Grain Haters: why?

[BostonMA]

Originally Posted by MrAngles

I realize you can't take Desperado too seriously, but it does have a nice serious (for an action movie) film feel, which adds to the experience, as opposed to Mexico which feels like a DTV parody or a television series spinoff.

true but in the end it works for once upon...mexico cuz it knows how it takes itself and wants to be taken that way, but desperado was just a mess of a film and the look of the film doesn't feel right, but neither would the opposite feel cuz the film is all over the place.

[MrAngles]

Originally Posted by BostonMA

true but in the end it works for once upon...mexico cuz it knows how it takes itself and wants to be taken that way, but desperado was just a mess of a film and the look of the film doesn't feel right, but neither would the opposite feel cuz the film is all over the place.

That's funny because as much as I like it, I find Once Apon a Time in Mexico to be a huge mess, a mishmash of characters and scenes with an extremely thin plot merely written to string them all together, barely. It's almost as if he wrote the script during the editing process rather than before shooting it. Desperado has an extremely linear and almost classical plot and characters in comparison, with action scenes to support the plot, rather than the other way around. The use of HD video in Mexico underlines the almost episodic and pieced-together nature of the movie, making it feel even more like television. I don't know what it is about the look of Desperado that you think doesn't feel right, but I don't see it at all. Visually it matches the atmosphere of the film perfectly in my opinion.

[skycracksopen]

some of you guys need to leave DNR out of the argument.

we're talking about Grain vs. Grain NOT EVEN EXISTING.

hypothetically, if grain did not exist, you don't even need DNR

[skycracksopen]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Without grain, there would be no picture.

how does photography pull this one off?

[Owozifa]

Originally Posted by skycracksopen

how does photography pull this one off?

They don't. They operate on the same principle and can experience the same effects. Never heard of a grainy photo?

[skycracksopen]

Originally Posted by Owozifa

They don't. They operate on the same principle and can experience the same effects. Never heard of a grainy photo?

sure, but technology has gotten good enough that you never really notice it anymore.

[Owozifa]

When you learn photography, they generally teach you how to produce different levels of grain on a photo using light/shutter speed. They do this because the grain effect is generally accepted as a part of the artistic tools of the photographer. It is the same for moving photography.

Producing an image with low amounts of grain is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. It's just not that great an idea to change it after the original photography has been done.

[DeSade]

Originally Posted by BostonMA

btw josh, you're probably never going to take me seriously again but what is your avatar from?

Looks like the box artwork from an 80's GI Joe vehicle.

[AV_Integrated]

Grain is a tough question. There are always certain pieces of work where grain is important to the look and feel of the item.

But, grain is a nearly uncontrollable distortion of reality. Humans don't see our world through grainy eyes, or black and white for that matter (most don't anyway). The distortion of grain, of poor color, or weak contrast are all the distortions of reality that some directors like to implement and way to many people who consider themselves artists glom onto like fools.

Grain doesn't make something art and grain is not a good thing. Grain IS distortion and noise.

But, as I said, once you realize that grain is distortion and noise, then having it in a motion picture is either something you use as best you can, or work to eliminate completely.

As digital video continues to improve we will see the death of grain and I for one won't shed one tear at the ability of the camera to more accurately capture the reality of the world around us.

Anyone famous who says that B&W is better is obviously an artist focussed on a single sense. Our world isn't black and white, and if they are happy with B&W, then they would be happier with radio, or why not a good book? A film isn't soley actors, it is the entire experience put together which includes the colors, the sounds, the story, the acting, the immersion.

I get sick of people who can't see the entertainment value of a motion picture because they are to busy looking for the art of it. I have seen way to many movies that have good stories, but are lousy movies for the complete lack of ability to actually involve the rest of my senses. The directors get lost in their own art, which may appeal to some, but never actually accomplishes the goal of true entertainment.

Oh, but it gets high praise - after all... look at the grain.

[Sim_Mat]

So film must only be entertainment, nobody is ever allowed to use the medium for any kind of artistic expression? Wow.

[JSmith]

Originally Posted by earthquake

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.

1st I never said film grain was caused by dirt.

2nd That is your own preference as to how you like to watch movies. You dont care as much about imperfections on the print. I expect sound from my system to be as natural and realistic as possible and i expect no less from the video. Again thats just my preference, each to their own.

[Favelle]

Originally Posted by MrAngles

I realize you can't take Desperado too seriously, but it does have a nice serious (for an action movie) film feel, which adds to the experience, as opposed to Mexico which feels like a DTV parody or a television series spinoff.

The grain is what those images are made up of. They didn't film shiny clear images and then accidentally drop mud on them... The grain isn't obstructing the film images any more than the pixels on your monitor are.

+1. LOL...why people can't understand this is beyond me....

[MrAngles]

Originally Posted by AV_Integrated

Grain is a tough question. There are always certain pieces of work where grain is important to the look and feel of the item.

But, grain is a nearly uncontrollable distortion of reality. Humans don't see our world through grainy eyes, or black and white for that matter (most don't anyway). The distortion of grain, of poor color, or weak contrast are all the distortions of reality that some directors like to implement and way to many people who consider themselves artists glom onto like fools.

Grain doesn't make something art and grain is not a good thing. Grain IS distortion and noise.

But, as I said, once you realize that grain is distortion and noise, then having it in a motion picture is either something you use as best you can, or work to eliminate completely.

As digital video continues to improve we will see the death of grain and I for one won't shed one tear at the ability of the camera to more accurately capture the reality of the world around us.

Anyone famous who says that B&W is better is obviously an artist focussed on a single sense. Our world isn't black and white, and if they are happy with B&W, then they would be happier with radio, or why not a good book? A film isn't soley actors, it is the entire experience put together which includes the colors, the sounds, the story, the acting, the immersion.

I get sick of people who can't see the entertainment value of a motion picture because they are to busy looking for the art of it. I have seen way to many movies that have good stories, but are lousy movies for the complete lack of ability to actually involve the rest of my senses. The directors get lost in their own art, which may appeal to some, but never actually accomplishes the goal of true entertainment.

Oh, but it gets high praise - after all... look at the grain.

I have trouble believing that this post is genuine? To be honest I don't see what benefit you get from watching movies on Blu-ray vs DVD (which I assume is why you are involved in this site) if the cinematography isn't an important part of film to you. The visual choices a director makes (framing, lens size, color saturation, camera movement, film stock, etc) are the exact reason why film is different than books or radio.

[BostonMA]

Originally Posted by DeSade

Looks like the box artwork from an 80's GI Joe vehicle.

k thanks, i'm glad it's that, no reason why i would know that.

Originally Posted by MrAngles

That's funny because as much as I like it, I find Once Apon a Time in Mexico to be a huge mess, a mishmash of characters and scenes with an extremely thin plot merely written to string them all together, barely. It's almost as if he wrote the script during the editing process rather than before shooting it. Desperado has an extremely linear and almost classical plot and characters in comparison, with action scenes to support the plot, rather than the other way around. The use of HD video in Mexico underlines the almost episodic and pieced-together nature of the movie, making it feel even more like television. I don't know what it is about the look of Desperado that you think doesn't feel right, but I don't see it at all. Visually it matches the atmosphere of the film perfectly in my opinion.

yeah i think once upon a time in mexico is just a popcorn fun film with plenty of flaws, but desperado tries to be a serious film and then people have guitar machine guns...i guess i'm not saying the look of the film doesn't feel right, i don't pay attention to how a film looks exactly (plus i watched desperado on vhs a few months back cuz it was the only copy the library had). i'm just saying that imo, desperado is all over the place in terms of tone and pacing, and for that i really wouldn't think any look would go good with the film, since i wouldn't be able to notice it because i was too busy noticing the film's flaws.

[goatmother]

Originally Posted by MrAngles

I have trouble believing that this post is genuine? To be honest I don't see what benefit you get from watching movies on Blu-ray vs DVD (which I assume is why you are involved in this site) if the cinematography isn't an important part of film to you. The visual choices a director makes (framing, lens size, color saturation, camera movement, film stock, etc) are the exact reason why film is different than books or radio.

Probably because the immersion factor is much higher on blu-ray than it is with DVD and that is part of what he described in the movie watching experience. "it is the entire experience put together which includes the colors, the sounds, the story, the acting, the immersion."