Grain added to Blu-rays
- Thread starter Arnie
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,239
- Location
- Around Town
You are seeing it the way it is supposed to look, the way it has always looked. That's what Blu-ray gives us - an accurate representation of the source material
i guess
i guess
Last edited:
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.
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.
Aye sometimes it's because it was originally there due to the film stock (IIRC Aliens and the original Jason and the Argonauts had a fair bit), and sometimes it's been added during the original film production by the director for effect.
I don't think I've ever heard of them adding it just to the blu-ray edition, it's just that it tends to be more noticeable on the blu-ray as it shows up more in HD.
I don't think I've ever heard of them adding it just to the blu-ray edition, it's just that it tends to be more noticeable on the blu-ray as it shows up more in HD.
It might have been good to have kept the youtube vid you had linked...
a bit of a rant but he gets the message across.
I still do not like it when grain is added to a digitally shot movie for "artistic" reasons but can understand why it is apparent when it is there from older movies originally shot on film.
Then again has anyone seen the blueray disc of Alien which was made in 1979..? That is both very very clear and sharp so it was either shot using very good film and or very well transferred and "cleaned" for HD.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,239
- Location
- Around Town
Having heard him swear on one of his vids im not gonna sit thru that one to check life is too short 
Having heard him swear on one of his vids im not gonna sit thru that one to check life is too short
Every time someone writes that I can't help thinking of the recent Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's latest comedy.!
Blu-ray has done for films, what revealing headphones/speakers, did for music. Some people love revealing headphones/speakers, but any music that was poorly mastered, will sound like crap, making potentially good sounding music on a lesser system, unlistenable. Even with music that isn't poorly mastered, you will get people that just don't like audio equipment, that is so revealing.
I know that's different from Blu-ray and video, but it's audio technology that can show up potential flaws, just as HD video can. Obviously, one can just use different headphones/speakers/audio gear, that are not so revealing, that will do a better job of hiding any flaws.
If one considers grain to be a flaw, then there is no getting away from it, whatever player or TV is used, unless the TV is absolute rubbish. That would defeat the purpose of HD though.
I suppose what I am trying to get at is, too much detail is not necessarily a good thing for everyone.
Maybe it would be good to have players which can change the picture to suit the viewers taste, just as audio gear can be changed to suit the listeners taste.
Not likely to happen though.
I know that's different from Blu-ray and video, but it's audio technology that can show up potential flaws, just as HD video can. Obviously, one can just use different headphones/speakers/audio gear, that are not so revealing, that will do a better job of hiding any flaws.
If one considers grain to be a flaw, then there is no getting away from it, whatever player or TV is used, unless the TV is absolute rubbish. That would defeat the purpose of HD though.
I suppose what I am trying to get at is, too much detail is not necessarily a good thing for everyone.
Maybe it would be good to have players which can change the picture to suit the viewers taste, just as audio gear can be changed to suit the listeners taste.
Not likely to happen though.
Last edited:
Grain = detail = good. I have the same argument in the photography section! Ok so if you're under-exposed and that's giving you more grain then it's not 'as intended' but I'd rather have a grainy sharp image rather than an under-exposed or blurry one.
I think everyone else has covered it. It's just the fact that everyone is now watching 1080p on their 50" plasmas that we can see it. But, that's what film is.
I think everyone else has covered it. It's just the fact that everyone is now watching 1080p on their 50" plasmas that we can see it. But, that's what film is.
I have zero problems with grain when converting old movies to the HD format providing that they do the best, if possible, to clean the film up without using a DNR process - removing artefacts and other blemishes. Remove grain typically means removing details.
What I do have a concern about is when grain is introduced in a modernish film on purpose.
Perhaps a solution could be to release the HD movie in all its pristine glory and put a bit of clear cellophane inside the box which has been covered with a grain effect. That way if you wish to watch the "directors cut" you just hold that up in front of you as the movie is playing.
But the point is well made that when watching on our 50" Plasma I do tend to notice these things.
What I do have a concern about is when grain is introduced in a modernish film on purpose.
Perhaps a solution could be to release the HD movie in all its pristine glory and put a bit of clear cellophane inside the box which has been covered with a grain effect. That way if you wish to watch the "directors cut" you just hold that up in front of you as the movie is playing.
But the point is well made that when watching on our 50" Plasma I do tend to notice these things.
The thing is, if the Director wants to add a grain effect, then he has every right to do so during the post production, and if a director does so, there is unlikely to be a "clean" version of the complete film at all (given that the grain would likely be added before final editing).
Basically a Director has the ability to decide how he wants a film to look, and if he wants it to look "grainy" to give it a period effect he'll do it.
Much the same way that some directors will deliberately use soft focus/cameras without the full stabilizing options turned on if they want a specific look to their film.
I've personally never had an issue with "grain", it's part of the film experience a lot of the time, I'm much more annoyed by over zealous use of DNR and sharpening.
Basically a Director has the ability to decide how he wants a film to look, and if he wants it to look "grainy" to give it a period effect he'll do it.
Much the same way that some directors will deliberately use soft focus/cameras without the full stabilizing options turned on if they want a specific look to their film.
I've personally never had an issue with "grain", it's part of the film experience a lot of the time, I'm much more annoyed by over zealous use of DNR and sharpening.
I accept that grain is a part of an HD picture, obviously most animation films look pin sharp as do a lot of normal movies but certain ones are heavily grained. Saving Private Ryan I can understand and think it benefits the film but I remeber when I first saw 300 on Blu-Ray I was expecting it to be near perfect but it was heavily grained as an effect which did spoil it for me as that kind of film for instance I think lends itself very well to looking clean and sharp.
