Can someone explain the grainyness of some movies?
 

I've heard it before as digital grain or something like that, but, what is it, why does it happen, how can I get rid of it? It ruins the quality of the image during the movie.

movies like 300 and Black Hawk Down look as if its plastered with sand all over the image

Unfortunately, you have directors who WANT digital grain in their movies. Adds "realism"...or so they say. In most cases, I can do without it.

300 would have looked too faked without the grain added

cleaner ain't always better

Grain is a function of the way film works. Silver halide grains react to light, bundling together where light hits it. This forms a negative image that is then turned into an interpositive, which is used to make prints of the movie. So, on celluloid, grain makes the image.

Many directors who grew up either using film or watching movies with a lot of grain like the style of it and will add fake grain digitally in post. That's part of the style of the film. A lot of TVs have noise reduction filters you can apply to get rid of some of it, but you're going to end up losing details in the movie, as well. I would say get used to it, because that's how the director wanted you to see it. And in the case of stuff shot on celluloid, then it's a necessary part of the image.

Grain does not ruin the quality of the image.

I love grain on BD when it is meant to be there. My biggest problem with the format is all this DNR stuff that is ruining many films in order to make them appear grainless. As a result, the image looks all waxy and fake with no detail. So having grain is a good thing if it was meant to be that way in the first place. By removing it, you destroy the image.

Perhaps you could avoid those movies if you don't like the grain.

There's film grain, which exists for the reasons Suprmallet said: Film emulsion is made up of crystals. Then there's digital noise, or digital grain, which exist because digital images are made up of pixels.

You don't.

No, it doesn't.

Watch the blue-screen picture-in-picture feature on the "300" HD DVD and you'll see that the original image was filmed relatively cleanly. The director, Zack Snyder, added the grain deliberately, possibly just to piss you off.

Considering your hatred for black bars on your HDTV (as expressed in another thread), I don't know how you manage to watch any movies. I suggest you smoke more wiid and chill out.

Grain is good. Grain is great. More grain please, upon my plate.

Read and learn, young padawan.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa155.html#grain

Yep this is a troubling sign. I can't figure out if the studios think this is how most consumers want to see their movies, or if they're actually degrading the picture so they can re-release it again later with better picture quality.

The last two BR discs I watched had horrible evidence of this - Twister and Gattaca. No grain and no detail. This = less purchases for me.

Unfortunately, the average consumer is more like the OP, than the rest of us. BR movies are actually being "cleaned-up" because consumers with their HDTV's and hi-def players are seeing the grain as a "defect", not the intent of the director.

Sadly, DNR is the way of the future. People want HD, and to them grain does not mean HD.

Grain is present on the film more so than director's intent. If the grain is visible, you're getting higher detail out of the picture.

That said, like the OPs rant on "Black Bars" (is it 1997 again?), it's just something that some people don't like, and then there's a slew of people who hate when companies filter out the grain (and lowering image detail).

You can't please everyone. Black Hawk Down looked pretty damn good, but the grain in 300 didn't look like real film grain, and was distracting in some instances.

Actually, it's rather Elitist and rude to categorize the OP as a J169P, and he has every right to question the material he's watching. Attempting to invalidate his question and statements by throwing in the "Directoral Intention" argument, reminds me of an HD Dead Poets Society.

All this philosophical mumbo jumbo director creativity bullshit is getting a little hard to keep down in the stomach, isn't it? Because when I ever try to defend a director who makes most of his current films with grain similar to a 1960's movie, I get the shits. Really bad.

Fact is, I've seen some fucking awesome HD movies which clearly did not have the insanely grainly effect which some particular directors seem to reinforce in all their goddamn films. There are several directors who do a damn nice job and when the film is on HD, it looks spectacular...all without the overprocessed look of grain. Now read closely, there are still grain effects in these films, but not to the extent I've seen in 300, Transformers, The Kingdom, and others. Black Hawk Down looked ok actually even on DVD (don't have a Blu-ray player yet), but the contrast was too much which accentuated the grain I think. Seems like contrasty movies are associated with government/conspiracy movies which is really getting old.

Now, I can live with this grain somewhat even in these films, but hey, let's start moving along, shall we? How many films do you have to make with the same type of filter? Please. It's like a broken record. A retard in the HD Olympics who keeps on running in circles.

The DigitalBits article is informative, but still doesn't address the issue. At least to me. Bill says: "The Blu-ray presentation should replicate, as closely as possible, the best original theatrical experience of the film..."

Ok. Well, even when taking into consideration screen size to viewer distance from the screen, this won't happen. The image on the screen in a theater is still WAY TOO LARGE given the dimensions of a typical theater seating arrangement. Result? You're sitting practically inches away, seeing every little spec and film grain. When you watch the same movie in HD at your home, the image is much more condensed, and you're viewing distance is proportionally better.

(the only way to truly match the commercial theatrical experience to those watching it on their HDTVs in the home, would be to have a commercial LCD/Plasma screen in which the pixel sizes are proportionate to the home theater television's pixels and taking into account the light levels and a whole shitload of other factors. I'm talking proportionate in terms of ratio, so hopefully someone doesn't comment their 42" HDTV they just got from Best Buy is way too small for their local Cinemark Theater for everyone to enjoy...)

Besides, the first few dozen seats in a commercial theater are certainly NOT ideal. In fact, the sweet spot seats in a commercial theater are few and far between. I'd guess probably 75% of the seating in a commercial theater is NOT optimal, so what Bill is trying to convey to his readers, is worthless. Useless. Because most theater goers haven't experience the proper ratio anyway, even if they were in a theater.

