An explanation on film grain, or graininess on Blu-ray

[Qbanj69]

Yes, some people use Digital, although digital has a different kind of "Grain", its not the same thing at all, but can look similar, especially in dark scenes.


Someone used the example of the Dark Knight, well Imax cameras are not as good in low light situations, there is no such thing as a perfect digital camera that without post processing will give non artifact images. Digital "grain" exists too, although much much less, and usually in darker areas.





Did you read the 1st part of this topic? You cannot remove grain. GRAIN IS THE FILM. The very nature of Film (that they make the movies on) is a silver halide crystal, that is the grain. So you are asking for movies to basically not exist.

By removing grain, through a process called DNR (digital noise reduction) you greatly reduce the quality of the movie. It doesn't look as sharp, and it can make some colors look weird. Its a very bad thing for the majority of situations.

People need to realize that while they may dislike Grain, its a part of the movie business. And if you like watching movies in HD, get used to grain. It isn't going anywhere. The whole idea of HD discs like Blu-ray is to show the movie as it was made, high resolution, movie theather sound..... and grain.

People think HD should be CRISP and CLEAR. That is a huge misconception and mistake on the consumers part. In actual fact, HD discs make MORE grain seen on screen. There is no way around this, its just how it is.






Also...

They shouldn't remove grain from movies. Its a big trade off, remove grain and have less detail and smooth strange looking movies, or leave the grain, have grain but also have a sharp image that looks how its supposed to. I'm not for DNR processing, it ruins the movie.


High Definition brings out the grain even more... which for some people seems backwards, but in reality its a good thing. There is only so much that can be cleaned up due to transfer process, the rest is THE film.... so removing it is directly screwing with quality. Leave it.

You are right in saying that grain cannot be removed without sacrificing picture quality, however, you are PARTIALLY wrong in saying that the picture in digital HDcams is naturally grainy (albeit "different" type of grain).

Most of the grain comes after the editing/ post production of a movie. For example, when you take a picture from your digital camera (best quality) and transport it over to photoshop, the raw image that appears will be the best quality of that photo. After you save it to your computer, via jpeg or w/e you chose, you will lose quality, visible or not.

This is sort of what happens post production of a movie, and why grain becomes apparent when they go through filters and such.

Also, you can see this different between LIVE HD programming and movies. MOST live HD programming (some better than others- thats a different topic) will have little to no visible grain at all.

REFLEX- If I am completely wrong i am open for rebuttal since I am not the one to be talking about films/ post production, this is just what ive learned and the examples that others knowledgeable to this subject have told me.

[REFLEX]

Its true, some compression and transferring will lead to digital grain, I just know that form reading some interviews with some tech heads, HD mags and personal experience from using an HD camera to make short movies that in dark scenes the cameras can run into some issues with what looks like grain.

All digital definitely takes out actual grain, and it reduces a lot of other things that look like it.

[Santiago]

Yes, some people use Digital, although digital has a different kind of "Grain", its not the same thing at all, but can look similar, especially in dark scenes.


Someone used the example of the Dark Knight, well Imax cameras are not as good in low light situations, there is no such thing as a perfect digital camera that without post processing will give non artifact images. Digital "grain" exists too, although much much less, and usually in darker areas.





Did you read the 1st part of this topic? You cannot remove grain. GRAIN IS THE FILM. The very nature of Film (that they make the movies on) is a silver halide crystal, that is the grain. So you are asking for movies to basically not exist.

By removing grain, through a process called DNR (digital noise reduction) you greatly reduce the quality of the movie. It doesn't look as sharp, and it can make some colors look weird. Its a very bad thing for the majority of situations.

People need to realize that while they may dislike Grain, its a part of the movie business. And if you like watching movies in HD, get used to grain. It isn't going anywhere. The whole idea of HD discs like Blu-ray is to show the movie as it was made, high resolution, movie theather sound..... and grain.

People think HD should be CRISP and CLEAR. That is a huge misconception and mistake on the consumers part. In actual fact, HD discs make MORE grain seen on screen. There is no way around this, its just how it is.






Also...

They shouldn't remove grain from movies. Its a big trade off, remove grain and have less detail and smooth strange looking movies, or leave the grain, have grain but also have a sharp image that looks how its supposed to. I'm not for DNR processing, it ruins the movie.


High Definition brings out the grain even more... which for some people seems backwards, but in reality its a good thing. There is only so much that can be cleaned up due to transfer process, the rest is THE film.... so removing it is directly screwing with quality. Leave it.

