrast which makes grain more visible.

All true. But that doesn't necessarily explain why a face in the foreground would appear sharper and less grainy to the OP than a face in the background, in the same shot. Unless there's some kind of compositing being used, the grain density should remain more-or-less even (over time) across the entire area of the image in a given shot.

A face in the background may appear "grainier" simply because it takes up a smaller area of the picture than the face in the foreground. And is defined by fewer particles (aka "grains") of emulsion. Perspective can be tricky that way. It works the same in digital though. A face in the foreground will take up more area of the image, and be defined by more pixels than distant faces in the background. And appear sharper and better defined than the background faces as a result.

The brightness of the faces could also be a factor. Sometimes the grain can appear more obvious in the darker areas of an image than in the lighter areas, or vice-versa, depending on how the film was exposed and processed.

Depth of field could also be a factor. Darker images in particular may have a very shallow depth of field where objects are in focus. If the foreground face is in focus, then chances are the background faces will be more out of focus, and less well-defined... unless a special split focus diopter lens is being used, which allows different parts of the image to be focused at different depths.

This type of effect is relatively rare now. It was used in some scenes in Star Trek: The Motion Picture though, and some other films in the 70's (DePalma often used the technique) to simulate extreme depth of field, so actors in both the foreground and background could be in focus. The principal is similar to bifocal glasses which allow you to focus close up or far away depending on what part of the lens you're looking though.

 

[ADU]

The bit depth and distribution, dithering, black depth, and black level adjustment on the display could also be factors.

The human visual system has a non-linear sensitivity to brightness or luminance.

In short, that means that our eyes are more sensitive to changes in brightness near black than they are to changes in brightness near white. And as a consequence, we need more shades of gray near black for the details in the shadows to look smooth and believable than we do near white. The shading on most digital displays is more linear though with respect to luminance. Which means they have fewer shades perceptually near black than they do near white. The net result can be increased graininess, noise or artifacting in the shadows, esp. if the display is not properly adjusted.

The solution to this kind of issue could be as simple as turning one or two more lights on in the room around (as opposed to in front of) the display.

(If you're using the AVS Dark theme in the Quick Style Chooser, switch back to the Default theme to better view the above image.)

 

[ADU]

Different film stocks have different properties. Some have finer grain particles than others.

Film works by being exposed to light, which turns the grain particles into an image. The more light on the object being photographed, the smaller and tighter the grain particles appear. When you shoot in low-light scenarios, grain particles tend to be larger. A well lit close-up of an actor's face will look less grainy than a wide shot of a bunch of people standing in the shadows.

Over time, film stocks got better at working in low light, but a low budget movie like The Warriors may not have been able to afford the best film stock.

The same problem still exists on digital, but now you get sensor noise rather than film grain. Take some photos with your cell phone, some in a well lit room and others in a dimly lit room with your exposure opened up, and you'll see what I mean. It's the same principle.

Simultaneous posts. Agree with all the above.

 

[357mag]

Okay Thanks for the information. I was watching Clint Eastwood in Escape From Alcatraz and there were some scenes that were horribly grainy as well. One in particular was in extremely low light though. And on a 43 inch television this stuff looks overwhelmingly bad.

 

[PooperScooper]

Okay Thanks for the information. I was watching Clint Eastwood in Escape From Alcatraz and there were some scenes that were horribly grainy as well. One in particular was in extremely low light though. And on a 43 inch television this stuff looks overwhelmingly bad.

Have you calibrated your Samsung? Film grain can be exagerated by having sharpness set too high. On many displays, "out of the box" sharpness setting is too high.

 

[rezzy]

Okay Thanks for the information. I was watching Clint Eastwood in Escape From Alcatraz and there were some scenes that were horribly grainy as well. One in particular was in extremely low light though. And on a 43 inch television this stuff looks overwhelmingly bad.

"Source" matters as well. A less than prisitne film print or one poorly mastered to BD/DVD can look terrible. Perhaps it always looked bad (haven't seen it in years), but also consider your content provider.

 

[Josh Z]

All true. But that doesn't necessarily explain why a face in the foreground would appear sharper and less grainy to the OP than a face in the background, in the same shot. Unless there's some kind of compositing being used, the grain density should remain more-or-less even (over time) across the entire area of the image in a given shot.

Keep in mind that the existing HD transfer for The Warriors had a fair amount of DNR and other digital "massaging."

 

[ADU]

Okay Thanks for the information. I was watching Clint Eastwood in Escape From Alcatraz and there were some scenes that were horribly grainy as well. One in particular was in extremely low light though. And on a 43 inch television this stuff looks overwhelmingly bad.

Wait till you can afford a 65".

Some scenes (and shots) in a film can be grainier than others for the reasons others have already mentioned. Generally speaking, the more light-sensitive film stocks used for low light level/indoor/nighttime photography have a coarser grain than those for brighter/outdoor/daylight photography.

The images on an already developed and printed strip of film can also be re-photographed to tighten up and/or shift the framing of a scene, to create a closeup from a medium shot, for example. Since the grain is part of the images on the film, it gets zoomed & magnified along with the rest of the picture.

If the film is re-photographed onto another strip of film (using a device called an optical printer), then there will also be some generation loss, because the new piece of film has its own grain, in addition to the grain in the image being zoomed and photographed.

There is almost always some generation loss between the original camera negative of a film, and the picture you eventually see in a theater or on your TV btw. Because the film is usually reprinted several times by the processing lab before it is distributed. If the film is shot on negative stock, it will first be printed as a positive image called an interpositive, or IP for short. Then that IP will be used to create another negative print of the film called an internegative, which is used to create the final release prints. (This is how things worked in days of yore anyway, before the advent of digital cinema, and digital IPs.)

All of the above can potentially be scanned to create a digital version of the film. And there are upsides and downsides to each. The final release prints will have more generation loss (and also graininess) though than the original camera negatives. Also, the digital versions of older films are sometimes assembled from a patchwork of different prints of the picture, because the condition of the original IP or internegative is sometimes badly degraded, and only some (or none) of it can be used.

 

[ADU]

Have you calibrated your Samsung? Film grain can be exagerated by having sharpness set too high. On many displays, "out of the box" sharpness setting is too high.

Fwiw, I have a 40" 1080p Samsung LED. And will sometimes raise Sharpness as high as 50 or even above on blurrier-looking DVDs and SD content. For computing, I general keep it set around 10. And for high-quality HD content, I generally also keep it on the lower side, probably in the 10-25 range. Razor-sharp high-quality Blu-rays would probably be at the lower end of that range. While mushier looking, heavily-compressed HD streams might be more in the 20's, or possibly even the 30's.

Those are just some ballpark figures though, that might be worth a try. If you're more the set it, and forget it type, there are patterns you can use to set Sharpness with greater precision for each input.

I have an older Blu-ray player btw that does not do as a good a job of upscaling SD-DVDs to HD as many newer Blu-ray and UHD players do. If you have one of these newer players, then you may not need/want to boost Sharpness up as much I do when watching regular DVDs.