Blu-ray Myths: Grain is a Flaw
Through the years of VHS, Laserdisc, Beta, Videodisc, and in most cases, DVD, home video did one thing well: obscure its source. Films, believe it or not, are generally shot on film. That film, in its various formats ranging from 16 mm to 70 mm, has grain.
Due to the various methods of display from those various formats, grain was hidden. Whether that was due to compression, resolution, or something else, home viewers are not used to grain, and instead of educating with Blu-ray (where all of the grain is now visible), the studios are responding in drastic ways.
Grain can be removed digitally from an image. It’s not hard to do via digital noise reduction (DNR), and seemingly appeases a segment of the populace who could care less about the art, but only want their bright, shiny HDTV, undoubtedly uncalibrated, to look as pristine as possible. However, the grain is the image. Those “specks” if you will hold all of the detail. “Cleaning” the grain wipes the detail. There is no middle ground. Some film stocks hold heavy grain, some so light you can barely see it .A grainless image is one shot on digital video (which introduces video noise, but that’s another topic).
A recent Blu-ray release has seemingly split the Blu-ray buying populace into two segments: Predator – Ultimate Hunter Edition. There are those that rightfully support the original, heavily grainy photography, and those that like this “Ultimate Hunter Edition” because Fox has wiped it clean, resulting in faces that look waxy instead of anything natural, but the grain is now gone.
It is a split of opinion and fact. The opinion is that looks “better.” Many believe the heavy grain was a problem that should have been eliminated, and that flaw is now removed completely. That’s fine. The fact is that it does not represent the original photography. It is wildly inaccurate, not opinion, that it looks better than the source. The source is grainy and filled with detail. This new Blu-ray edition is not. The source looks like it does for a variety of reasons, giving the film a gritty look that suits the mood of this ’80s classic. Was the original Blu-ray perfect? Not at all. It was loaded with compression due to an outdated codec, which could have been fixed this time around. So much for that.
On the other hand, there are Blu-ray critics. To be clear, there are two reasons for a critic. The first is to tell someone whether or not a product is worth their money, with a professional knowledge base to fall back on (at least, that’s supposed to the case). Is a movie worth $10 for a ticket? Is blender A better than blender B? The second is to improve things. When critics begin bashing something, let’s say a video game with bad jumping controls, no developer wants to face that same wrath. If they listen to what the critics say, their jumping controls will be improved.
There are a select few out there who enjoyed this new Predator Blu-ray, and this is where opinion and fact collide. Blu-ray exists for “perfect picture and sound,” or so the tagline states. By giving this disc high scores, those select critics are not doing their jobs, period. Who knows what the reason is, but these critics, in the infinite wisdom of the internet, do not know what they are doing. The IGN reviewer, Cindy White, actually has the gall to say there is no grain, yet completely misses the point as to why. How can anyone reviewing film, or a medium which serves as a means to reproduce film, not question why the grain is missing?
The studios, along with Blu-ray critics, can serve a purpose. Just like the old widescreen vs. full screen debate which is slowly seeing its end, the myth that grain is a flaw is just gaining traction. It needs to be stopped right now, and the various fan-made comparisons between the old and new discs on specialized forums are not enough. The mainstream needs a bit of an education on film itself and the art. They can’t go on thinking grain is a flaw in the image.
Matt Paprocki is a 12-year movie and video game critic. His work has been featured on a variety of websites, and he currently edits DoBlu.com and Multiplayergames.com.
Comments (45)
Eh, the mainstream is pretty stupid when it comes to movies. Like you said, they just want their HDTV’s to “look as pristine as possible”. This is the same mainstream that still has issues with the black bars on the top and bottom of a WIDESCREEN movie that is showing the viewer all of the picture as it was intended to do.
Of course there is also the argument that if you want the grain, than you should probably watch a non-digital trasfer of the movie. Digital is supposed to look digital and clean, not grainy and old. I’m a movie guy, so I want to see the original frame as it was shot. But, I can understand those that like the cleaned up non-grainy picture.
