Hi-Def vs. Film Grain
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Hi-Def vs. Film Grain
The otherwise mostly useless Hollywood blogger, Jeffrey Wells made a post that got me thinking about BluRay and film grain. His post essentially praised Warner's for delivering a crisp BR of Casablanca virtually free of grain, while chastising Criterion for their effort on The Third Man which, according to him, had a "sandstorm" of grain.
Next to aspect ratios, I think this is going to become a hugely contentious issue as older/classic films get released on BD and I wanted to inquire with some of the more technical/knowledgeable heads here on what their thoughts on all of this are. With HD enabling producers to virtually erase any sign of age, wear, damage and even grain, where does the line get drawn between proper representation and completely wiping out the texture of the medium?
Obviously, the determining factor is the quality of the elements being used, but in a situation where a studio finds itself with their hands on pristine elements, what would people prefer?
Next to aspect ratios, I think this is going to become a hugely contentious issue as older/classic films get released on BD and I wanted to inquire with some of the more technical/knowledgeable heads here on what their thoughts on all of this are. With HD enabling producers to virtually erase any sign of age, wear, damage and even grain, where does the line get drawn between proper representation and completely wiping out the texture of the medium?
Obviously, the determining factor is the quality of the elements being used, but in a situation where a studio finds itself with their hands on pristine elements, what would people prefer?
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:50 am
- Location: California
Re: HD vs. film grain
I agree that it appears to be an increasingly contentious issue, particularly amongst certain Blu-Ray viewers who are expecting every film, regardless of age, to appear as though it was filmed yesterday and to have nary an amount of film grain. One only need visit the avsforum boards to see the horrors certain studios have done to some films with regard to digital noise reduction. Everything becomes so artificial looking and loses the warmth inherit in film. Frankly, I hope the practice is eventually dropped completely.
The Third Man Blu-Ray is incredible. Besides being sharper with much better grayscale, the film grain is definitely prominent. The DVD, while still good by most standards, looks particularly average by comparison. Of course, my eyesight is so poor that any improvement is a revelation. Jeffrey Wells is out of his mind, though, if he thinks it hinders the visual pleasure of the film. Give me film grain any day.
The Third Man Blu-Ray is incredible. Besides being sharper with much better grayscale, the film grain is definitely prominent. The DVD, while still good by most standards, looks particularly average by comparison. Of course, my eyesight is so poor that any improvement is a revelation. Jeffrey Wells is out of his mind, though, if he thinks it hinders the visual pleasure of the film. Give me film grain any day.
- Mr Sheldrake
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:09 pm
- Location: Jersey burbs exit 4
Re: HD vs. film grain
I was disappointed with the Blueray of The Third Man. Certainly the increased clarity in some of the darker scenes was magnificent. But I have yet to learn to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of noticeable grain in older movies. I have seen The Third Man at least a half dozen times in a theater, and I don't recall, at least, being distracted by the shimmering grain in Joseph Cotton's face as I was in the Criterion BD. It seemed excessive to me, but is this the way it actually looks in a 35mm print?
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: HD vs. film grain
When a 35mm print is in sharp focus and you are close enough to the screen, yes, you will see lots of grain. The trick is to find a projectionist who cares enough to get and keep the film in focus.
- SoyCuba
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:30 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: HD vs. film grain
I have to say that I've been a bit disappointed with Beaver's HD reviews as it is rarely mentioned if the transfer has digital noise reduction or not. I have to confess that I have very limited 35mm viewing experiences myself and I've seen most of the films since the start of my film enthusiasm on DVD, so obviously I'm no expert when it comes to what film should look like. I also have very few Blu-rays, but of those that I have, The Dark Knight obviously has digital noise reduction and thus doesn't look very natural and Red Desert and Curse of the Golden Flower have not and I love the grainy, and yes, to my eyes natural look that they have.david hare wrote:Guys I think we have to just ignore these reviewers who have no idea about film "appearance" anyway and trust people like Beaver (all its reviewers)
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: HD vs. film grain
How do you guys feel about a film like The Searchers and its br presentation?
From the screen shots, it looks like it was filmed yesterday.
From the screen shots, it looks like it was filmed yesterday.
- Highway 61
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm
Re: HD vs. film grain
David, I'm surprised to see you included Harris in your list of authorities. Isn't he partly responsible for the color alteration on The Searchers that you mentioned above? He's certainly defended it, at the very least. And of course we can't forget his compromised restoration of Vertigo.david hare wrote:Guys I think we have to just ignore these reviewers who have no idea about film "appearance" anyway and trust people like Beaver (all its reviewers) and Robert Harris and Glenn Kenny and Kehr. THese folks all have a substantial feedback from cinephiles and movie lovers and they all have a long history with the medium.
- Highway 61
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm
Re: HD vs. film grain
Thanks for the clarification. It's definitely a relief as I thought Harris had become a Glenn Erickson-style studio apologist. And I hear you on the closing of the IB lab. Breaks my heart. I recently made the mistake of being honest with someone who asked me what my dream job would be; they were baffled when I said I'd love to work in film restoration and own a dye-transfer printing lab.
-
- not perpee
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm
Re: HD vs. film grain
In haste, this is a massive issue. Blu-ray authoring houses have numerous "grain removal / grain management" plug-ins at their fingertips, and are itching to use them.
HD-DVNR worries the shit out of me. There's a whole industry built around it.
The example on this page is *not* an improvement of any kind.
I'm opting for no HD-DVNR, no grain removal or management, and the highest bitrate possible for the material (about to start work on 3-4 Blu-rays, and have 1 under my belt).
Furthermore, I am also worried that on certain discs *without* HD-DVNR the encoding struggles with the film grain, and creates a new digital sandstorm motion effect (on top of the grain) which cannot be identified in stills, and is just as undesirable as the removal of grain.
HD-DVNR worries the shit out of me. There's a whole industry built around it.
The example on this page is *not* an improvement of any kind.
I'm opting for no HD-DVNR, no grain removal or management, and the highest bitrate possible for the material (about to start work on 3-4 Blu-rays, and have 1 under my belt).
Furthermore, I am also worried that on certain discs *without* HD-DVNR the encoding struggles with the film grain, and creates a new digital sandstorm motion effect (on top of the grain) which cannot be identified in stills, and is just as undesirable as the removal of grain.
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Re: HD vs. film grain
Ugh, the "after" shot in the example creates a weird sheen on the girl's face, it practically looks like CGI.peerpee wrote:The example on this page is *not* an improvement of any kind.
-
- not perpee
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm
Re: HD vs. film grain
The after shot looks like localised use of Photoshop's blur filter. This kind of 'restoration work' is a terrible plague, a 'fix' being pushed (and sold) for a 'problem' that doesn't really exist.
-
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm
Re: HD vs. film grain
In a few years we'll be able to double-dip on the Blu-Ray releases they've screwed up with DNR: "Patton now remastered with original grain restored to your living room".
- Highway 61
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm
Re: HD vs. film grain
Don't get your hopes up. Unlike Pan & Scan, I don't think this is a battle that movie lovers can win. Before, we had the Home Theater crowd on our side, but now, they're our opponents. The whole thing scares me to death frankly.stwrt wrote:In a few years we'll be able to double-dip on the Blu-Ray releases they've screwed up with DNR: "Patton now remastered with original grain restored to your living room".
- Gregory
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
Re: HD vs. film grain
It was my understanding that with SD-DVD, the "grain" was digital noise that looked somewhat similar to grain. Is it different with Blu-Ray, actually capturing some of the physical properties of the emulsion? Judging from the information in peerpee's link, a certain amount of this is still digital noise. I'm not arguing for scrubbing it, just wondering how much of what can be seen in The Third Man BR, for example, is really from grain in the original elements.
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
- Oedipax
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
- Location: Atlanta
Re: HD vs. film grain
So imbecilic it almost defies comment. Perhaps the best-case scenario is some future format/player that can "de-grain" on the fly and allow the rest of us to turn it off and watch our FILMS in peace.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: HD vs. film grain
I'd agree with this, not least because the advantage of downconversion means that you have the option of reworking a particular segment of the film until you get it... well, not necessarily "right", but certainly closer to how it should look.david hare wrote:Looking at a small sample of what I consider fine BluRays with producers like Harris who know what they're doing, they appear to have been mastered from 4k if not 6k datacine. In those cases the down conversion algorithms to 2k for 1080p are far cleaner and far more likely to replicate a much higher resolution, just as SD DVDs mastered down from 2k HD (or 4k) look better than bog standard transfers.
Scheduling permitting, I'll be sitting in on an HD mastering from a 16mm neg on Friday, which will be the first time I've observed the entire process from the start. It's part of an article I'm researching on the creation of a Blu-ray disc (which should be published on DVD Times in the run-up to the actual release), and it's been enormously educational for me personally - although I've spent much of my professional life over the last decade publishing digital content from film sources, I've rarely been directly involved with the physical process of getting from celluloid original to final digital encode through all the various stages.
One of the article's aims is to clarify the process for the benefit of people who know a bit about it but not enough to offer a really informed critique - and the grain issue will certainly be addressed, as it's something of considerable interest to me personally. I'm entirely with the "get it to look as close as the original celluloid as is technically/algorithmically feasible" camp - but I'm also not at all averse to digital clean-up in moderation, provided cleaning up the image is the only thing being attempted. (De-graining is not cleaning up!)
-
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:31 pm
Re: HD vs. Film Grain
BluRay is the perfect format to let film grain be itself. After watching The Godfather, I was delighted to see how well the film grain was handled in compression. DVD tends to make it a bit blocky unless a ridiculously high bitrate is used (i.e. Fantoma's Kenneth Anger DVDs). Reducing it can be necessary for DVD to avoid worse compression issues, but this format lets you keep a grainy texture without looking bad.
Screwups like Patton are in another field, though. Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to add heavy DNR to a 65mm movie? That's like sending IMAX movies over to Lowry Digital to be degrained.
Screwups like Patton are in another field, though. Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to add heavy DNR to a 65mm movie? That's like sending IMAX movies over to Lowry Digital to be degrained.
- Mr Sheldrake
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:09 pm
- Location: Jersey burbs exit 4
Re: HD vs. Film Grain
I re-rented the BD of The Third Man. I still see the windstorm of grain in practically every shot. I would think only someone with a grain fetish would not be bothered. I have a 40" HD and my optimum seating is 10 feet. I moved back to 15-18 feet (as far as I can go) and I no longer see the grain specks. I do however see the background in constant flickering motion (noise?). I have no agenda as far as grain-degrain. I just want to enjoy the movie without distractions. The grain in the BD Godfather movies and in The Man Who Fell To Earth, although noticeable, was no big deal.
I read a comment from Glenn Kenney implying that a blogger who also complained about grain in Third Man did not have his set calibrated correctly. If so, what settings are optimal for this situation?
I read a comment from Glenn Kenney implying that a blogger who also complained about grain in Third Man did not have his set calibrated correctly. If so, what settings are optimal for this situation?
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: HD vs. Film Grain
Guys, film was generally a lot grainier in 1949 than it was in the early 1970s, and it was a lot grainier in the early 1970s than it is now. That's called the progress of technology. If you've never seen a film from the first half of the twentieth century projected from a nice print, they're supposed to be alive with grain. It dances, visibly, on the screen. And with each step further away from the camera negative (interpositive, dupe negative, print), you get even more grain. That's why we "grain fetishists" get so excited when we see a reasonable replication of grain on Blu-ray because it looks like film (or as close to it as you're going to get on home video). Film also flickers due to uneven exposure, fluctuates in tonal and color values, gets speckled from dust, gets torn and scratched, gets streaks on it from photochemical processing, fades and shrinks, and sometimes bursts into flames, melts, or crumbles to dust. Hardworking filmmakers and archivists try to make sure that none of the above happens too often, but they are fighting the very nature of film as film.
Look, I am not a terribly old man and I understand that most of you haven't had an opportunity to see anything but new releases projected from film. Most of us are from the video generation that is used to seeing crisp, clear images on glossy screens. Still, film is a technology--and a fairly unstable photochemical technology at that--that was still rapidly progressing in the first half of the last century, just like digital video in the last couple of decades. Remember what the state of the art of digital video looked like just a few years ago? And what it looks like now?
So when you watch The Third Man on Blu-ray and see "a windstorm of grain in every shot" or are "distracted by the shimmering grain in Joseph Cotton's face," you should rejoice because Criterion got it right. And I would venture that they'll be the only video distributor in the US to take such a careful and conservative attitude toward film grain, which is why people used to pristine, cleaned-up, DVNR-ed images on DVD and Blu-ray will think there is something wrong with Criterion's discs.
Look, I am not a terribly old man and I understand that most of you haven't had an opportunity to see anything but new releases projected from film. Most of us are from the video generation that is used to seeing crisp, clear images on glossy screens. Still, film is a technology--and a fairly unstable photochemical technology at that--that was still rapidly progressing in the first half of the last century, just like digital video in the last couple of decades. Remember what the state of the art of digital video looked like just a few years ago? And what it looks like now?
So when you watch The Third Man on Blu-ray and see "a windstorm of grain in every shot" or are "distracted by the shimmering grain in Joseph Cotton's face," you should rejoice because Criterion got it right. And I would venture that they'll be the only video distributor in the US to take such a careful and conservative attitude toward film grain, which is why people used to pristine, cleaned-up, DVNR-ed images on DVD and Blu-ray will think there is something wrong with Criterion's discs.
