Johnboy3434 said:Do you have any studies or professional opinions to back up that assertion from the first paragraph? On a personal level, I find extremely fine-grained pictures to be much more involving, because it feels like there's nothing between me and what's happening on screen (like 3D, but reversed; like I could reach into the film). Higher-grain pictures I find more distracting, because I'm like "Whoa, there's this constantly fluctuating cloud of stuff over my picture!" Granted, that cloud of stuff is the picture, but it wasn't in front of the camera (like the actors), nor does it exist within the construct of the film's story (like effects done in post). In my opinion, something that doesn't meet at least one of those two requirements is something not worth keeping. That's why I don't like grain. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but can you at least understand where I'm coming from?
I somewhat understand where you're coming from. Yes, it's obvious to me that our eyes work in a way that involves much higher accuracy than 35mm film grain since, with the latter, we're seeing something that wouldn't be present if we were actually standing there. However, do you think that pixels and the softening of one pixel's value in combination with another, to produce a soft, solid image would be something you'd see in real life? That takes me out of the moment too! Our eyes don't see in a method that uses averaged pixels and the resulting soft and solid look is not something that was in front of the camera (in terms of what our eyes would see) or a part of the films story either, was it?
It's at that point that I don't understand where you're coming from. Grainy film images or softened, solid, pixel-based images are both capturing what is in front of the camera but in two different ways. Both give us textures that are different from what our eyes would directly see, but both capture what is, in reality, in front of them. There's nothing fake about grain. The texture of film grain captures reality and I would argue that it's less contrived and controlled than an electronic means that shoots out averaged values across many squares in a rectangular grid. Do I know that for sure? No, but it sure feels right to me.
Grain-based images feel much more natural, emotional, and organic. I only like the feel of digital to the degree it is very straightforward in a logical sense. Neither functions as our eyesight does, however. I would guess that our eyes pick up distinct, random values of light and color more like what 35mm grain does, but at the same time it's far more accurate and I would guess that matches the straightforward nature of the latest digital cameras.
The top paragraph in my last post was simply my own, crazy thinking and I would love to see some technical science explore the issue. For instance, highly chaotic grain and straightforward, averaged pixels are not even apposed to each other. For Blu-ray and DVD, people can use a digital scan to actually capture grain detail in a digital form (which is a weird thing to see). The two methods work differently and can affect each other. Ultimately this was the basis of the thinking behind my point. Any real-world image will have less detail than an image of infinite accuracy. If I use a grain-based method or a pixel-based method to achieve high or low detail it doesn't matter.
Ultimately it comes down to whatever an artist wants or what an artist used. I'm not going to support people who destroy what old films ACTUALLY ARE for the sake of reproducing them with a straightforward digital look. Their images were made on grainy film and should be represented as they are. If you want to make alternate versions, go ahead and do that, but leave grain where it is on any official media translations. Wherever artists want to go on newer films is up to them.