Posted by Bryan on July 12th, 2010I had a friend who worked for a computer that did special effects on the first Garfield movie and he had the work of removing as much grain as possible before the movie went back to the editors and director. Granted, this is a more recent movie, but it is an example of how most modern directors prefer not to have a grainy picture.
All the grain in Aliens makes me wonder how the Blu-Ray image in that will look, although one might assume James Cameron will have a lot of input into the Blu-Ray transfer.
Posted by Uncle Milkshake on July 12th, 2010@Bryan The problem is that watching a non-digital image of a movie in the home is almost impossible unless you’re crazy rich and coud afford not only the projector, but the film itself. It’s not even remotely reasonable for 99% of the population.
Posted by Matt Paprocki on July 12th, 2010Every time I read one of Matt’s articles I think “Dang, good writing for a 12-year-old!” Someone’s gotta change the wording of that byline…
Posted by Mike on July 12th, 2010Yes, that is true Matt. But, a huge percentage of the population probably doesn’t want to see that grain and therefore the studios will probably cut the grain out so that they make more money on whatever film they’re releasing. It sucks I know, but what it all boils down to is “What is going to make the most money?” and a cleaned up picture with no grain/artifacts is going to sell better. Some studios could always release two versions, but then they have to spend more money on marketing and producing the DVD. Catch-22 I guess.
Posted by Bryan on July 12th, 2010This is quite a pretentious post.
“Grain” isn’t indicative of authenticity or quality. This is akin to the old-timers and elitists who swear records ‘sound’ better, mostly because it’s muffled and ‘warm’.
This is a flaw packaged as a feature which completely ignores the obvious benefits of digital media ie. can store far more data thus allowing higher bitrates (allowing it to deliver more information making it closer to the source) and doesn’t have the deteriorating nature of physical media.
You can argue that grain is ‘authentic’ and is part of the 80s zeitgeist, but that’s about as genuine as Tarantino’s Death Proof with its deliberately low quality ‘film’. It was purely a necessary technicality with the day’s equipment, and is now merely an aesthetic look.
While the original Predators film reel was indeed grainy, the physical shoot wasn’t. Audiences don’t watch a film imagining it through a film reel (with its imperfections), they imagine themselves standing where the camera IS and observing it with their own eyes, clear and free of grain. If indeed the Non-grainy Predators Blu-Ray is as plasticky as you say, that’s merely a bad transfer. Removing grain from original film reels shouldn’t be demonised.
Posted by Steve on July 12th, 2010@Steve No, as I said in the post, the grain is the image. It’s the detail. You cannot remove grain without removing the filmed detail. It has nothing to do with ’80s films, old films, or anything else. Grain is what makes up film.
What the physical shoot looked like does not matter. That’s like saying when you go outside you don’t see grain so you shouldn’t see it in movies either. The filmed medium is the intent. Predator should be gritty. It adds mood and gives the film a coarser look.
And Predator is not merely a bad transfer. That’s what happens when you remove the grain on any disc, although not necessarily to that extent.
Posted by Matt Paprocki on July 12th, 2010Recently picked up An American werewolf in London & original Planet of the Apes in Blue Ray.
I saw the first hour of the first one and I must say it looks stunning. Its insanely more brighter than my vhs copy. It’s almost like watching a new movie. I forgot how humerus it was also. I had to shut it down halfway though, for some reason I got a terrible headache while watching it, I though I was becoming a werewolf or something. Either way I ll finish it up tonight..
Posted by Kyriacos on July 12th, 2010“more brighter” ,, haha i crack me up..
Posted by Kyriacos on July 12th, 2010Because film was the standard when Predator was made, McTiernan had to expect graininess in his picture. If he could have done away with it, I am sure he probably would have. But, the technology was not there yet, so he had to go with it. Now that the technology is there and doable, studios are utilizing it. It’s the evolution of film. Sucks for the hardcore film buffs yes, but I am sure there is a way to view Predators in its original graininess. Just not in HD I guess.