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Re: HD vs. Film Grain
Great post Matt, and really, it's the reason why anyone remotely interested in film should be alarmed and dismayed by the shuttering of arthouse/independent cinemas. Luckily, I got into when repertory houses were still bustling and when I spent a lot of time in NYC (ie. Film Forum). The cinema experience, particularly for older films is invaluable. It kinda makes you wish before anyone buys a HDTV they should be forced to sit in a theater and actually watch pre-70s films (the earlier the better) that they've grown so accustomed to seeing on cable to really get an understanding of what film is.Matt wrote:Guys, film was generally a lot grainier in 1949 than it was in the early 1970s, and it was a lot grainier in the early 1970s than it is now. That's called the progress of technology. If you've never seen a film from the first half of the twentieth century projected from a nice print, they're supposed to be alive with grain. It dances, visibly, on the screen. And with each step further away from the camera negative (interpositive, dupe negative, print), you get even more grain. That's why we "grain fetishists" get so excited when we see a reasonable replication of grain on Blu-ray because it looks like film (or as close to it as you're going to get on home video). Film also flickers due to uneven exposure, fluctuates in tonal and color values, gets speckled from dust, gets torn and scratched, gets streaks on it from photochemical processing, fades and shrinks, and sometimes bursts into flames, melts, or crumbles to dust. Hardworking filmmakers and archivists try to make sure that none of the above happens too often, but they are fighting the very nature of film as film.
Look, I am not a terribly old man and I understand that most of you haven't had an opportunity to see anything but new releases projected from film. Most of us are from the video generation that is used to seeing crisp, clear images on glossy screens. Still, film is a technology--and a fairly unstable photochemical technology at that--that was still rapidly progressing in the first half of the last century, just like digital video in the last couple of decades. Remember what the state of the art of digital video looked like just a few years ago? And what it looks like now?
So when you watch The Third Man on Blu-ray and see "a windstorm of grain in every shot" or are "distracted by the shimmering grain in Joseph Cotton's face," you should rejoice because Criterion got it right. And I would venture that they'll be the only video distributor in the US to take such a careful and conservative attitude toward film grain, which is why people used to pristine, cleaned-up, DVNR-ed images on DVD and Blu-ray will think there is something wrong with Criterion's discs.
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: HD vs. Film Grain
You're correct, of course, David. I think we are arguing matters of degrees here. I don't mean to imply that all films prior to a given date are, to coin a phrase, "windstorms of grain." A studio-shot 1930s film projected in a nitrate print is going to have low apparent grain and it will be a very fine grain, but the grain will still be visible and its movement will be noticeable from frame to frame. Maybe the grain will be noticeable only at a proximity closer than most like to sit, but the film image will not look like the kind of smooth, plasticky image one gets in a standard film (and on most DVDs and Blu-rays) these days. The film stock available to major studios has always been of the highest available quality, but because of the composition of film stock, it's simply a physical impossibility to have a grain-free image on 35mm photographic film.
- Mr Sheldrake
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:09 pm
- Location: Jersey burbs exit 4
Re: HD vs. Film Grain
I'm in my sixties and have literally seen close to a thousand b/w films in a theater. I have seen some lousy prints for sure but I have never ever seen such a display of grain as on the BD Third Man, a film which I have seen at least 1/2 dozen times in a theater. This is not how postwar b/w looks. Film noir era was simply spectacular. I'll be seeing Letter From an Unknown Woman and The Reckless Moment next week at the AFI and I guarantee I won't be constantly distracted by swirling specks of grain even sitting fairly close.Matt wrote:So when you watch The Third Man on Blu-ray and see "a windstorm of grain in every shot" or are "distracted by the shimmering grain in Joseph Cotton's face," you should rejoice because Criterion got it right. And I would venture that they'll be the only video distributor in the US to take such a careful and conservative attitude toward film grain, which is why people used to pristine, cleaned-up, DVNR-ed images on DVD and Blu-ray will think there is something wrong with Criterion's discs.
-
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:54 pm
Re: HD vs. Film Grain
Now, I haven't seen the Blu of The Third Man, but when I hear (read) phrases such as "windstorm of grain" I can't help wondering .......
Moire patterns are regular patterns because the underlying structures are in very regular patterns (such as a small check pattern on an article of clothing). With an underlying structure that was regular / grid-like (which is my impression of film grain) I can envision a perfect storm of resampling resolutions that led to moire style issues at the pixel level, but not being regular enough to create stripe patterns and such. It's possible that such a problem could create an effect that one might describe as "a windstorm of grain".
That's not what people are seeing, is it?
Like I said, I haven't seen that disk yet (and actually haven't bought a Blu player yet), so I don't know whether the described effect would look to me to be consistent with that thought.
Moire patterns are regular patterns because the underlying structures are in very regular patterns (such as a small check pattern on an article of clothing). With an underlying structure that was regular / grid-like (which is my impression of film grain) I can envision a perfect storm of resampling resolutions that led to moire style issues at the pixel level, but not being regular enough to create stripe patterns and such. It's possible that such a problem could create an effect that one might describe as "a windstorm of grain".
That's not what people are seeing, is it?
Like I said, I haven't seen that disk yet (and actually haven't bought a Blu player yet), so I don't know whether the described effect would look to me to be consistent with that thought.