Yes, I did read the first part of the topic, and then the next post, and the post after it - %$#@, I read all of them. Qbanj69 made a joke about re-releasing them with reduced/no grain and I simply asked if he was serious. He didn't say they would magically make them disappear, as a matter of fact, he didn't mention a process at all, just made a statement. For the same reason why you can ask me if I read it and in the very next paragraph mention a process called DNR, it's not like my question was totally absurd, maybe they found a new way to do it. Especially in the context of getting rid of grain that was intentionally put in to add to the film's effects - like 300, which plenty of people had said was added intentionally, but with the additional clarity, seemed a little overdone. These were the films I was mostly referring to.

While I make not understand the ENTIRE process and properties of film/grain, etc, I get the idea. There isn't much you can do about it. And hey, that's cool. I am not mad at that at all, and it will certainly not effect me rebuying a few of my favorites on BR, that includes 300 and all it's overdone grain. I'm not asking for film to not exist, and I certainly wouldn't sacrifice the director's vision nor colors to eliminate grain which I've been watching since VCR tapes.

And since you did ask, again yes, I did read it and found it very informative. Your explanation is very much appreciated - I forgot to shout you out when I first posted in this thread. Your LCD TV explanation in the other sticky was also very helpful, thanks.

Now, when anybody complains about grain in films during a conversation, I get to say, yep, film is made out of silver halide crystal and there isn't much they can do about the grain without seriously comprimising the film. I'll throw in some filler to cover what I didn't remember and look like the man! As a matter of fact, I've already done it with a co-worker who also has a PS3 and saw 300!

Thanks.

[jlippone]

Especially in the context of getting rid of grain that was intentionally put in to add to the film's effects - like 300, which plenty of people had said was added intentionally, but with the additional clarity, seemed a little overdone. These were the films I was mostly referring to.

In case of 300 which they shot with digital cameras against a blue/green screen and removed grain from the image.
In post they combined the image with rendered backgrounds and added grain.
It was both artistic and technical decision as it makes it harder to distinguish CGI from actual footage.

[REFLEX]

Yes, I did read the first part of the topic, and then the next post, and the post after it - %$#@, I read all of them. Qbanj69 made a joke about re-releasing them with reduced/no grain and I simply asked if he was serious. He didn't say they would magically make them disappear, as a matter of fact, he didn't mention a process at all, just made a statement. For the same reason why you can ask me if I read it and in the very next paragraph mention a process called DNR, it's not like my question was totally absurd, maybe they found a new way to do it. Especially in the context of getting rid of grain that was intentionally put in to add to the film's effects - like 300, which plenty of people had said was added intentionally, but with the additional clarity, seemed a little overdone. These were the films I was mostly referring to.

While I make not understand the ENTIRE process and properties of film/grain, etc, I get the idea. There isn't much you can do about it. And hey, that's cool. I am not mad at that at all, and it will certainly not effect me rebuying a few of my favorites on BR, that includes 300 and all it's overdone grain. I'm not asking for film to not exist, and I certainly wouldn't sacrifice the director's vision nor colors to eliminate grain which I've been watching since VCR tapes.

And since you did ask, again yes, I did read it and found it very informative. Your explanation is very much appreciated - I forgot to shout you out when I first posted in this thread. Your LCD TV explanation in the other sticky was also very helpful, thanks.

Now, when anybody complains about grain in films during a conversation, I get to say, yep, film is made out of silver halide crystal and there isn't much they can do about the grain without seriously comprimising the film. I'll throw in some filler to cover what I didn't remember and look like the man! As a matter of fact, I've already done it with a co-worker who also has a PS3 and saw 300!

Thanks.

Its all good man, people need to learn, and I'm one of them! I don't know everything.. so I understand.

[Santiago]

It was both artistic and technical decision as it makes it harder to distinguish CGI from actual footage.

That's what I figured, and it worked great, especially since the graphic novel had a grainy feel to it. The first time I caught on to that little trick was during battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan. It came off as that old looking WWII footage, but I knew it was masking the CGI and real footage. Either way, I personally think they do a great job. I guess I'll see for myself one day about 300, I doubt I'll be disappointed, especially now that I know a little bit more about the behind the scenes process.

Its all good man, people need to learn, and I'm one of them! I don't know everything.. so I understand.

