AxiaEuxine said:No I can't I was responding more to one of the quotes above than any actual experience with it. If filmgrain could be removed in a way that would enhance the picture I don't understand why anyone would be against it.
That's the point - it can't be removed without destroying visual information. The only way to remove grain is to blur the image and resharpen it (anyone who tells you different, saying they're using an "advanced" or "experimental" technique is feeding you a bunch of bullshit), and by doing that you destroy fine detail. It gives everything a plastic-like look, and destroys the intentions of the director and cinematographer.
Grain is not a bad thing, at all. If the cinematographer or director wanted there to be no grain at all, they'd use a very fine-grained film (believe it or not, there is film that's "fast" enough that you pretty much can't see any grain at all, though it's still there - you'd need an incredibly sharp eye).
People like to say that the "that's how the cinematographer wanted it" argument isn't legitimate because if cinematographers had the option of grain or no grain, they'd go with no grain. That's not true at all. Being in film school, I know several cinematographers and many more people going to school for cinematography, and I don't know a single one of them that A) want a grain-free film, or B) is happy that film itself will be replaced by digital in the near future. In fact, for a music video I edited that was shot digitally, I was specifically told to add film grain that matched a particular B&W film stock.
Grain is not bad. It's what physically makes up the image, so removing it in any way will inherently destroy said image.
Here's a good example of grain removal techniques - you'll notice that ALL attempted techniques resulted in a blurred, less-detailed image:
ORIGINAL (no grain removal):
Grain Removal version #1:
Version #2:
