Grain Haters: why?

[greenman342]

Originally Posted by CaptainArcher

This is how I feel. I liken grain to 'LP' record pop.. if you were in the recording studio with the group you wouldn't hear it, it's a distraction.

This is way off, the LP 'pops' come from the vinyl pressing process not the source. Film grain is in the source which is why getting rid of the grain removes detail and the defeats the entire point of HD.
When older films are taken straight from the negatives the BD should look great, the problem is a lot of older movies are taken from DVD masters.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

I also watched American Werewolf last night. The problem with that disc isn't just grain. It's that the studio applied a fair amount of artificial sharpening, which makes the edges of the grain particles stand out and gives the entire picture a very noisy appearance. The picture would look a lot better if not for that.

True, but at least Universal did not try to 'fix' it by putting DNR on it like they did with Cat People.

[skycracksopen]

Originally Posted by greenman342

This is way off, the LP 'pops' come from the vinyl pressing process not the source.

it doesn't matter where it comes from, his point still holds true.

both can be a distraction.

[EvilResident]

I hate looking at paintings where I can still see the canvas and paint strokes. Now that we have digital technology, they should scan in everything in the l'ourve, use photoshop to remove all that annoying crap, and re-print it all on regular, smooth, bleached, white paper, like any self-respecting artist would use. EVERYTHING should look that way.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by skycracksopen

it doesn't matter where it comes from, his point still holds true.

both can be a distraction.

Shooting digitally causes even more of a distraction. Don't believe me? Watch the opening sequence of Zodiac. The digital noise is called "gain" and I think it's much more annoying than film grain. Grain or gain will show up when shooting under low light no matter what. The only way to avoid this is to either shoot your movie entirely in daylight or to make an animated movie. Neither one of those options is worth a damn as a "standard" for filmmakers to use. Yeah, let's just have no dark shots in filmmaking or no live action movies period. What a wonderful idea!

[comixguru]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Shooting digitally causes even more of a distraction. Don't believe me? Watch the opening sequence of Zodiac. The digital noise is called "gain" and I think it's much more annoying than film grain. Grain or gain will show up when shooting under low light no matter what. The only way to avoid this is to either shoot your movie entirely in daylight or to make an animated movie. Neither one of those options is worth a damn as a "standard" for filmmakers to use. Yeah, let's just have no dark shots in filmmaking or no live action movies period. What a wonderful idea!

If you want crystal clear night shots, you can shoot day for night without grain. I'm not sure I've seen anyone do this recently, and I've not seen a movie use it extensively in many years except for 28 Weeks Later. The 1973 Francois Trauffaut movie Day for Night is entitled for the process.

[CaptainArcher]

My main gripe is simply -

If I'm spending money on a movie I want the same care put into the mastering process as went into the Shining for example.. and I just do not feel half of the catalog titles being released are given the care they deserve to look their best and yet I'm still expected to pay the same amounts as if they were - grain or otherwise.

[skycracksopen]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Shooting digitally causes even more of a distraction. Don't believe me? Watch the opening sequence of Zodiac. The digital noise is called "gain" and I think it's much more annoying than film grain. Grain or gain will show up when shooting under low light no matter what. The only way to avoid this is to either shoot your movie entirely in daylight or to make an animated movie. Neither one of those options is worth a damn as a "standard" for filmmakers to use. Yeah, let's just have no dark shots in filmmaking or no live action movies period. What a wonderful idea!

so what? why are you directing this at me? i never said anything that denies this.

and actually, digital noise is NOT called gain. yes, gain causes digital noise, but it's still called noise.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by skycracksopen

why are you directing this at me? i never said anything that denies this.

It wasn't directed at you specifically. You agreed with some of the whiners in this thread. I just happened to quote you after you agreed with one of them.

[DoubleJ]

Grain doesn't bother me when it's moderate. Payback is one of the examples that I think really toes the line. Castaway is an example where I think it's way too much (definitely bummed with that Blu-ray transfer). I think that some of it can be a good choice in picture, but it depends on the genre of the movie, I think. Most movies that take place in a real life condition I'd prefer not having grain. Movies like horror might be more suiting, or thrillers (you know, gritty). Sometimes it works, but most of the time I find it distracting.

[MrAngles]

Originally Posted by skycracksopen

because it's not realistic.

if you were actually there, experiencing the events of the film in person, your eyes wouldn't see grain.

it can be distracting, and remind you that what you're watching isn't real.

some people like to be swept up in the cinematic experience and feel like they are part of the movie, and film grain takes away from that.

If some people want films to seem as if they were experiencing the events in person then crane/helicopter shots, visual effects, color timing, sound effects, musical scores, lighting, slow motion and any editing whatsoever must be much more distracting to them than film grain...

[skycracksopen]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

It wasn't directed at you specifically. You agreed with some of the whiners in this thread. I just happened to quote you after you agreed with one of them.

i'm not really agreeing with either side, i'm just bringing up reasons why people could hate film grain, since there aren't many of them to fight for their cause... haha

[skycracksopen]

Originally Posted by MrAngles

If some people want films to seem as if they were experiencing the events in person then crane/helicopter shots, visual effects, color timing, sound effects, musical scores, lighting, slow motion and any editing whatsoever must be much more distracting to them than film grain...

but these are all things that people could fantasize about.

crane/helicopter shots give the feeling of flying
visual effects can create things impossible to capture with live action
sound effects make films sound better than production audio
musical scores, color timing, lighting, and slow motion can add to the emotion of a scene.

film grain is the equivalent of having poor vision, and i don't know anybody who fantasizes about having poor vision.

it can be argued that for a lot of people, film grain totally changes the feel of a film. and that's fine. but there will always be people out there that just think it's a distraction.

not saying i'm one of those people, but i can see where they're coming from.

[JSmith]

Personally i am against grain myself. There should be no dirt on the print, because the print should have been thoroughly cleaned. I have full support for digital processing to remove imperfections as long as they are seamless.

For me its about the image on screen looking as realistic and natural as possible.

I do understand however that there are a lot of people who like the traditional cinema look with the grain and the speckles. It reminds me of the music purists who like listening to the Beatles music in their original mono formats. I will never understand why though.

[earthquake]

Originally Posted by JSmith

Personally i am against grain myself. There should be no dirt on the print, because the print should have been thoroughly cleaned. I have full support for digital processing to remove imperfections as long as they are seamless.

For me its about the image on screen looking as realistic and natural as possible.

I do understand however that there are a lot of people who like the traditional cinema look with the grain and the speckles. It reminds me of the music purists who like listening to the Beatles music in their original mono formats. I will never understand why though.

1st off, film grain is NOT dirt. Film grain is the result of the photochemical material the film is made up of.

2nd, film is not made based on the viewers preferences. If you want everything to look natural and realistic I would suggest parking your chair in front of a window.

I still can't get over the folks who complain about everything yet call themselves "film lovers". I've seen dirty, washed out prints and STILL ENJOYED the movie. Just as I will NEVER look at what the bitrate is because I don't care.

When films started coming out on VHS i enjoyed them. Same as Laserdisc, dvd and now Blu. The only difference in HD is that I appreciate the movie more since I can see more of the work that went into the film.

I have NEVER stopped watching a film because "the grain made it impossible for me to enjoy it". That's like saying I can't enjoy a sculpture because I don't like the texture of marble.

Look past the material and enjoy the final piece of art, please.

[krammer]

Film grain doesn't bother me.

Compression which looks similar to film grain does.