Ditto brother, it's all good. Oh, I finished the Home Theatre sticky, well at least your explanation and the first two pages (I can't bring myself to go through all 40 pages) - thanks, very informative. I don't have the means for ISF yet, but I'll be getting the calibration disc. Funny, I see Monster has a calibration disc where they reference ISF. I wonder if it's more hype or if their calibration disc brings more to the table than the AVIA disc.

Anywho, thanks to all for the information on this site. I feel bad for the salesman that trys to pull the wool over my eyes...OUCH!

[KSD22]

You are right in saying that grain cannot be removed without sacrificing picture quality, however, you are PARTIALLY wrong in saying that the picture in digital HDcams is naturally grainy (albeit "different" type of grain).

Most of the grain comes after the editing/ post production of a movie. For example, when you take a picture from your digital camera (best quality) and transport it over to photoshop, the raw image that appears will be the best quality of that photo. After you save it to your computer, via jpeg or w/e you chose, you will lose quality, visible or not.

This is sort of what happens post production of a movie, and why grain becomes apparent when they go through filters and such.

Also, you can see this different between LIVE HD programming and movies. MOST live HD programming (some better than others- thats a different topic) will have little to no visible grain at all.

REFLEX- If I am completely wrong i am open for rebuttal since I am not the one to be talking about films/ post production, this is just what ive learned and the examples that others knowledgeable to this subject have told me.

HD or Digital Grain is not actually Grain. You are confusing digital noise with film grain. When you shoot a film with fast film stock that absorbs more light under low light situations you end up with film grain. It's chemical process. Also under exposing film stock and pushing the stock in processing will also trigger a heavier grain structure.
But with digital cameras, there is no Fast or Slow stock. There is only the Tape or the DI/HD DRIVE. Thus low light exposures are controlled through something called Digital Gain. This is very similar to using a fast film stock to compensate for low light exposures on the celluloid level.
By pumping the GAIN, a digital Camera can thus capture images that are normally too under exposed to show up on film. But in return the digital camera must fill in the unknowns. This is the best way I can explain HD noise, the camera is simply unsure of what color to put within a single pixel grid. Hence the fluxuation which looks like grain. Basically the camera is guessing at anything that it can't see.
Best example is to watch Miami Vice the movie, shot on the Viper HD. Anytime you have night scene, the digital gain was pumped to the max and the noise was all over the place.
Hope that explains things better.

This is my first post on this site. Great site and great sticky.
I hope more people will understand that grain is a fundamental part of film making. It has become an artistic tool for filmmakers, and should never ever be masked with modern technology. Processes like DNR Digital Noise Reduction or DNM Digital Natural Motion do nothing but ruins masterpieces.

To remove grain or to smooth out 24p stutter is the equivalent of pissing on the Mona Lisa. In my humble opinion.

I hope to see another STICKY of 24fps and films natural blur and stutter over modern motion smoothing technology.

[REFLEX]

You'll eventually see something like that. Believe me, I agree about Motion Flow, Smooth, DNR (removing grain from Blu-ray)... being a totally AWFUL thing to do. Ruining a movie is what it is.

[Staticneuron]

HD or Digital Grain is not actually Grain. You are confusing digital noise with film grain. When you shoot a film with fast film stock that absorbs more light under low light situations you end up with film grain. It's chemical process. Also under exposing film stock and pushing the stock in processing will also trigger a heavier grain structure.
But with digital cameras, there is no Fast or Slow stock. There is only the Tape or the DI/HD DRIVE. Thus low light exposures are controlled through something called Digital Gain. This is very similar to using a fast film stock to compensate for low light exposures on the celluloid level.
By pumping the GAIN, a digital Camera can thus capture images that are normally too under exposed to show up on film. But in return the digital camera must fill in the unknowns. This is the best way I can explain HD noise, the camera is simply unsure of what color to put within a single pixel grid. Hence the fluxuation which looks like grain. Basically the camera is guessing at anything that it can't see.
Best example is to watch Miami Vice the movie, shot on the Viper HD. Anytime you have night scene, the digital gain was pumped to the max and the noise was all over the place.
Hope that explains things better.

This is my first post on this site. Great site and great sticky.
I hope more people will understand that grain is a fundamental part of film making. It has become an artistic tool for filmmakers, and should never ever be masked with modern technology. Processes like DNR Digital Noise Reduction or DNM Digital Natural Motion do nothing but ruins masterpieces.

To remove grain or to smooth out 24p stutter is the equivalent of pissing on the Mona Lisa. In my humble opinion.

