Grain Haters: why?

[Sim_Mat]

Interested to know why some people hate any level of film grain? The be sure, film grain is something that many filmmakers have striven over the years to minimise or eliminate, but that is of course their own artistic preference. However it is every bit as valid a preference to desire film grain in your movies. Certainly film grain can be a key component of a film's entire style, whether incidental or deliberate.

Leaving artistic choices or happy accidents aside though, now that hi-def presentations are becoming standard in broadcast and home theatre, we now are finally in the position where it is possible, more or less, to see movies near enough exactly as they would appear in a theatrical release. Surely any fan of films and filmmaking should agree that with this ability, comes the overriding necessity of films being presented as closely to the look of the source material as possible. Digital removal of dust, hairs, scratches, or other damage to celluloid is something I'm very much supportive of - because in almost no cases would a director actually want the audience to be distracted by such external flaws. But I'm also sure that if a director chose a film stock with a certain grain structure for artistic reasons, they would definitely under no circumstances, want to see that removed artificially, and neither should any fan of film and the cinema.

I appreciate that in some cases it is necessary to digitally process a film to remove forms of noise and dirt that are distinct from film grain, but the difficulty obviously is in developing software that can distinguish between them, and indeed, how can you selectively filter out one kind of speckle while leaving another in place? So there is definitely a fine balancing act that teams remastering and transferring films needs to accomplish for the discerning film buff out there to be satisfied with the results. But I personally think that if a film is grainy, even if its like looking through a blizzard, if that is what the film really looks like and it is what the director intended, I can't see how anyone would want it any other way.

[Landy]

Well, I think if we were really wanting to replicate the movie theater experience, then Blu-ray would have to be a lot blurrier and muffled than it is. I rarely go to the cinema anymore, because I find the picture and sound quality lacking.

Personally, I want the best of both worlds. I don't mind some grain as long as it isn't distracting or overly noisy, but I also want a sharp picture with fantastic sound.

[BostonMA]

OP there's already one big thread about this and probably a few other small ones.

[Favelle]

Originally Posted by Sim_Mat

Grain Haters: why?

Four words: Uninformed video game generation.

[CaptainCanuck]

Well nowadays everything is expected to be nice and clean and shiny and blemish free isn't it? Just like they airbrush the hell out of all the people in magazines,posters,dvd covers etc.

[Owozifa]

Speaking of video game generation, I'm just as confused by people who like their pixels smoothed into mush in older video games. At least there there's usually a box to turn it on and off, not so with DNR, which seems to operate on similar principles with similar terrible results.

[Chief]

No grain No gain......... I hate grain. I want my 1080p to look like 1080p....Not grain80p....

[csista]

I love film grain. Seeing the grain is one of the reasons I bought into hi-def. American History X, for instance, had beautiful use of grain in the black and white shots. Grain is different than digital noise, in that grain is much more aesthetically pleasing, and is usually an artistic choice based on film stock used. These are the types of decisions that go into filmmaking, they're very much a part of the whole of the picture, and digitally removing it is as bad to me as pan and scan.

That being said, sometimes film grain is just an unfortunate side effect to using higher-speed film for dark scenes. Even the director would prefer the grain not be there if it's in contrast to the rest of the film, but they have choose whether or not to just accept it. It should always be the filmmakers choice how he or she wants to clean up the image.

Also, it depends on the type of film. Fargo, bring on the grain. Newest Michael Bay movie, it gets in the way of the gloss, so leave it out.

I think the reason that a lot of people complain, is that film stock has greatly improved over the years, so a lot of modern movies don't have the grain that accompanied older flicks. So people just aren't as used to it. Even the artistic indie films don't use it as much anymore, if they have any sort of budget at all.

[Filler]

Originally Posted by csista

Also, it depends on the type of film. Fargo, bring on the grain. Newest Michael Bay movie, it gets in the way of the gloss, so leave it out.

Michael Bay loves his grain though.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Filler

Michael Bay loves his grain though.

That's the ironic thing. The grain haters love the transfers for Transformers and Pirates, but those movies and their sequels are loaded with grain.

[ni9ht_5ta1k3r]

grain is awesome: it adds effect to historical dramas like in Band of Brothers. For those grain haters: if you don't want grain....shoot in HD!

[csista]

Originally Posted by Filler

Michael Bay loves his grain though.

Good point. I probably should have picked a different example. Hold on... Okay, replace Michael Bay with "the latest Spider-Man flick."

[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.

[comixguru]

Originally Posted by skycracksopen

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.

Grain takes away from the cinematic experience!

[Philnerd]

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.

Well it must suck for you to watch movies then The strobes caused by camera pans and moving objects at 24fps is completely unrealistic. Lens flares? Yeah, we don't see those either.

I don't mean to sound rude, but film is (despite the quality of content sometimes) an art form. Grain, frame rates and lenses are artistic tools used to create moving art. Some films are not meant to look 100% realistic any more than the Mona Lisa is meant to look like a photograph.