Posted by Bryan on July 12th, 2010Steve, I disagree. I think what you consider an aesthetic look is an integral part of any film.
Think of all the aesthetic decisions made to establish a film’s mood – black & white vs. color, gels and filters, sound and dialog dubbing, any number of in-camera effects and post production.
Whether or not the producers can afford the equipment or stock to prevent visible grain, having it is still a choice made in the production. Who is to say (except the producers themselves) if it is a conscious element contributing to the overall whole?
The Criterion Collection blog has a number of articles about restoring films for modern formats. Many of them mention the painstaking decisions over exactly what residue (film grain, lens dust, stray hairs, etc.) should be excised or remain intact. It’s very much their intention to create a time capsule of the period and conditions the film was originally made in.
I believe the more time passes, the more a film really is a representative of its period. By all means it should appear as such, warts (and grain) and all.
Posted by Mike on July 12th, 2010You’re making a lot of assumptions about what a director intended or did not intend. Sounds like a techno guy explaining aesthetics to me. Never works when you do
Posted by Goose on July 12th, 2010@Goose:
Are you arguing for or against removal of film grain in disc releases? I think you’re actually repeating Matt’s point: let’s preserve the way the film looked originally as much as possible, since we *can’t* say exactly what the filmmaker intended beyond the finished work. People like Lucas have the luxury of endlessly tweaking their films after the fact, but most don’t have a say in what happens to their work once it leaves their hands. Mucking it up in the name of “improvement” probably has some rolling in their proverbial graves.
Posted by Larson on July 12th, 2010I am not arguing either way. I wholeheartedly think it depends. You talk about what the filmmaker INTENDS… unless he supervised the transfer or the director of photography did, you cant make any assumptions or summations about what they intended. There are so many compromises made during a shoot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know. In fact, a lot of directors will go to that “grainy=gritty realism” bull to cover a compromise they have made due to lighting, location, lack of money, logistics, etc. I don’t like rubbery faces (bad transfer) but a lot of the jungle shots looked great. So maybe it’s again, a problem of doing things under one setting as opposed to scene by scene. Isn’t this why Coppola did his own transfers of Godfather? Imagine the Godfather lighter and with no grain…
Posted by Goose on July 12th, 2010Why Ridley Scott does his own? But to make blanket statements about it is just as ignorant and is assuming waaaaaay too much. A lot of transfers with lower grain look amazing on blu ray.
To be honest.. I think the fact that we are at the level, that we can talk about and see this much detail (good and bad transfers) is amazing. That being said the new predator is way too DNRed for my tastes and I am glad I kept the first blu-ray release. I think people who do not care about DNR are on 720p / 40 inch or less screens.
Posted by BigHungry on July 12th, 2010I should say see this much detail at home…..
Posted by BigHungry on July 12th, 2010@goose If a director didn’t want grain, he would shoot digitally now. That’s now a choice. If they want light grain, they can choose a lighter grained, finer film stock. If they want a lot, that’s an option.
Plus, all films go through a digital intermediate where just about anything can be done to the master. If they didn’t want the grain, it would have been done right there.
As for older films, everyone wants more money, time, and better film stock. They work with what they have, and that is how it should be preserved. What if a film print is destroyed some day, and lo and behold the Blu-ray is the last remaining master, and it’s been butchered by DNR?
Posted by Matt Paprocki on July 12th, 2010In ANY transfer, you are up to the opinion and work of those doing the transfer. They don’t just float it cleanly through the process. They color correct, they raise and lower contrast, gain luminance, etc. To think otherwise is simply naive. No print is pristine. You WILL NOT get exactly as they shot it or as you say INTENDED unless the director or DP does it. Thus, there are good transfers where the choices made by the artist (and yes, they are such) doing the transfer are good, and some where it’s horribly bad. It’s the same with ANY ART. But to cry purity of the artist on something that is clearly being restored and renewed for tie in (Predators) profit is kinda dumb. Point out the bad, sure. Help people make good decisions, great. But remember, you are bringing your aesthetics to your review. Some people like the cleaner look. Some don’t. Don’t call them ignorant to the process when it may boil simply down to they like this better. They know what their eyes and minds tell them. They know what they like and don’t. What you like is great… for YOU. Report and review that. But just because you write about it doesn’t make your way better necessarily, particularly when you aren’t really looking at it from their point of view… more of your pov foisted upon them.
