Disappointing if true

[littlesaint]

I always appreciated the nuance of film grain. There's a reason some directors/cinematographers refuse to give up film.

http://gizmodo.com/392663/hollywood-attacking-film-grain-for-blu+ray

[Chris D]

While I like the "look" of film, film grain itself is something that I personally think we can do away with. My own taste.

[H.T.C]

Film is better compared to some of the shot on video digital crap that gets on dvd nowadays and as far grain is concerned it could be seen on the theater screen also but granted more so on older movies,its part of film history.

Next there will be a review on someone who cant watch a movie because of Q-marks which had to do with the change over on 20 min reels on older films before the platter system.

Q-marks can be viewed as circles/ovals or an asterisk on the upper ( usually) right side of the movie cut into the print made by a projectionist or studio itself not easily viewed on letterboxed or widescreen films.

It's not that i like grain in and of itself but does it really destroy the viewing in hd that much.?

[littlesaint]

I guess for new films, removing grain isn't a big deal as long as it doesn't look processed. To go back and remove it from older films, IMO, changes the look and feel of the film.

[impala454]

I'll take movies as crisp and real as I can get them. I don't mind it on the old films, but for the love of God don't add grain to new films. The grain added to 300 practically put me into a seizure.

[Ovation]

If the goal of HDM is (as I think it should be) to represent, as accurately as possible (within all the limitations that entails), the original new print of a film as released--whenever that was, then any use of DNR to remove naturally occurring film grain is wrong (it is akin to rubbing down paintings to make them "smoother"). Now, of course there will be circumstances that make it difficult to present things "as they were" and people should not go into apoplectic fits when the surviving material that is used to make a release (The Searchers is relatively famous for having caused more stir than necessary) don't match up with things "as they were" with 100% precision (assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that anyone's memory of the film "as it was" is intact). But the studios should not be "artificially smoothing" out material just to please an uneducated public. It should, instead, include a short intro with a technician explaining (in less than a minute) that some grain is natural (use side by side shots as visuals) and intentional.

A pipe dream, of course. But that's what I'd do if I ran things.

[Alaric]

If the goal of HDM is (as I think it should be) to represent, as accurately as possible (within all the limitations that entails), the original new print of a film as released--whenever that was, then any use of DNR to remove naturally occurring film grain is wrong (it is akin to rubbing down paintings to make them "smoother"). Now, of course there will be circumstances that make it difficult to present things "as they were" and people should not go into apoplectic fits when the surviving material that is used to make a release (The Searchers is relatively famous for having caused more stir than necessary) don't match up with things "as they were" with 100% precision (assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that anyone's memory of the film "as it was" is intact). But the studios should not be "artificially smoothing" out material just to please an uneducated public. It should, instead, include a short intro with a technician explaining (in less than a minute) that some grain is natural (use side by side shots as visuals) and intentional.

A pipe dream, of course. But that's what I'd do if I ran things.

Yup.I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about the concept of "in context". Casablanca was grainy-it was shot on grainy film , the director knew it , and the shots used that texture to add to the film. That is the way some stories were told-if you don't like it go rent a Cohen Bros. nightmare and enjoy . Just don't tell me my copy of Silent Running (yes , VHS) is "bad".

[George Bellefontaine]

But the studios should not be "artificially smoothing" out material just to please an uneducated public. It should, instead, include a short intro with a technician explaining (in less than a minute) that some grain is natural (use side by side shots as visuals) and intentional.

That's how I feel about the whole matter.

[H.T.C]

That's how I feel about the whole matter.

They tried that with widescreen and in some cases it worked except for the ones who had to have the entire screen filled because letterboxeding was taking away part of the square shape of the television set.

Its doubtful many of the general consumers knew what film grain was anyways and just enjoyed their hdtv or amc programming,now,with this article its only going to open another can of worms thats really not needed and more reasons to complain with less enjoyment for a hobby that was once entertaining and which has become far more complex then intended to be.

