AVS Forum banner

Film Grain Thread - Your Reasons For Taking Part Or Not Taking Part in The Thread

  • I don't understand the film grain allowed thread

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I get all my information from the Tier thread with regards image quality

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dislike the thread starter and will not take part because of that

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dislike film grain

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I want to take part but i'm not sure how

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I feel my opinion will be criticized so do not take part

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I prefer to just read the views of others rather than taking part

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • My screen size is too smallk to pick up some of the issues others see

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I find the thread to be too negative and not positive enough

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other reason - I will post my reason in the thread

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I started a film grain allowed thread last year to highlight films which have been given shocking treatment by the studio's and to highlight those films which look absolutely fabulous on Blu Ray. Films with minor issues also get listed on this thread.


I have found that the thread seems to get a similiar amount of views as the audio thread but nowhere near the number of views that the eye candy tier thread gets.


I thought i would conduct a poll to try and see where we can go with this thread and which direction it can take.


I am interested in finding out if people are actually using the thread or understanding it's intent. I also wish to find out why so few people nominate films as the same select few seem to take part and in my opinion it really needs more members participating.


I believe the intent of the thread is good and i'm glad i made it but it is disheartening to find so many forum members not actually taking an active part in it and i feel like perhaps they either do not understand the thread, do not like me or perhaps are afraid if they nominate or critique a film that someone will have an opposite opinion.


If it's because members do not like me then i would gladly give the moderation of the thread over to someone else as i would like to see it grow. If it's the latter and they just are afraid to give an opinion then please do not be afraid as your views are needed to help the thread grow and make it stronger.


This poll/survey will help me understand where i am perhaps going wrong with the thread or give me an understanding of how to make it better and i hope some of you will take part in the poll.


Pssst....I did a typo and added a k to poll option 8. I hope the moderators will allow this poll as i would like to see where i can take the thread and why more people don't take part thus this poll/survey can help by asking members directly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,490 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,586 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,948 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,032 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/17053646


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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,682 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/17053646


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.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper /forum/post/17053804


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

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDarrylR /forum/post/17053891



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.

The title of the thread came about after reading how DNR destroys the grain structure. How some people were mistakenly thinking grain was bad.


In actual fact it's not a thread which is just about grain and i'm wondering if thats what puts people off joining in. The grain naming of the thread just fitted in with what was happening last year on the forums.


Regarding the predatory attitude comment. I didn't think there was one in the thread and indeed i try to go out of my way to make people welcome and point out that all comments are valid and that anyone can give an opinion. The last thing i want is the same people taking part and no one else feeling they can offer anything.


I'm trying to find out what it is that is putting people off taking part.


I understand what MovieSwede is saying and i should add i know that excess grain can be an issue. The Stendahl Syndrome was added to the minor issues list due to slightly excessive grain. So just because a film has grain doesn't mean it gets added to the main list. Thats a point Pecker was making about some transfers.


I'm not an extremist when it comes to all this and i really do take everything on board but it struck me that a lot of people come to certain threads such as for example the Gladiator thread or Gangs Of New York or Patton and participate and complain about how bad the releases are but then they avoid the thread i set up specifically to talk about and nominate such releases.


I can only imagine i'm doing something wrong if they will participate in individual threads and not the thread i set up for this issue. It's disheartening and i have felt like just quitting the thread several times when i see it.


Reading some of the comments today leads to further disheartenment.


Call me an idealist but i actually thought that if we all pulled in one direction we could do some good and over the long term actually influence change but it seems people are just not interested and i'm not sure if the thread deserves to survive if only the same three or four people nominate every few weeks.


I originally asked last year for some of the people complaining about bad transfers to set up this type of thread but no one did it. After a month or thereabouts i decided i would do it and thats how it was born. I did feel a little upset that i did it all and that the people who complain the loudest about poor transfers still take no active interest in the thread. It just makes me think to myself why are they not taking part ? Hopefully some of them will enter this thread and let me know or at least vote and then i'll know.


I have no problem with anyone though and i'm glad you are all giving honest opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
Bad and confusing poll...Sorry.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 /forum/post/17054093


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

I'm trying to find out specifically why some people don't take part or avoid the thread completely.


For those that do i added the other section at the end of the poll and opinions in the actual thread are welcome.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDarrylR /forum/post/17054246


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


Different opinions are welcome. I would love to hear some differences of opinion and some debate as it would make the thread a lot better and hopefully make placement of the titles better.
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top