Posted by Goose on July 12th, 2010@Goose: Then what are we supposed to argue about, the actual film itself?
Posted by Mike on July 12th, 2010@goose The point of Blu-ray is be as close as possible to the source. In this case, Predator is known as a grainy film. The DVD was grainy. The first Blu-ray edition was grainy. The new one is not. It is not representative of the intent.
“Don’t call them ignorant to the process when it may boil simply down to they like this better.”
It’s not about what they like better. It’s what the director wanted. They seem to believe the film has been improved because of the lack of grain, and that’s ignorance. Sure, they can LIKE the look better, but to say it makes the movie better, that’s a falsehood.
Posted by Matt Paprocki on July 12th, 2010I feel that you guys are losing sight a bit of what’s actually occurring when they do stuff like this. Rather than argue about the director’s intent, think of it this way: in essence, what’s happening here is actually loss of detail. Those waxy faces aren’t just coming from nowhere, they’re created because when grain is eliminated, so is detail. Everything looks smooth because fine lines are lost in the process. It’s the equivalent of using the blur tool in photoshop. Sure, things will look shiny, smooth and new in your picture but it is NOT an accurate representation of the reality that the picture captured.
It’s the same thing in films. Reality may not be made up of film grain but when they remove it numerous details that were present in the original print are lost.
This may have to do with director intent but I’d argue that unless the director’s intent was to have that digitally processed, smoothed out, less detailed image, then it IS fact that the original, unprocessed image IS better.
Posted by Ben on July 12th, 2010I have to disagree on this particular transfer. There was about one shot where the DNR was overdone and was really noticeable (the opening scene with Dillon and Dutch, Dillon’s face looks awful). Outside of that, the added clarity in the jungle shots looks great, and you never notice a lack of detail (the closeups looked pretty damn sharp to me, just look at Arnie’s beard in some of those jungle shots).
Posted by bullet3 on July 12th, 2010@Bullet3
I have to disagree with you on the sharpness… and as you said added clarity…
Posted by Big Hungry on July 12th, 2010What are the specs of your tv?
1080 or 720? Also is the screen below 40″?
@bullet3 It’s perceived sharpness created by the contrast boosting. It’s one of the reasons display TVs are cranked up in stores by default. It creates an artificial sharpness by making edges standout.
Posted by Matt Paprocki on July 12th, 2010@ Mike
I agree that aesthetics are integral to any film, but I don’t believe the graininess of the original Predator reel classifies as such. It wasn’t a conscious choice for the directors of the day to deliberate use bad quality film, it was merely an unavoidable by-product of the equipment and technique and should be treated as such. If you asked 80s directors if they’d choose to use film that would deteriorate or the latest technology we have now for a perfect, clear image, they’d most likely go for the latter.
Stylistic effects such as black and white etc are aesthetic choices made with deliberation to add to the overall experience. Whether some people feel that the unintended graininess of Predator added to the grittiness is simply a personal preference. If we have technology to create CGI wonders such as Benjamin Button aging, you can bet the kinks in this current ‘restoration’ process will be ironed out to create a happy middle ground that isn’t as grainy or glossy as these 2 options.