I hope to see another STICKY of 24fps and films natural blur and stutter over modern motion smoothing technology.

Wow, I just found this information out earlier toay after purchasing my new canon SD880IS. I got it because of the Digic4 proc, only to find out that at high ISO's it showed, what I thought, was grain. After doing research i was surprised at this digital noise. I thought that camera's would do better than this and assume nearest neighbor, or mathematically come up with an answer after guaging surounding pixels.

[REFLEX]

Wow, I just found this information out earlier toay after purchasing my new canon SD880IS. I got it because of the Digic4 proc, only to find out that at high ISO's it showed, what I thought, was grain. After doing research i was surprised at this digital noise. I thought that camera's would do better than this and assume nearest neighbor, or mathematically come up with an answer after guaging surounding pixels.

Is that a camera or video camera? Different ranges of cameras (photo or video) handle high ISO differently.

My Canon will handle extremely high ISO very well, like ISO6400. While some cameras can only go ISO1600... and look not great at that ISO.


ISO sensitivity introduces digital noise... I doubt it will ever 100% go away. Something you have to compensate for.

[Staticneuron]

Is that a camera or video camera? Different ranges of cameras (photo or video) handle high ISO differently.

My Canon will handle extremely high ISO very well, like ISO6400. While some cameras can only go ISO1600... and look not great at that ISO.


ISO sensitivity introduces digital noise... I doubt it will ever 100% go away. Something you have to compensate for.

That sounds sad. But it is a camera, a point and shoot. I understood they were not as great as DSLR's but I was surprised it couldn't handle an advertised feature well. The performance at ISO 1600 isn't that great at all in certain lighting.

[wolfing]

I read all the explanations... and I still prefer my HD movies without grain. Yes, I like my HD movies to look crisp and sharp, not look like it's raining in all scenes. I see why studios would want to remove the grain from films, many people probably complain that the movies are 'defective'... I seriously thought there was some problem with my PS3, but figured out it must be something else as games look pretty sharp without grain, so must be something with the movie, some movies had grain, some didn't... But then I bought Planet Earth, and when I saw segments with no grain and segments with, I did some research and found out that the segments filmed with standard cameras would show the grain while segments filmed with HD digital cameras wouldn't. I like the segments without grain much better.

[REFLEX]

When studios remove grain that is naturally present, you get LESS detail. Noise Reduction in images or video will always take away details. This is regardless of whether or not you like grain or do not like grain. This is why in most cases it is a good thing to keep in the movie.

[hisame]

Humm, older movies tend to be more grainy.
I try not to get those 20 year old remades on BD.
Due to both the more grainy film at the time, and the age of the film.

Chemicals used in film did improve over the year,
new films are less grainy, last longer and won't get burnt as easy.
Personally I think they should just use larger film like i-max size film.

[Phaded]

I really really couldn't imagine The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on Blu-Ray without the grain, watch the film the way it was meant to be seen, if you don't like the grain just don't watch it. Then again you could watch a massively tampered with version of the film that doesn't do it any justice at all except to just appease your appetite.

[udontneed2know]

Newer movies are grain free. Older movies have grain because they were shot on film. Doesn't matter how much you digitize it, the main source of the picture is still film, which has a god-awful amount of grain to try and weed through in editing. Just impossible to do.

The best example of trying extremely hard, doing a very good job of it but still not being able to battle it in every scene is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. 80% of the movie looks like it was filmed about 3 years ago. The other 20% looks like it was filmed 35 years ago.

But overall, there is no contest. I tried to watch The Dark Knight on DVD recently and just could not stomach it past the scene when Joker interrupts the fund raiser for Two-Face. It was just plain bad in comparison.

[LfCpS3]

So this is why black hawk down is soo grainy?

Well it does add to the grittiness of war now i actually think about it.

Thanks for clearing this up for me

[emacs]

Newer movies are grain free

not necessarily. a filmmaker is free to choose whichever analogue filmstock and/or post-processing effect to achieve visuals of his or her choosing. also, inexpensive digital cameras typically have censors that don't perform too well with high ISO settings (which are required for low-light photography).

[Inzane2050]

The grain isn't meant to be there in most movies. It just exists bcuz it cannot be removed so easily without affecting the picture quality. I got The Dark Knight, thinking that it would be grain-free bcuz of the IMAX film, but that wasn't the case. It was still a lot clean than Batman Begins thanks to the huge ass IMAX film, but it still had grain present.