Whatever filmmakers do to achieve the look they want should be done - whether Joe Q Moviegoer likes it or not.

Those films you picked probably used different filmstock

My argument was if you're contending that Blu-ray cannot ever replicate the theatrical experience, and therefore you're suggesting we should eliminate grain simply because it doesn't look good in HD, regardless of the director's wishes, then we can make whatever image adjustments we like and no one should be able to complain about it. It was to prove the fallacy of your argument.

God, isn't it awful how Tim Burton keeps casting Johnny Depp? Why don't we digitally remove Depp from Ed Wood and Sweeney Todd, because it's just so gosh darned annoying. Also, let's remove all that excessive dialogue from Tarantino's films. If some directors want to use grain, then that is their choice. Who are we to say that should be eliminated because some people won't like it in HD?


That's a different case, as supposedly that is in line with the director's wishes. As much of an uproar there was over that disc, imagine how bad it would have been if Coppola said, "I didn't want it covered that way, it was based on the preferences of [Random Viewer X]."

The fact that we are still discussing this suggest that there is a huge problem with using grain or excessive grain. Using grain can be stylized but when it ruins the image quality and/or if when watching a movie it's all that you can see, and its bothersome, then its a problem that needs to be rid of.

Get off your high horse. Using grain / excessive grain is not a way to view a movie.

No, actually the fact it's still being discussed shows just how stubborn those who don't understand and/or can't accept artistic intent over consumer convenience can be.

Is there some sort of HD pamphlet out which states all HD films must look like you're looking through a pristine window?

Not every film should look like a video game cut scene.

It's pretty depressing that this is quickly becoming the new OAR battle.

It is if that's the way the director intended it. How would you like it if you made a movie and someone else said, "You know what? This looks too clean. Let's add some grain." You'd probably be pretty pissed. So if you purposefully put the grain in, and someone else said, "This looks too dirty. Let's take out the grain," you should be equally as pissed. Especially since removing grain means that you lose image detail.

It's depressing that you would rather have sand on your image than a clear pristine window.

I bet you never wash your windshield on your car.After all it was nature's intent (physics) for your car to hit bugs while driving. Or dust that forms on your screen / monitor.

If the movie isn't meant to look clear and pristine, then you shouldn't be watching it clear and pristine. Do you want all movies to have happy endings, too?

If you really want to continue with that awful analogy, your windshield is intended to be clean and clear, so washing it would be keeping it in the correct state. Similarly, I keep the screen of my television clean, as that is not meant to have dust on it. But there's a difference between the television's screen and the way a director intended his movie to look. How can you not be getting this? I think you're just trying to pick a fight.

No, the fact that we're still discussing this suggests that people who belong to this Web site are passionate about discussing movies and DVDs. There is no indication outside your posts that there is a "huge problem" of any kind.

The main problem with your argument is your insistance that the image is ruined or that grain is bothersome. Just because you have a bug up your ass about film grain or black bars on your HDTV doesn't mean everyone else does.

Methinks your horse is far higher than any of ours.

This all comes back to the debate over whether movies are art or entertainment. Those who see them as art want them presented as is, while those who see them as entertainment want them modified to suit them. This isn't going away, so the best we can hope for is that ways of applying DNR exist in the players, so that the discs don't have to be mastered differently, and both camps can be happy - maybe.

I think there are two separate (although connected) things being brought up here that are confusing the discussion.

1) Grain that appears in the vast majority of movies because they were shot on film stock. In the process of digitization for transfer to a video medium (tape, DVD, BR or whatever), film grain can be eliminated or reduced, enhanced, or left alone (as much as is possible with the digitization process).

2) "Grain effects" that are added to a film (regardless of whether it was shot with film or video) in post production to give the finished film a certain "look." Examples being; Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, War of the Worlds, Gladiator, etc.

I understand the motivation of filmmakers who do this, but personally I find the resulting "grainy look" to be distracting as hell. Even in SPR, it took me right out of the movie and made it more unreal to me.

In any case, FWIW, my opinion is that regardless of how a film looks during its theatrical run, that is how it ought to appear in my living room. Not because of some "artistic" regard for a director's "vision," but because I want to see movies in my home (as much as is possible to do so) just the way they were originally presented in a movie theater. Otherwise, what's the point of having a home theater?

Sans screaming kids, ringing cell phones, mouth breathing popcorn/candy munchers, and bone-headed nimrods that won't STFU.

Just my 2¢.

What about those who view movies as art AND entertainment? Despite the fact that I have yet to read anything that convinces me that movies (or photography in general) should be considered an art form, I'll disagree with your overall assessment.

Maybe I'm just a contrarian, because while I view movies as far more entertainment than art, I want to see them presented as is.

That would be a nice solution, but I wouldn't look for technology to provide an answer, given the propensity of most people to avoid fooling around with their equipment. Remember all those blinking VCRs?

LOL - thanks for this post. It made my day.

Honestly that may be one of the most ridiculous analogies I've ever read.

Time to go rent the Sand Pebbles now.... :lol:

What would you consider art then? Books, music, paintings, and sculpture can be seen just as much as entertainment as movies and photography.

Art is that thing your girlfriend/wife/whatever drags you to look at in some museum when you'd rather be watching sports, isn't it?

My point was not to get into a discussion of the definition of art. I think it's as pointless as discussing religion or politics. There's nothing that will please everyone, or that everyone will agree on.

You're right, but not all books, music, paintings and sculpture are works of art. I won't deny they can be entertaining, whether they are works of art or not, but IMHO "entertainment" is not a part of the artistic "equation."

I also recognize that photography and movies entail the use of a great deal of creativity, but that doesn't inherently make them works of art, IMHO.

YMMV

In my case, it's what I drag her to see at some museum while she would rather be watching Days of Our Lives.

So are you saying no film has ever been or ever will be art, or that there are some movies you consider to be art, and some you don't?

Yes.

Just kidding.

Well, in the same manner that I referred to in my previous reply that not every book, music, painting or piece of sculpture is art, the same could be said of movies.

It's just that at this time, I have to say I have yet to see a movie that I would consider to be Art. Can't say there is no such movie, but I haven't seen every movie. Can't say that I will never see such a movie.

Time will tell... or not... for me.

Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of art, I suppose. But I can't imagine you could see something like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Un Chien Andalou, Blue Velvet, etc. etc. and walk away thinking it's not art.

Wow, you can look up posts from last year, what a trailblazer you are!!
Things change. My shitty Orion became a shitty 46 inch Samsung that developed a warped screen after a week. This changed into a Sony 46 inch, which is hunky dory. Things change.

Mod Note: Personal attacks are not allowed at this forum. Do it again and you're gone.

:eek: Tell me how you really feel.

Did I accidentally post in Book Talk?

Worst. Thread. Ever.

MOD NOTE:
Okay, so I think this thread has gone on long enough. And the OP's question was answered. The grain is supposed to be there (just like the plot, the cast, the wardrobe, etc.). Get your last words in. If this thread doesn't die out on its own, then this thread will close shortly.

namja
Moderator, DVD Talk Forums

You're right, it does depend on my definition of art. YMMV.

I've heard of, but not seen Un Chien Andalou; Blue Velvet was meh; and while I'm a huge fan of 2001, I can't bring myself to call it art.

Just MHO.

Always easier to crack a joke than to address the point.