Posted by Steve on July 12th, 2010@ Matt
This is where our opinions differ. While you believe that the film reel itself is the source, I’m of the opinion that the physical shoot itself is the true source. The lens is merely a window allowing us to step into the set and experience it. The less grain etc getting in the way of that, the better*
I personally prefer ‘cleaner’ images. Transfer of original films that end up looking waxy is obviously a problem but as I said, with digital techniques we have now to realistically age actors, there are whole avenues open to us. Reefer Madness was a black and white shoot and the colourised release was perfect, adding things in that were never captured on the original reel, as well as adding another dimension to enjoying it (the psychedelic smoke)
* Obviously environmental conditions such as that in Predator is something else entirely and is not the reason why the film ended up so grainy.
Posted by Steve on July 12th, 2010@Steve
But you’re wrong. The physical shoot is NOT the source. It’s called “film” for a reason. It never can be anything else. That’s like saying the only true film lies in the behind-the-scenes footage. That also means you don’t like the color correction, tinting, or any other tinkering post shoot to help with the director’s own vision. Hell, that means visual effects don’t count either.
And, it’s not about what you prefer. It’s about what the director prefers.
“If you asked 80s directors if they’d choose to use film that would deteriorate or the latest technology we have now for a perfect, clear image, they’d most likely go for the latter”
Like I said earlier, every director on every film wants more money, more time, better stock, more choices, and so on. That’s not possible though. They make due with what they have, and adjust to suit their vision.
Posted by Matt Paprocki on July 12th, 2010Since when is what the director wants the ONLY criteria for the DVD or blu ray release of a disc? Aren’t there 9 versions of Star Wars and 300 of Evil Dead simply because the fans want things on the disc. CLEARLY the fans had something to do with the new release, whether it’s complaining about the first transfer, or extras or whatever the case may be. DVD is the fan’s medium as well. I’m sure they offered the director the chance to work on the transfer…
Point is… whether you like it or not… what fans want, like, prefer… DOES MATTER. At least financially, and in the end, that is the only reason these discs are being made… $$$$$$$$$$
Your sanctimony has nothing to do with it.
Posted by Goose on July 13th, 2010Neither does mine!!
Posted by Goose on July 13th, 2010@Goose
What the director wants is the only thing that matters because it’s HIS/HER film, no one elses. The director is rarely asked for input when it comes to home releases, which is a huge issue.
The various editions you mention are for extras and other bonuses, not just for the transfer itself. Most of the time, those utilize the same transfers anyway. George Lucas re-released Star Wars not for the fans, but because it was his film, and he had a right to.
Posted by Matt Paprocki on July 13th, 2010That is such a naive line of thinking. Yeah, Matt, you’re right… the director always has final say in terms of the film. THAT NEVER HAPPENS! To even the biggest directors… studios, producers, EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, test screenings for fans or non fans…
They ALL have a say. The cut you see in theaters could be 40-50 minutes different than the director’s cut. And that’s STANDARD!!! Hey… I’m all for pie in the sky love the artist and the art… but commerce and fan noise, particularly with the advent of the internet and internet critic, has such a part in this…
Besides, you think the actors, writers, costumers and others have NO SAY in the film during the process? Just the director? Man, you need to understand the business a tad more before you comment or report on this stuff.
And YES… those re-releases are OFTEN with new transfers… better codecs, software, compression keys… etc. I read the reviews too.
I give up. You just keep thinking what you’re thinking. I hope your nice bubble is never burst.
Posted by Goose on July 13th, 2010@ goose
Let’s rephrase it… partially. It’s the director’s film visually, since that’s what this whole thread is about in the first place.
However, no doubt they have input from other areas. Obviously, the director generally does not write (exceptions, of course). However, there are certainly plenty of stories about directors refusing to finish a film based on studio interference, an irate producer, or something else.
The end result is still theirs. That’s why so many movies start with “A film by… such and such.” That’s why the main credit goes to the director. Everyone has their own methods, but in the end, the director is the one behind the camera, telling actors where to be, what they should be wearing, and how he wants it to look. He is in control.
Posted by Matt Paprocki on July 13th, 2010again, it’s clear you know very little about the filmmaking process. You are talking about the exceptions… not the rule. The studio (fox in particular) is NOTORIOUS for dictating visuals, plot points, actors, even wardrobe. PREDATOR 2 is a prime example… as is Alien 3… and that was David Fincher.
