Grain added to Blu-rays

I own Predator as well as the Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition which have both been scrutinised by various forums.

In some scense the original Bluray version does have a lot of grain in comparison to the Ultimate Hunder Edtion but I think it adds to the charm of the film, IMO.
 
smit101 said:
A film without grain wouldn't really look like a film:confused: films shot on digital video that are completely crystal clear and lack any grain look sterile and unfilm like to me. This is fine for documentaries, news etc but films need film grain, I can completely understand directors who shoot on digital video adding a grain effect to the film, looks much better imo.
Click to expand...

Tbh that sounds like the same justifications people make for listening to vinyl records. It's distortion that you like and are used to, but distortion all the same.
 
Grimley said:
Prime Example. (this was before bluray came along)

When Spielberg made Saving Private Ryan he digitally added a lot of noise to get a classic "film grain" look to make it more 'authentic' to the time, so it isn't necessarily an evil thing.
Click to expand...

Did they do that digitally? I know they deliberately used uncoated lenses and did away with some filters to achieve a more grainy look.
 
bam0 said:
Tbh that sounds like the same justifications people make for listening to vinyl records. It's distortion that you like and are used to, but distortion all the same.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the situation, not being like a "real" film because of no grain and your argument is spot on, its simply what you're used to and so prefer it, grain doesn't make film in any way at all.

But if the film you watched was purposefully grainy, and is simply an artistic decision made by the director, then it should be there in bluray it's as simple as that.

Most people hate the predator on bluray because they've tried to remove the inherant grain, but they do this essentially by adding fake detail in, to which most people have complained its become a blurry pile of crap.

If the grain is there, it should stay and I fully expect any bluray I buy(naively or not) to simply offer an increased resolution from a higher def original copy of the film, that means higher def grain, or higher def perfectly clear digital grainless image. When you buy blurays that, have crap blurred out trying to remove detail someone later on has decided shouldn't exist, you're not buying the same film and getting no where near the quality you should.

Then again a lot of blurays released are god awful, and how the same film can get re-released so many times, with people ending up buying crap versions then finding another region or another newer version get's done "right", is a joke. I'm getting more and more irked watching blurays of slightly older films as sometimes you get a god damned gem or a bluray, and sometimes you get something that is worse than a dvd copy.

I can't remember which film it is but supposedly the ones you can buy in the UK look awful with grain removed and blurry, while the american release looks great, its a complete joke.
 
Regarding the Predator release - the Hunter edition is great (imo) because you can make out more of the jungle environments as they seem to have more depth to them. However, I like the original grainier version too because it's closer to how I remember the film as a child :)
 
Grain is good. If the film doesn't have enough grain, I buy some and sprinkle it on the DVD.
 
Evangelion said:
Grain is good. If the film doesn't have enough grain, I buy some and sprinkle it on the DVD.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that grain is good so much as it can be good, in the right circumstances. Digital noise is always bad, but grain is sort of a spectrum.

For starters you have to actually be shooting film. You don't get to go digital and then artificially add character to the medium. It just won't work. And then if your grain just comes from the film not coping well with dark areas so it blots out the entire frame it's not going to look good. It's going to look as though there wasn't enough light.

In that respect it's possible that it's not something you go chasing, it's something that happens. Sure, you can pick a film stock and developer that's known for producing good grain but it's not a given. The more effort you put in to trying to get it the less good it's going to look. If it just clicks into place, it becomes just rough enough in smooth areas but barely there in areas with detail then you're lucky. Otherwise just work with what you have.

Saw this recently on TP, seems to be a very good example of when grain goes well.
 
I remember seeing lots of grain in Green Zone and I'm sure I read somehwere that it was added on purpose but for me it only detracted from my enjoyment of the picture.

A few episodes of 24 also had a fair bit of grain from what I remember, though I watched this on sky-hd rather than blu-ray.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Did you even read........................

Movies and music are wasted on this generation (God I sound old) :(
Click to expand...

im 37, which generation do you belong to?

personally unless its an aged film grain looks ***** (stuff like saving private ryan is ok as it adds to authenticity at times). i dont see grain when i look so i dont want artificial noise adding to newer movies, they look especially bad on large TVs and in HD!

i have spent plenty of time in photoshop removing grain from photos, i hate it. along with lens flare. eyes dont get lens flare so why add it to movies?

btw - i have plenty of old B&W movies in my collection. a personal fave being 12 angry men.
 
PermaBanned said:
I wouldn't say that grain is good so much as it can be good, in the right circumstances. Digital noise is always bad, but grain is sort of a spectrum.

For starters you have to actually be shooting film. You don't get to go digital and then artificially add character to the medium. It just won't work. And then if your grain just comes from the film not coping well with dark areas so it blots out the entire frame it's not going to look good. It's going to look as though there wasn't enough light.

In that respect it's possible that it's not something you go chasing, it's something that happens. Sure, you can pick a film stock and developer that's known for producing good grain but it's not a given. The more effort you put in to trying to get it the less good it's going to look. If it just clicks into place, it becomes just rough enough in smooth areas but barely there in areas with detail then you're lucky. Otherwise just work with what you have.

Saw this recently on TP, seems to be a very good example of when grain goes well.
Click to expand...

bah, it looks like a small image resized badly IMO and over contrasted. i guess its a matter of taste, i just hate any noise as it detracts from my enjoyment
 
Predator has had two versions of it's blu ray, the first which was grain central, and the re-release which had none

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/articles/predator-blu-ray-comparison/

In this instance, I think it looks better without grain. When you're watching it, the first indoor scenes do look a little weird; waxy Dillon/Dutch. But the rest of it looks better without the grain.

Saving Private Ryan looks far grittier with the grain. Predator is much older and was filmed deep in the jungle on a tight budget though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom