logo Sign In

Film grain is not your enemy.

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
"Film grain is not your enemy."

WRONG!!! Film grain is my enemy!!!! Join me in the war against film grain! We shall fight for a grain free world while hopfully erasing as little of the picture in the process. Those who are not with me (Gryphon!) are against me!!! The war starts now, consider it officially declared!!! That is correct, C3PX has declared war against film grain!!! I am determined that our children should never have to be subjected to a single speck of awful grain, their films will have unnaturally clear, computer enhanced picture quality. JOIN ME IN THE WAR AGAINST GRAIN, FIGHT BESIDE ME THAT OUR CHILDREN MAY ENJOY A CLEARITY WE HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF!!!!! IF WE SUCCEED EVERY FILM SHALL LOOK LIKE A STAR WARS PREQUEL!!!

Huuuuuuuuyah!!! Huuuuuuuuuyah!!! Huuuuuuuuyah!!!!

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
If that's your page, you should add some screencaps as examples of both sides of the issue there.

As someone who will be working in the film industry in a few years, I appreciate what you're trying to do here and agree with you. However, not supporting preservations etc. simply because they use noise reduction is a bit arbitrary - for example, the X0 project is using noise reduction to get rid of video noise added in the telecine and post-telecine processing, while trying to undo the DVNR done to the film in the first place. "Noise reduction" in general doesn't automatically mean removal of film grain, so don't judge until you see the final product.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
If that's your page, you should add some screencaps as examples of both sides of the issue there.

As someone who will be working in the film industry in a few years, I appreciate what you're trying to do here and agree with you. However, not supporting preservations etc. simply because they use noise reduction is a bit arbitrary - for example, the X0 project is using noise reduction to get rid of video noise added in the telecine and post-telecine processing, while trying to undo the DVNR done to the film in the first place. "Noise reduction" in general doesn't automatically mean removal of film grain, so don't judge until you see the final product.
It's not my link. Just found it online.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: DarkGryphon2048
By the way, I will never support a FanEdit/Preservation/Extended Edition on this site or any other which uses noise reduction.

I don't like the removal of grain either. But a dvd can also contain a lot of noise that isn't caused by grain like video noise. Besides to transfer a film to dvd a lot of grain/noise can be added as a side effect of the transfer that wasn't on the original. And I don't think a dvd has a high enough resolution anyway to display the original fine film grain.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Assuming I haven't clicked on the link and read your argument, is film grain my friend because it best preserves real-world visuals in an analog-ish way? If so, then I would agree with you. A lot of the time it also looks pretty cool.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Assuming I haven't clicked on the link and read your argument, is film grain my friend because it best preserves real-world visuals in an analog-ish way? If so, then I would agree with you. A lot of the time it also looks pretty cool.
Well, it just preserves what's on the celluloid of the reels of film. Depending on the film, it'll have very high to even moderate and low grain. Due to alot of the times the film stock being used and the artistic choices of the Director and Director of Photography.
One thing I can't stand is a highly-denoised/no-grain and overly edge enhanced release of a film onto any optical disc format. One of the worst offenders of this abomination is the Region 1 Special Edition of Die Hard: With a Vengeance (which I may have already mentioned earlier in this thread). How come the trailers and the deleted scenes look far superior compared to the film itself? To me, reference quality is where the transfer retains all the film grain and has high levels of detail. Even if it's a desaturated colour pallette such as Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report and several other films in the category mentioned. Or even films where it particularly has lush, vibrant colours such as What Dreams May Come. Even goes for the classic 1.37:1 Academy Ratio films I so enjoy DVR'ing from Turner Classic Movies. Even certain films have a different tone for certain parts of the picture. There's also soft focus, different lenses and many different techniques involved in filmmaking.
Celluloid film, of course, has a far higher "resolution" compared to 1080p. Just wait until Ultra High Definition media.
Author
Time
Post link
Interesting article. We had a discussin about film grain in the Star Wars section recently; LINK.
By the way, I will never support a FanEdit/Preservation/Extended Edition on this site or any other which uses noise reduction. ... grain and noise are not the same thing.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
The article is right. Grain is part of the image and should not be removed, otherwise it looks like video, and film is not video. The film stocks of today are so perfect that you can get a relatively grainless image so some modern films look pretty clean and slick, thus there is the aesthetic counter-reaction in films like Minority Report where its intentionally grainy. However, its also important to keep in mind that a lot of grain is foreign, that is its not on the negative but the result of duplication and processing, and thats the grain thats the enemy. I guess one could argue that it takes a trained eye to know the difference but to me dupe grain has always stood out as looking much different than grain on the negative; I would like to think that most people can tell that grain is stylistically used in Minority Report on purpose, and that there should be some texture to film--people that argue against this are often people that don't like widescreen "because of the bars". Video noise isn't really that common anymore because our technology is so good now, its usually dupe grain that people occassionally get fooled by.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: DarkGryphon2048Well, it just preserves what's on the celluloid of the reels of film. Depending on the film, it'll have very high to even moderate and low grain. Due to alot of the times the film stock being used and the artistic choices of the Director and Director of Photography.


True, but removing the grain does result in a loss of real, visual data does it not? While grain may not be as clear in comparison to what you would see with your naked eye, removing grain, once an image was captured in a grainy way, will result in a loss of detail on some level. In other words, that grain was produced by a real image being distorted. Therefore to smooth out the image from the grainy image, you'd need to further deteriorate what was originally captured. That's what I worry the most about losing.

I understand what you mean about the artistic use of grain too. I think it looks very nice at times and I'd certainly want to see what a particular artist intended for his or her work.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I think losing a little detail is worth it if it means seeing absolutely nothing but the action on the film (unless, of course, the grain is part of the movie's "style"). That's what was so fantastic about the PT, RotS in particular: That mother was clean as a whistle. It looked like there was literally nothing between you and the actors. Normally you need cheap red and blue glasses to do that. So yes, grain is, and will forever remain, my enemy.

Besides, the more sophisticated grain-removal technology (like they used for the OT DVDs) results in virtually no loss of detail at all. Then again, that's because ILM spent a Hell of a lot of money on those films, but the process will cheapen over the years.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434
I think losing a little detail is worth it if it means seeing absolutely nothing but the action on the film (unless, of course, the grain is part of the movie's "style"). That's what was so fantastic about the PT, RotS in particular: That mother was clean as a whistle. It looked like there was literally nothing between you and the actors. Normally you need cheap red and blue glasses to do that. So yes, grain is, and will forever remain, my enemy.


I'd say thats whats so shit about the PT: the image looks so artificial. The clarity and grainless image of HD is considered undesirable and aesthetically unpleasing by most cinematographers, and I think the absolutely piss-poor cinematography of the PT is mostly due to HD; TPM looks okay a lot of the time, theres a softness and a graineyness to it, it has an organic feel--its only in the all-digital scenes like the Gungan battle that it gets that fake, video gamey artificial look, and unfortunately AOTC and ROTS had that feeling 100% of the time. People have been sucked into the whole "clarity" thing, but bright colors and clean images do not make an artistic image IMO. Its interesting that we are witnessing the beginning of an aesthetic shift in your average person due to digital technology, but IMO its a false aesthetic, its born out of the perception that clarity and saturation=quality, one born out a confluence of video games and CGI, the development of digital cameras, and the corporate propaganda of companies trying to sell people HD technology.

But anyway as far as removing grain goes, its absolutely possible to take out all the grain without losing any detail. For proof see the OT DVDs. Back in the early 1990s we had really primitive technology so when we removed grain we were erasing part of the image--this was counterbalanced by smearing the image to cover the holes, so you had a "cleaner" image but one that wasn't as sharp. Thats basically what DVNR is. But its not like that today. Those were just filters overlayed over the image. Today we have sophisticated computer algorithims that analyse and reconstruct the image to remove grain. Its true that its artificial in some sense--you are erasing the original image, you can't erase grain without erasing the image because the grain is the image. But modern remasters aren't pot-marked by white holes, otherwise what would be the point of erasing grain, you would just end up with exact same effect only white instead of black--you need to fill in the holes with what should be there. Computer algorithms do this by analysing the pixels next to where the grain dot is and basically creating the image that should be where the hole is. So in that sense, yes, its artificial in that its computer simulated, but its virtually perfect, a perfect reconstruction of what the image would be like if it were photographed without grain. The first experiments done with this were too perfect--Lowry's first project was Citizen Kane, and not only did they erase dirt, but they erased the grain of the emulsion itself, and it ended up looking like video, it was too clear. They've since changed the algorithm so that it leaves the grain of the negative but targets dirt and such--but IMO the OT DVD's are slightly too clear looking, possibly under direction of Lucas who wanted them to match the PT (ie the new, HD-emulating, shit-tastic color-timing).