Tons of DP’s become directors of photography BECAUSE the director has no visual sense… only acting or pace. You never heard of Misery An academy award winning film where the DP essentially directed the film… then refused to DP another film?
Be realistic… the visuals of the film are often directed by the director… but to say that he is solely responsible… ridiculous. Why do you think they do storyboard to film comparisons for crissake????
It is all collaborative… all dependent… all arbitrary to money and popularity… EVEN SPIELBERG gets notes and he used to own the studio!!!!! Why do you think filmmakers make one $$ movie… and “one for themselves?”
and the bigger the film, the less “total control” over anything they have. Now if you’re talking about “Let the right one in…” yes. Predator at FOX. Not nearly as much as you dream it to be. That’s not story. That’s fact.
Posted by goose on July 13th, 2010Reminds me of the recent Movie Club podcast discussion/train wreck over the meaning of “auteur.”
I have to agree with Goose that there are more hands in the process than can be so simply addressed, especially between Director and Customer.
Good point about the process of transferring a film to whatever media being a factor. Beyond compression and codecs I’m sure the machine operators could tweak the image to their liking without instruction or permission.
This kind of discussion pops up on animation forums anytime classic cartoon collections are re-released. Hardcore fans don’t want to compromise in the quest for balance between sharper and brighter image vs. preserving the nuances of the artists’ ink strokes.
And Goose is right, those aren’t the people the studios care about in the long run. I’m thankful for separate niche outlets like Kino and Criterion, and sites like DVDBeaver.com, who nit-pick over the things a true film fan holds dear.
Posted by Mike on July 13th, 2010Yeah… my point is I WISH it were true. But the same people making the transfer are the ones who had a hell of a lot to do with the look of the film to begin with. Often as much or more than the director.
How many times does the DP do the transfer instead of the director? And THAT’s as close as you get without the director themselves doing it.
Posted by goose on July 13th, 2010As I said, the problem is that this process causes a LOSS of detail. Take director intent out of the equation. There’s detail on the stock, in the grain, that is being lost in the process of studio suits trying to make things look shiny, smooth and new.
Posted by Ben on July 16th, 2010I suspect the problem is that they’re not preserving the film or showing it off or doing anything much other than using it as a platform for marketing the real product here – the disk, the TV, the projector, the Blu-Ray player, all the accoutrements of “HD”. Film is the old codger whose heritage they have to cover up for fear that it will make their shiny equipment look similarly rough.
They seem to imply that they can remove the grain and find some direct access to the original shooting hidden underneath it. And we all know that that is bollocks.
This is movie botox.
Posted by Dan North on July 16th, 2010Also, the myth here is that digital doesn’t have flaws, artefacts, by-products, imperfections and markers that will one day date it just as badly as some here think film has dated.
Posted by Dan North on July 16th, 2010I could not disagree more with the claim that movies without grain must be stopped. This argument makes no sense.
The argument bascially is that the grain is a result of the way the film was shot and stored, i.e. placing little pieces of metal on a thin piece of tape. And to, the argument goes, Blue Rays better reproduce this original film picture. I say, who cares? Why would anybody want to make it important to reproduce film, when film was used to make movies in the beginning because there was no other better way.
The fact is, the film is a poor representation of the movie itself, and old technology which is now replaced with digital images, and reproducing it is simply copying all the flaws that go along with it, one of the biggest of which is graininess. Films were grainy ONLY because of the technology, not because that is how they were suppose to look. Graininess is not the normal view that people have. Clear, bright, dull, sharp, and so on are.
No, Blue Ray should produce a movie that is as close as possible to what is real. That is, what the human eye sees. I see a car, even a 1980s model, and I see detail, I see the little dents, scrapes, scratches, and I see the bright colors, and threads of the clothe seats, and so on, and I see them without ANY graininess. That is what Blue Ray should be, a reproduction of not old film technology, but a reproduction of the human eye in all it’s wonder, splendor, and brilliance.
