[Murilo]

I just purchased this on hd dvd, I had rented it once before, and it was one of my favorite transfers.


I have an A3 now, but i purchased a w5000 which is much sharper then my old projector, watching it again I notice a fair amount of film grain in the picture until they get to the jungle. When they get to the jungle grain seems to go.


I was reading a review, linked to it in the pq teir thread saying this movie has no visible grain, I hope this is wrong, and not my projector creating noise.

 

[Xylon]

Lots of grain.

 

[Murilo]

Ok good, im just paranoid because the w5000 with its sharpness reputation seems to get flack for being noisy, when infact i think its just present in the picture, and showing up on a good sharp display.

 

[jp_tech]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon /forum/post/14177790


Lots of grain.

I don't agree. There is some grain but very little. I only have a 40" screen so maybe not seeing as much as those with bigger screens.

 

[boblinds]

Film. Has. Grain.

 

[Yoeddy1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by boblinds /forum/post/14179417


Film. Has. Grain.

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

 

[Murilo]

Thanks for the obvious, however not all films use the same settings, are filmed on the same camera, ect.. use the same processing for the transfer. Infact there was less grain later on when they go to the jungle.


As simple as you two want it to be, there are obviously many other variables.

 

[Johnbutler]

This was shot in super-35, a format that achieves a wide ration by using half the film than anamorphic without the optical squeeze during production. Combine this with high speed film stock (favored for its versatility) and you have a grainy, but sharp image. when the grain calms down those scenes were probably shot on slower film, which would be cleaner.

 

[boblinds]



Quote:
As simple as you two want it to be, there are obviously many other variables.

I understand what you're saying but, in fact, film has grain regardless of those variables. The visibility of the grain is the result of those variables.


The problem is that home video consumers are now starting to equate the presence of grain in a video transfer as a flaw in the transfer. Instead, it generally indicates that the transfer is faithful to the source material, which -- for me, at least -- is exactly what a video transfer should achieve.


The fact that you can see differences in grain from shot to shot in King Kong indicates to me that the compressionist did a helluva job with this title. If there was no difference from shot to shot, then that would indicate the compressionist used some level of digital processing to homogenize the image which is gnerally undesirable in my opinion.


But there's a ringer here. I would guess that few, if any, shots in King Kong were made without the need for a digital intermediate -- that is, a digitally scanned version of the film footage that was used for the insertion of effects (etc.) and then transferred back to film. In those cases, it's entirely possible that some of the visible grain -- aside from that contributed by the film stock at both ends of the process -- was added by the digital effects team to achieve a particular look desired by the director and the director of photography.


So, I agree. It ain't simple. What is simple is the opinion of some Internet HD video reviewers and consumer who think grain = BAD on HD discs.

 

[bjmarchini]

If you do a search in the HDTV section for grain, there is a pretty lengthy discussion about this..


The reason you might get more and then less grain is the type of camera used and then post processing.


While many Blockbusters like Kong are shot on S35, some shots are made with S16. Especially action shots where it is harder to use the better camera. I am not saying this happen, but it is a possibility. The difference mm films would produce different grains.


Another thing to consider is that grain is a good thing. I was on a personal crusade for a long time that digital was better because of a lack of grain. I didn't sway from my opinion until someone showed me that grain actually has the effect of adding perceived detail. I know it may sound nuts but look at this.

Quote:
from post Amirm

notice how the grain makes the skin look more real?


here is an even better example. check out the stone in this one. it says it all.


http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/ind...etter-prints#6



So to sum up grain is your friend. plus is an important part of a balanced diet.

There is actually a filter you can use in FFDSHOW that adds "grain" by adding noise. Pretty cool actually. Too bad it doesn't work for HDM yet.

 

[davcole]

I got to watch it for the first time last weekend and honestly noticed more grain than I normally see in a VC1 transfer, however the picture was immaculate!!

 

[Vmk2]

film grain is not a defect ...

 

[bjmarchini]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmk2 /forum/post/14220159


film grain is not a defect ...

Most people think it is until they see how bad the PQ is without. Seeing is believing

 

[jp_tech]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmk2 /forum/post/14220159


film grain is not a defect ...

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying it is a defect. The OP was just asking if others notice grain in KK. I personally don't see much. Maybe my definition of a lot of grain differs from others.

 

[Bart_R]

Hi Murilo,


I don't know if this helps, since I only watched it on dvd, but upon doing so on my Epson TW700, I did obsess a little bit about the grain I was seeing in King Kong as well. Particularly in the restaurant where Jack Black tries to persuade Naomi Watts to join the crew. I spotted "lots" of grain in the background and some on the faces. It did look quite sharp, though. Those eyes... But anyway, apart from some parts (most noticeably in the first act, indeed) I didn't notice too much grain. And overall the image quality (even on sd dvd) was stunning...

 

[JBLsound4645]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Murilo /forum/post/14177788


I just purchased this on hd dvd, I had rented it once before, and it was one of my favorite transfers.


I have an A3 now, but i purchased a w5000 which is much sharper then my old projector, watching it again I notice a fair amount of film grain in the picture until they get to the jungle. When they get to the jungle grain seems to go.


I was reading a review, linked to it in the pq teir thread saying this movie has no visible grain, I hope this is wrong, and not my projector creating noise.

Well at least you know it was filmed onto 35mm I love seeing film grain, that way it tells me; oh this was 35mm and not, digital.