Grain on the negative should never be removed. Its the image. One should not remove grain for the same reason one should not remove flares, wires, and other limitations of the technology the film was made with, its the whole colorizing-B&W-films argument.
Author
Time
Post link
What's wrong with colorizing black and white films? Have you seen Night of the Living Dead in color? It's fantastic. Like they actually filmed it that way. I honestly can't wait until they get around to doing Psycho. I suppose we just have different tastes. When I go to see (for example) the Star Wars movies, I expect to see two people swinging bright, glowing blades at each other, not two people swinging bright, glowing blades at each other behind a thin screen of filth. I say remove all the grain, be it from the negative or wherever. Grain, unless intentionally inserted, is an imperfection in the film-making process. Any engineer would tell you that the best way to improve a process is to remove its imperfections. All the cinematographers in the world can deny this, but they'll just look stupid. Bright colors and the absence of grain may not be "artistic," but they're cleaner, and to the normal movie-goer, that makes a much better impression.
Author
Time
Post link
So you're in the "make old things look like they were made last week" camp.

Thomas Edison, one of the major innovators of motion photography, wanted to call his recording/projection device a "time machine" of sorts, as it captured everything about the time in which it was made, preserving it for (he thought) all eternity.

I happen to agree with this viewpoint - films are a capture of the time in which they are made, and that INCLUDES what they were made with (film vs. video, color vs. black-and-white). So when you, say, rid the image of all film grain, colorize a black-and-white film, or add a whole bunch of CG alterations to the image, you destroy the "time capsule" aspect of the film. I have no problem with this being done IF THE ORIGINAL IS PRESERVED COMPLETELY, i.e. "Blade Runner"'s five-disc box set, or the 3-disc "Close Encounters" box.

So I'm in the "preserve it as it was made with ALL the technological limitations it was made under" camp. Just so you see where I'm coming from.

Oh, and:

Lowry's first project was Citizen Kane, and not only did they erase dirt, but they erased the grain of the emulsion itself, and it ended up looking like video, it was too clear.


That explains a lot - I always thought my DVD of "Kane" looked a little odd.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
So you're in the "make old things look like they were made last week" camp.

Sí, señor (yay, my Alt key works again!).

Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
Thomas Edison, one of the major innovators of motion photography, wanted to call his recording/projection device a "time machine" of sorts, as it captured everything about the time in which it was made, preserving it for (he thought) all eternity.

I happen to agree with this viewpoint - films are a capture of the time in which they are made, and that INCLUDES what they were made with (film vs. video, color vs. black-and-white). So when you, say, rid the image of all film grain, colorize a black-and-white film, or add a whole bunch of CG alterations to the image, you destroy the "time capsule" aspect of the film. I have no problem with this being done IF THE ORIGINAL IS PRESERVED COMPLETELY, i.e. "Blade Runner"'s five-disc box set, or the 3-disc "Close Encounters" box.


I agree with the original being preserved completely (although I enjoy watching people tinker with it, as well), but I think you and I disagree on the meaning of the word "completely." I believe that, unless it was added intentionally, grain is not part of the movie. It is the result of imperfections in the films stock and is thus undesirable from a purely technical standpoint. In my opinion, the movie is what happens on-screen. Nothing more. And I want to see that as clearly as is technologically possible.
Author
Time
Post link
There is no way to remove film grain without having bad side effects. It's as simple as that. Some may take that for granted, I think it looks stupid.

Let's say you could make King Kong look like it was shot today with a digital camera, it would just look silly with the old "special effects" and in color (which btw would be just a guess of what it would have looked like).