Attempting to recreate film reels exactly is the wrong goal. Recreating the real human experiences, the senses, which do not include graininess in all but a very small number of cases, IS, or at least should be the goal. I suspect that the vast majority of people who view movies would likely agree, and that is why Blue Rays are being changed to try and produce that experience, as they very well should.
Omegaman
Posted by Omegaman on July 18th, 2010@Omegaman – You seem to be believing that once the grain is “removed” (it’s actually just being glossed over) the true detail of the scene will be removed. This simply does not happen. And nobody is suggesting “recreating film reels” so much as just preserving them as they are. Glossing films for digital formats pushes us into George Lucas territory, where he seems more interested in “correcting” the flaws in his films instead of recognising that people loved them for what they said at a particular moment in history. We wouldn’t want to decontemporise film in that way.
Maybe soon there’ll be a gloss button on the remote so you can give your movies a facelift if you really want to. Grain is not a fungus that forms on the image after its been shot. It’s part of the image. It shows where it came from, and we’ll be pining for it in years to come. Sometimes, grain is very much part of the film’s aesthetic, and we shouldn’t allow new copyright owners to gain such editorial control just so they can repackage something as a “new, improved Ultimate Edition” or some such. They’re selling you an inferior product with the rhetoric of novelty and freshness.
Posted by Dan North on July 18th, 2010Very well written post/article. This is exactly what I’ve been talking about all along to my friends. The “grain” IS part of the picture. When director’s first made their films, they are conscious of how much grain they want the film to have to achieve a certain effect/mood. So the grain in itself is an aesthetic choice of the film maker. And it should stay in the blu ray’s. We’re in a very dangerous crossroads right in terms of preserving our films and it’s original quality. Too many of the general public are not educated enough to understand that grain is part of the image.
As was said, if you try to get rid of the grain, you are altering the filmmakers original intent. And it’s a shame how so many studio’s are using DNR nowadays to scrub grain away from films and in the process altering the original filmmaker’s intentions and taking away detail from the picture as well.
Recognize, that sharpness is different from detail/depth. When artificial DNR is applied and then edge enhancements are added. The picture can look sharp, but it will not have any detail or depth in the picture. And it won’t look like it’s original film anymore. It’s important that the general public and many of these so-called reviewers learn the importance of maintaining the grain in films to preserve the picture’s full detail and aesthetic intent.
it’s not a matter of preference or being elitist. It’s the key is to keep the presentation as close to the original film and aesthetic choice of the director’s as possible. Which means the grain should be left in there.
Criterion is an example of a company that transfers their movies properly and respectfully. They make absolutely breathtaking transfers that are close to the original film like presentation.
Posted by Eric on November 1st, 2010And Omegaman, your argument is very flawed. As was mentioned already. The grain IS part of the picture. Director’s and cinematographers are aware of grain and it’s presence when filming. That’s why they can choose filmstock that has varying level of graininess when filming. Because it’s a choice the filmmakers make.
Your argument of trying to change things to match real human experiences could not be more wrong. If grain is removed, so does all the detail and texture on the skin as well. And according to your argument, that would be a problem too. Because we’re suppose to see “skin texture” and fine details in the picture, and all of these are removed as well if you remove grain. So this will also make the picture look less realistic. Much like the new Predator blu ray where you can’t even see the fabric texture on arnold’s red shirt. Not to mention his waxy face with no skin detail. That is not realistic at all.
Director’s also apply different types of lighting and color saturation as well for their films to achieve a certain mood. Like say the Matrix with a slightly more green hue throughout the film. Or 300 with the saturated colors. If according to your making it more realistic argument, then we should also get rid of the director’s original “intentional” green hue and saturated colors for those movies as well so we can make them look like the regular world. But I’m sure we can all agree that we shouldn’t be doing that as that was the director’s original intent. And this is what it comes down to.