I believe ovation has a good idea and perhaps studios will put on dvd the most asked tech (top ten) questions and get answers.

[David Meek]

That's how I feel about the whole matter.

Add me to this gang, too.

[impala454]

how do you guys feel about brand new movies adding grain?

[littlesaint]

If a film is shot on film, it should have a certain amount of grain now matter how old it is. If it is shot digitally, and grain is added for a stylized effect like 300, it can be annoying if overdone. I didn't mind it so much in 300 because it was supposed to add to the "comic book" feel of the film, and I thought for the most part it worked.

[George Bellefontaine]

If a film is shot on film, it should have a certain amount of grain now matter how old it is. If it is shot digitally, and grain is added for a stylized effect like 300, it can be annoying if overdone. I didn't mind it so much in 300 because it was supposed to add to the "comic book" feel of the film, and I thought for the most part it worked.

Yes.

[Chris D]

Now that I think about it, I think that movies should remain as they were recorded--if the original is old and had grain, it should stay like that. For example, even though "U2: Rattle and Hum" is now on BD and HD-DVD, I still appreciate that it has all the original black and white film grain. But new movies filmed in HD, I don't think we need to have grain just because that's "tradition for movies". I think a movie filmed in the future, with perfect visual clarity would be awesome.

[David Meek]

Grain in new films? Phooey. The only time I might not object would be if it was filmed in sepia tones and some grain added for an antique feel. The only example that comes to mind would be Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow.

[Ovation]

To be fair, a "new" movie can certainly have whatever the filmmakers want to put for effect--and that should be faithfully reproduced, insofar as it is possible, in HDM. American Gangsters, for example, is shot in a style reminiscent of many crime/mob movies of the seventies and it comes across well on the HD DVD. Whether there is film grain or not should not be dependent upon WHEN the film was made but HOW the filmmaker chose to film it. I may not be a big fan of the graininess of 300 but I want the disc to reproduce what the filmmakers intended. From there, I can properly judge its aesthetic qualities. If it is "scrubbed clean" for me in advance, then I am no longer privy to what the filmmakers intended, but rather what some technician after the fact intended (unless it is determined that the filmmakers approve the alterations and that such approval is easily verified).

The goal should ALWAYS be to faithfully represent the original as closely as possible.

[George Bellefontaine]

The goal should ALWAYS be to faithfully represent the original as closely as possible.

Listen up, Mr. Turner and stop colorizing those classic B&W films. :P

[H.T.C]

Listen up, Mr. Turner and stop colorizing those classic B&W films. :P

Two 1950 b@w sci-fi horror films had been colorized for dvd release: it came from beneath the sea and 20 million miles to earth a (ray harryhausen) classic and it has been said the later film was always intended in color but no production budget to do this.

Both movies can viewed in color or b@w on dvd.

[littlesaint]

Listen up, Mr. Turner and stop colorizing those classic B&W films. :P

That's another interesting situation. There's also the rare, reverse situation.

Have you seen the B&W version of The Mist? The director originally wanted to release in B&W, but the studio contract wouldn't allow for it, so he put the B&W release on the DVD. I found the B&W version to much more impact than the color version.

[George Bellefontaine]

Have you seen the B&W version of The Mist? The director originally wanted to release in B&W, but the studio contract wouldn't allow for it, so he put the B&W release on the DVD. I found the B&W version to much more impact than the color version.

Yes, I saw that and agree. B&W can be used to good effect for certian types of stories and The Mist was one of them.

[Ovation]

That's another interesting situation. There's also the rare, reverse situation.

Have you seen the B&W version of The Mist? The director originally wanted to release in B&W, but the studio contract wouldn't allow for it, so he put the B&W release on the DVD. I found the B&W version to much more impact than the color version.

If the director is ok with it, I have no problems (as long as the original is still available for viewing). But Turner's colourizing of films is among the most heinous blights ever perpetrated on an art form.