Robert A. Harris on Film Grain and Blu-Ray — Page 2

zombie84 said:

But why should your preference dictate how everyone sees it, or how the art, irrespective of ANYONE'S preference, should be presented.

That road runs both ways. Why should I be forced to look at those unsightly brush strokes and grainy pictures just because "they need no improvement". And there's a obvious difference between editing the presentation of a piece of art (removing grain and brushstrokes) and editing the content of it (adding Pikachu to Laurence of Arabia).

Johnboy3434 said:

zombie84 said:

But why should your preference dictate how everyone sees it, or how the art, irrespective of ANYONE'S preference, should be presented.

 

That road runs both ways. Why should I be forced to look at those unsightly brush strokes and grainy pictures just because "they need no improvement". And there's a obvious difference between editing the presentation of a piece of art (removing grain and brushstrokes) and editing the content of it (adding Pikachu to Laurence of Arabia).

No, that is not what I necessarily prefer. Maybe I like having a clearer image. Maybe I would prefer that films be made a little differently. Maybe I would prefer better acting and better special effects so I'm not taken out of the experience of being absorbed in a story. But my preferences are incidental--films are what they are and they should remain that way, not altered to suit my fancy.

Johnboy3434 said:

zombie84 said:

But why should your preference dictate how everyone sees it, or how the art, irrespective of ANYONE'S preference, should be presented.

 

That road runs both ways. Why should I be forced to look at those unsightly brush strokes and grainy pictures just because "they need no improvement". And there's a obvious difference between editing the presentation of a piece of art (removing grain and brushstrokes) and editing the content of it (adding Pikachu to Laurence of Arabia).

If film grain didn't exist then films wouldn't exist, it is entirely necessary to the process, it is the grain that makes up the detail of the picture, any attempt to remove film grain will remove details of the image you are trying to look at. By removing the "unsightly grain" to try and see what is behind it you are infact destroying the image you're trying to see and will not be able to see it so clearly.

There are two sides to this, you are asking for things to be changed from the way the cinamatographer intended, we are asking to see a faithful reproduction of what they intended. The cinematographer is fully aware of the grain and would have picked his film stock and shot the film knowing that it would be present, and knowing how it would look at the end and that's what I would like to see preserved.

If it bothers you that much just turn down the sharpness on your TV and blur out the grain, but don't ask that we should have to suffer along with you.

Mielr said:

I agree with what Zombie said 100% as well!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't film grain what the detail in the film is made up of (like pixels are what make up detail in a digital image)? 

Remove film grain=remove detail. 

No?

 

Yes, this is 100% true.

Lowry gets around the issue of "removing detail" though, because you are right, the grain is the image, normal grain reduction like DNR isn't actually getting rid of the grain it just softens the image until you can no longer tell the grain is still there; DNR is more sophisticated than simply throwing the image slightly out of focus but thats the concept in a nutshell. Lowry gets around this issue by getting rid of the dirt/grain, and of course the image information/detail with it, but then digitally simulating the original information/detail, this time without the grain, in effect removing the "artifacts" but without any apparent loss in detail/information. Thats why Citizen Kane looks awesome and sharp, yet has very little grain--the grain is gone but the detail/image information is intact.

Thats the whole concept behind the intended usage of Lowry--to remove dirt and foreign artifacts. Its basically a very advanced alternative to running the film through a cleaning bath, it removes the "artifact", thus there is a digital "hole" in the film if you like to think of it that way--like someone hole-punched the dirt out--and then it fills in the "hole" by simulating what would actually be there. In effect, Lowry simulates the image rather than scrubbing the negative to reveal the detail underneath, so in this way it scan actually "scrub" out grain and simulate a clean image if that is the effect so desired.

That doesn't matter.  It's how it DID look.

Look, I don't care if a director wants to change his film to make it exactly how he wants.  But he needs to also recognize the need for preservation of the original iteration.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 5-disc "Blade Runner" Blu-Ray is the perfect example - there's the director-intended version, with all the color-correction and grain removal and SFX fixes Scott wanted, presented alongside perfect restorations of the original versions (all 3, as a matter of fact) with everything that was originally there intact.

But we're not talking about what a director wants - we're talking about preserving the theatrical experience in the home, and that's something Blu-Ray can come damn close to replicating.  But that means preserving the grain along with everything else that was there originally.  Otherwise, you're losing detail and information that should be there at the expense of making something look "newer," which is NOT good, no matter how you try to spin it.

Grain was not removed for Blade Runner. Its just made from the O-negs and it looks marvelous.

But I agree with the basic argument--how a director WISHES he could have made the film is irrelavent to the way it WAS made.

I know, I was just trying to illustrate a point.  Thanks, though.

And that's fine.  Let it look the way he wants.

But don't shaft the people who grew up with it the way it *was*.  Release the original version, everything intact and unaltered INCLUDING GRAIN, alongside his squeaky-clean version.  Then everyone'd be happy.

About grain in general, you're right - but it'll be SUBSTANTIALLY harder to convince people that grain is supposed to be there when there's STILL such opposition to widescreen movies (Why's there be black bars on my TV's?  I can't see the rest'a the movie!) and so many people thinking anything digital MUST be better.