The proper way to present something is to keep it faithful to the original artists vision/intent. And not to try to change things arbitrarily unless the original filmmaker comes out to say this is what they wanted to change. Otherwise, studio’s should leave things the way they were made by the filmmaker when transferring. So arbitrarily taking away film grain using DNR, which will also result in getting rid of other details in the picture, is pretty much the same as getting rid of the green hue from matrix or the color saturation from 300. Or adding color to Casablanca by some studio transfer people because they feel it’ll make it more “realistic”, this this isn’t the right thing to do though. So unless the original filmmaker says otherwise, the product should be left the way it is and presented as faithfully as possible to it’s original source. Be that film or digital camera’s.
Posted by Eric on November 1st, 2010@Eric: Most filmmakers are never fully satisfied with their final product as you’re probably aware. And some choices are not artistic, but necessitated by various reasons including cost. Personally, I’m not a “purist,” so I have no problem colorizing “King Kong,” for example. And it’s not like the filmmakers had a choice to film it in color. If we had to consult the original filmmaker to decide whether or not to change something, we would be depriving ourselves of art that is recontextualized for different generations.
Posted by Reed Farrington on November 1st, 2010Just recently I bought the Godfather Coppola Restoration which is a Blu Ray version that the director himself loved and intended the movie to be in. This Restoration comes in all its “grainyness”. When I saw this however I felt really disappointed and here is why.
If the director wants to keep the mood of the movie intact and all that then why not do so but with HD image enhancement? The Godfather is not a classic because the grains give the movie its mood and such, the mood comes from the incredible story, writing, and acting.
Someone might argue that the grain is part of what the director envisioned when he was shooting the film so that a certain scene looks gritty for example. There is no reason at all that that scene can not have the grain removed. A scene could stay gritty without the use of grainyness. All that needs to be done is to have specific lighting, color, and so forth. Blu Ray quality could easily keep the same mood, it just needs to be done right. Keeping the exact same quality as the original and not making it look better and more realistic just seems like laziness on the part of the film-makers.
As for the waxy faces, that to me is just stupid and if that is the case then it simply wasn’t transferred correctly. Blu Ray’s quality intent is to make a movie look as real as possible to the audience watching it. People should look like they are and feel in front of you.
This is my opinion but I bought a HD tv and Blu Ray player because I wanted better looking movies. Movies are amazing for how well written, and acted it is. If your scared about the mood of a scene getting ruined because of the removal of grainyness, then film-makers should get off their lazy asses and work on the parts where they wanted to keep the mood intact but this time in HD quality. That is my opinion, peace out!
Posted by Mato on January 1st, 2011your post is so ignorant i cant even believe it. all you hipsters stuck in the past wanting to see your grainy film are the same losers that would rather play regular Nintendo than a ps3 or x box. we make advancements in life and we should be implementing our advancements in our film. why do they even still use film for movies they should all be digital and clear. the fact that a live broadcast looks way better than most film is a shame. we pay a lot for our movies and they should be giving us a perfect picture. my hd tv looks ten times better than the movie theater and thats the a fact so get over it. grain is indeed an imperfection and thats the bottom line, all you people that complain about the led tvs making things look so clear it just doesnt look good are dumb hipsters that dont wanna let go. the sad thing is it because of all you idiots that we the people who prefer clear perfect picture have to suffer. would a pixar movie be better if it was all grainy…….no it would not dumbass. 300 was filmed in a gay color because the director thought it looked good well he was wrong it looks like crap. and when i have to see grain on my top of the line 7 thousand dollar elite by sharp tv it makes me mad cause i know that my tv is perfect but im being screwed by the god dam film. why is film shot in 24 fps and not 30 like cable. hmmmmm cause lame ass hipsters think it looks better get a life losers step up and get the best stuff and watch tv with clarity. if you really like all the grain you should get a surgery that will make every thing you see look grainy………..hows that for authentic asshole………stay away from our movies you are gay
Posted by hdtv god on July 11th, 2012Leave a Reply