Surprisingly Alien is a lot less grainy than Aliens!
Surprisingly Alien is a lot less grainy than Aliens!
Those are good examples you make Richeh. I agree with you regarding the film 300, it was way too grainy for my linking, and the Alien release was top quality and yet the Aliens one was not as good.
Maybe the grain was the least of the problem for Alien 3 or even 4, although I quite liked them. I'm glad that they did not take up the directors suggestion (David Fincher) and have a whippet dressed up in a costume to play the part of the Alien in Alien 3.!
Maybe the grain was the least of the problem for Alien 3 or even 4, although I quite liked them. I'm glad that they did not take up the directors suggestion (David Fincher) and have a whippet dressed up in a costume to play the part of the Alien in Alien 3.!
Last edited:
I love to see film grain because it generally means I'm seeing a very detailed, film like picture, I've never understood peoples problem with it, it's an inherent feature of film stock, what you are seeing are particles of metallic silver which are a natural by product of the manufacturing process of film stock.
A film without grain wouldn't really look like a film
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.
A film without grain wouldn't really look like a film
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.Grain is very good as "cover up" for digital additions. We made huge advancements in special effects over the years, but people with slightly sharper eye always notice the "fakeness" of the effects. Most people raved about Avatar for example, I didn't like it very much, because as someone who's aware of object motion drawing and filming techniques from very early years and now by trade involved in quality control process for digital video masters I can see the same movement errors in avatar as I saw in digital Star Wars additions 10 years earlier. However, the major difference was - Avatar looks plasticky and fake throughout, so you filter it out - it's a different planet, with different gravity and different animals - so the fact that for example hair and leaves in Avatar world behave like they are moved by current under water rather than being moved by wind and the air is not as important, blatant and in your face as in many "real environment" movies.
The reason why Star Wars additions and then bits of Ep 1-3 trilogy looked crazy fake, was because they didn't match expected grittiness of the original "miniature model" special effects. The tiny world of Episode 4-6 was gritty, dirty and dusty. Because it was done by hand and by humans, it was organic, scorched, scuffed, it had texture, cracks and uneven trims. Creatures and animals had greasy hair, dirt on their paws, dreads and lint in their fur. The digital Star Wars world was clean, clinical, too smooth, too straight and too architecturally precise. Too new and too shiny to be the word preceding the gritty, dirty, dark world of the eighties episodes by a generation.
And that's the point in todays filming technique where you would just add grain to cover it all up. The scenes where you had to add a building or two to todays landscape in a lab, so you cover it all up in grain so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - like a too small, too human sized, too well lit, too much of a computer game like textured, CGI Jabba The Hutt overlayed on top of a dirty, yellowy, scruffy, built in real life scale 1980ies hangar.
The reason why Star Wars additions and then bits of Ep 1-3 trilogy looked crazy fake, was because they didn't match expected grittiness of the original "miniature model" special effects. The tiny world of Episode 4-6 was gritty, dirty and dusty. Because it was done by hand and by humans, it was organic, scorched, scuffed, it had texture, cracks and uneven trims. Creatures and animals had greasy hair, dirt on their paws, dreads and lint in their fur. The digital Star Wars world was clean, clinical, too smooth, too straight and too architecturally precise. Too new and too shiny to be the word preceding the gritty, dirty, dark world of the eighties episodes by a generation.
And that's the point in todays filming technique where you would just add grain to cover it all up. The scenes where you had to add a building or two to todays landscape in a lab, so you cover it all up in grain so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - like a too small, too human sized, too well lit, too much of a computer game like textured, CGI Jabba The Hutt overlayed on top of a dirty, yellowy, scruffy, built in real life scale 1980ies hangar.
IIRC in teh Aliens director commentary they mention that at the time of shooting Aliens they were using a new sort of film stock that was meant to be better for some things, but the side effect was in low light the grain was more apparent.
Re animation, I suspect part of the reason you rarely see grain with that is because the old cells were done under fairly carefully controlled conditions, with film that was specifically chosen for that use, which means that film grain could be minimized.
Having worked in film DI for a number of years I can tell you that I've never heard of grain being added to the HD Master tape, which is what the BluRay is made from. Its fairly common that the Director will attend a HD mastering session, but this usually just involves pan and scans to accommodate the change from a 2K film aspect ratio to that of HD.
Grain is the grain from the film stock it was shot on, which varies depending on the stock and who manufactures it. Some film stocks can look very noisy in dark scenes.
As has been said already its common to add grain to VFX shots in order to match them to the film. The other example is films shot digitally on the likes of RED, Arri Alexa etc, they obviously have no grain other than digital noise, depending on the ISO.
In my experience, I've not worked on anything which was shot digitally that then had simulated film grain added, it's too much additional work for every shot and if that was the look you wanted, you should have just shot on film in the first place.
Personally I love the look of film grain and hope that Directors/Producers/Studios continue to shoot on it.
Grain is the grain from the film stock it was shot on, which varies depending on the stock and who manufactures it. Some film stocks can look very noisy in dark scenes.
As has been said already its common to add grain to VFX shots in order to match them to the film. The other example is films shot digitally on the likes of RED, Arri Alexa etc, they obviously have no grain other than digital noise, depending on the ISO.
In my experience, I've not worked on anything which was shot digitally that then had simulated film grain added, it's too much additional work for every shot and if that was the look you wanted, you should have just shot on film in the first place.
Personally I love the look of film grain and hope that Directors/Producers/Studios continue to shoot on it.