So, I think we, as HD enthusiasts, need to get off the HD Podium, take our chairs off the stage, and sit down with the majority of the public who are expected to embrace High-Def. Being an elitist within an elitist and niche market is not the way to make friends and influence people.

So it's elitist to say that most movies are shot on film, and the grain of the film is a natural element of the picture? And that we'd assume most directors making a film know enough about the medium and therefore know that how it will look on film is how they want it to look?

Sorry, but I call bullshit on this. Examples like 300, with it's "digital grain", are few-and-far-between, and only a recent phenomenon. With 99% of all movies out there having been shot on film, there should be no effort to degrade the original transfer image so that people have "less grain" on their televisions. It's a fad, or a marketing ploy. Film has the most to gain from HD, and at $25-a-pop for Blu-rays, I expect that image to be preserved.

But I guess people are willing to watch shit-looking videos off of youtube, yet want to bitch about grain showing up on their toy-of-the-month plasma t.v. You can call us elitist all you want - I call the other side of the coin "under-educated" on the subject.

Excessive DNR is this generation's MAR/fullscreen. If the grain was there in the theaters, then it should be on the BD. It's as simple as that. If you can honestly say that you think such titles as Face/Off and Scary Movie look good in HD, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

The problem is that many people think that HD should "pop" and and many films we not filmed that way. So to DNR them to hell to achieve that look is going to destroy the detail of the image and turn it into a waxy mess.

So if you don't like the look of grain, then too bad because that's the way the film was shot and meant to be seen. And if it really bothers you, then don't watch those movies. But to alter the original look of the image to make the grain go away is flat out stupid. This argument is in the same league as MAR. The look of a film should not be altered to please a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about.

Now to clarify, almost all titles have some DNR work done on them and that's fine. But there is a new trend in HD now of excessively removing every speck of grain and that is wrong in so many ways. There is a huge difference between maintaining the grain in an image and wiping it out completely.

Hi all Im new to the forum and Im loving this thread Im hoping to get into all the HD goodness with or without "grain" but to be honest being new to HD and all I would have probably been on the same boat as the OP as saying whats this shit??? But now I will watch and realise that BHD is meant to be grainy and all will be good.

So, is it HD sports that is causing everyone to want their films to look like they're being viewed through a pristine window?

Some films are served well by that kind of look, but again, grain, like color timing, aspect ratio, camera angles, etc., is one of many creative tools in a filmmaker's toolbox to help create a certain feel for each shot, scene, etc.

As long as one can learn to distinguish between actual digital noise (not intended) vs. film grain (natural or artificially added for aesthetic reason), it's easy to enjoy HD films which have grain.

What a strange post. By your argument, all Blu-rays could actually tint the movies blue and we should be okay with it, because it's not possible to actually replicate the theatrical experience.

Grain IS an inherent part of film. It's supposed to be visible (to a point).

DNR use should be kept to a minimum, IMO. Overuse of DNR does tend to make the picture softer, which takes away some of the fine detail, which makes the Blu Ray look like a DVD with a smoother, cleaner (but not really sharper) image.

That isn't going to WOW very many potential new Blu Ray consumers.

But what I'm seeing so far is a new format that is going through what DVD went through in the early years. The people producing the Blu Ray discs are learning what works, what doesn't, and what goes over well with both the average consumer and the HD enthusiast.

Some Blu Ray releases are incredible, some are merely good. I'm being as selective as possible when it comes to Blu Ray purchases - I don't want to double dip on this format down the line if I can avoid it (I'll just wait on titles that have significantly flawed Blu Ray releases for the inevitable remastered editions).

This grain, "Issue," sounds like Blu Ray's equivalent of the DVD anamorphic widescreen issue. Educating the average consumer and getting the studios to release the films as they actually ARE (not how they WANT them to look) is the next, "Battle" for enthusiasts.

I can see both sides, however being ridiculed because I want my image to look pristine is not the route to go.

I'm on a huge gaming forum ;NeoGAF, and one thing that is hard to accept for them, much like the hardcore on this forum, is that you make up such a small percentage of a market (usually less than 1%) that even though you guys might be RIGHT in the sense that you like grain for aethetic reasons, anytime I have someone over and we watch some Blu-Ray and the grain is prominent they begin to question the point of upgrading to a new hi-def tv and especially to upgrading to Blu-Ray, which for the MAIN CONSUMER is an expensive endevure.

I'd rather Blu-ray remain niche and more expensive if it means actually translating the look of the films correctly. If every film was riddled with excessive DNR, it wouldn't be worth any money to me at all.

and again you miss the point. Markets are dictated by the MASS CONSUMER. Not some "suprmallet" guy on a dvd forum that

Laserdisc was around for almost twenty years without ever breaking into the mass consumption market. I'd be more than happy with a life cycle like that. Although I think Blu-ray will probably be supplanted by yet another technology in about ten years.

First sentence is exactly the way I feel. What's the use of format that can better match the theater experience... if the studios change the content to be more pleasing to a home audience.

I have more faith that Blu-ray the niche will get it right. While Blu-ray with mass acceptance will end up dumbed down, smoothed over, and a waste of bits.

-beebs

When DVD came out and almost all releases were presented in widescreen with black bars at the top and bottom of the picture, the "mass consumer" largely hated it because they were uneducated about why their DVDs looked the way they did. But, thanks to popular forums such as this one, consumers eventually learned why they should want their movies presented the way they were made, and now widescreen is the norm.

Rather than kowtowing to the uneducated, early Blu-ray adopters should and will educate people what to expect from high definition.