Or Gone With The Wind with it's beautiful typical Technicolor colors. You want to color correct it to todays standards? You will destroy the film!
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Your assumption that grain is an undesireable "fault" of the filmstock" is incorrect. Its an accepted aesthetic trait. Its wrong to assume its undesirable--true, there may indeed be some filmmakers/DP's who would, given the choice, have preferred a clear HD-like image. But you can't just assume that every example is like this--most filmmakers and DP's not only like and want grain, but at the very least accept it as part of the aesthetic of making a motion picture. It should not be "corrected" for the simple reason that its not a "fault" to begin with, just like black and white photography.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
There is no way to remove film grain without having bad side effects. It's as simple as that. Some may take that for granted, I think it looks stupid.

Let's say you could make King Kong look like it was shot today with a digital camera, it would just look silly with the old "special effects" and in color (which btw would be just a guess of what it would have looked like).

Newsflash, dude: King Kong looks silly without all those enhancements. Decreasing the grain could at least impress people when you tell them it's 75 years old.

Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Or Gone With The Wind with it's beautiful typical Technicolor colors. You want to color correct it to todays standards? You will destroy the film!


The whole point of colorizing a film is so you won't have to watch it in monochrome. Recoloring an already colored film would be a waste of money.

Originally posted by: zombie84
Your assumption that grain is an undesireable "fault" of the filmstock" is incorrect.


Which is incorrect: that it's undesirable, or that it's a fault? If the former, that's simply artistic preference. If the latter, then I'm afraid you're the one that's incorrect. When people make film, they don't go down the list saying "Celluloid? Check. Sprocket-holes? Check. Grain? Check." Grain is a side-effect of the use of film, caused by imperfections in the film itself. From an engineering (read: purely technical) standpoint, imperfections are inherently undesirable. Does that mean nobody likes it? Of course not. Some people are only attracted to those in the 300+ pound range, as well. Doesn't mean the object of their desire is in good shape. You like lower-grade film (not the movie itself, but the film), and I respect that. You just need to admit it.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434


Originally posted by: zombie84
Your assumption that grain is an undesireable "fault" of the filmstock" is incorrect.


Which is incorrect: that it's undesirable, or that it's a fault? If the former, that's simply artistic preference. If the latter, then I'm afraid you're the one that's incorrect. When people make film, they don't go down the list saying "Celluloid? Check. Sprocket-holes? Check. Grain? Check." Grain is a side-effect of the use of film, caused by imperfections in the film itself. From an engineering (read: purely technical) standpoint, imperfections are inherently undesirable. Does that mean nobody likes it? Of course not. Some people are only attracted to those in the 300+ pound range, as well. Doesn't mean the object of their desire is in good shape. You like lower-grade film (not the movie itself, but the film), and I respect that. You just need to admit it.


Sorry, your still making assumptions. Its not a "fault"--that its a "fault" lies on the presupposition that a crystal-clear image is an asset, or that anything less is undesireable. Maybe you would never want anything less than crystal clarity, but guess what? Thats just you. Grain is not an "imperfection", its simply an element of a photograph, one that is often desired by filmmakers, and as I said at the very least accepted as an aesthetic element in the art of motion picture photography.

The whole clarity=quality argument is a fallacious one created by HD. Its an aesthetic. Film is another aesthetic. Film is softer, film is higher resolution, film has a texture created by the silver halide crystals that compose the image (what gives it its grain). Don't confuse assumptions and personal aesthetics with "imperfections" in anything lacking those elements.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
There is no way to remove film grain without having bad side effects. It's as simple as that. Some may take that for granted, I think it looks stupid.

Let's say you could make King Kong look like it was shot today with a digital camera, it would just look silly with the old "special effects" and in color (which btw would be just a guess of what it would have looked like).

Newsflash, dude: King Kong looks silly without all those enhancements. Decreasing the grain could at least impress people when you tell them it's 75 years old.

What will look more silly, a 75 year old grainy b&w movie with 75 year old special effects or a movie that appears like it was shot yesterday with 75 year old special effects.
How do you want to impress people with a 75 year old movie if it's not the same movie?

Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Or Gone With The Wind with it's beautiful typical Technicolor colors. You want to color correct it to todays standards? You will destroy the film!


The whole point of colorizing a film is so you won't have to watch it in monochrome. Recoloring an already colored film would be a waste of money.

Oh come on! You would remove the grain to make it look modern and leave the weird colors as they are? And I didn't say recolor, I said color correct (which would only take a fraction of the time and money compared to coloring a b&w movie)..
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.