CSI:Miami is shot on film. All of the CSIs are.
They are heavily post-processed to get the "feel" of the individual shows.
Hollywood Studios Are Removing Grain For Blu-Ray Movie Reissues
- Thread starter gadgtfreek
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 41
- Views 4K
CSI:Miami is shot on film. All of the CSIs are.
They are heavily post-processed to get the "feel" of the individual shows.
Since any spot that contains grain can't contain picture information, how is it not classified as noise?
You might like the visual effect, but it's still noise.
Granularity is often referred to as noise. Film has a characteristic grain structure which is the random optical texture of processed film due to the presence of small grains of a metallic silver developed from silver halide that have received enough photons. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect.
In video and television, noise refers to the random dot pattern that is superimposed on the picture as a result of electronic noise. Digitally shot footage lacks grain. Noise can often be seen in dark areas shot in low lighting. Film grain can also be emulated with image noise in post production and referred to as a "grain-like affect" which is what amir did in diogen's post. Some people like this effect and some think it looks harsher than film grain.
Then there is the removal of natural film grain, through noise reduction which is the crux of the op. This leads to a plasticy appearance as we have seen in titles such as face/off and on many TV shows that are shot on film and then digitally transeferred.
S~
First grain is not really a spot. http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf
Noise just like dirt in small quantities is good for you. Yes, There's Such a Thing as Too Clean - New York Times
I believe the grain issue is blown w-a-a-a-a-y-y-y out of proportion. Just like with everything we, humans, can't explain.
Everybody agrees grain increases percieved (only!) sharpness. Amir's pics prove it.
Since nobody knows why, "purists" are very adamant to keep it as is at all cost. Refering to director's intent.
Reading video forums for over 7 years I've never - ever - seen a published director opinion on the issue (let's leave Michael Bay out of this).
With very few exception (one of the recent - 300, maybe) I don't think director has a clue. And gives a damn. Some noise has to be there, but that's all...
I believe grain is noise. Very specific noise. Just like a pistol is a firearm...
Diogen.
Everybody agrees grain increases percieved (only!) sharpness. Amir's pics prove it.
Since nobody knows why, "purists" are very adamant to keep it as is at all cost. Refering to director's intent.
Reading video forums for over 7 years I've never - ever - seen a published director opinion on the issue (let's leave Michael Bay out of this).
With very few exception (one of the recent - 300, maybe) I don't think director has a clue. And gives a damn. Some noise has to be there, but that's all...
I believe grain is noise. Very specific noise. Just like a pistol is a firearm...
Diogen.
Oh come on, Michael Bay is everyone's hero 
You're right, but there is a corollation between resolution, grain, speed, and exposure. Too much grain can have the opposite affect where it looks soft as noticed and bitched about with 300.
S~
You're right, but there is a corollation between resolution, grain, speed, and exposure. Too much grain can have the opposite affect where it looks soft as noticed and bitched about with 300.S~
Use of the word random indicates it is unintended -- which means it's noise.
You mean electronic processing and manipulation. A great example of this in MPEG-2 is mosquito noise.
Collateral comes to mind for this -- Michael Mann used the medium very effectively in this film.
The problem is this; it's noise and as such it's a randomized element. This makes things very difficult for the encoder which doesn't do well with high entropy content. This can push bandwidth very high with little reason to do so. There are tools to insert grain back in based on the film that was used.
My great issue with all this is that grain is noise and the only reason it's considered "desirable" is that this technology was here first. Had it been the other way around, I don't think many people would be waxing rhapsodically about film grain.
My point to CSI as an example was the whole film/HD camera look, just like Crank. People tend to prefer this "clean" look and some even think that all movies will look that way once they buy into HDM, hence the 300 backlash. I like movies that look like crank, i like movies that look like collateral and I thought speed racer looked good and fit. I just want the movies given to me as close to the intended form, I dont want studios screwing with them unnecessarily during the process.
There are already provisions for a "film grain" channel in MPEG-4 AVC.
http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/2003_09_SanDiego/JVT-I034.doc
I don't know if anybody's using it, but it would be great to have a choice.
Thomson's Film Grain Technology was mandatory in HD DVD
HD DVD adopts Thomson's Film Grain technology
Diogen.
HD DVD adopts Thomson's Film Grain technology
Diogen.
Looks like a format overrun by 17 year old PS3 owners is going to ruin movie quality now. Live by the sword, die by the sword I guess. Grain is essential to film. Get ready for everything to look like video game CGI.
Ive heard the same complaint out of a few adults I know. People who don't know any better and just want a pretty picture. Same people that do not like the fact that every film does not fill the entire screen on a 16x9 tv.
Agreed. I think this is the same people that place every TV into torch mode in the stores.
Good lord, it isn't either this or that. It's a continuum of looks available to the director.
And BTW, the director generally has final say on the look for consumer releases as well.
Cheers,
The TV manufacturers do this so that their TV stands out as brightest in the bunch.
Good lord. Read the article Its about going against the intent of the directors and releasing OLD movies with NO grain. This is a response to what consumers want which will override the intent of the director. If its happening for old releases it wont be long before the director is told what to do by the studios.
You can read can't you?
And the same people that use torch mode at home.
The Bram Stokers Dracula BD comes to mind. The PQ was so so IMHO, but according to blu-ray folks it was how the directed wanted it. If this is true, fine by me. Should they take the director out of the loop and make it pretty because thats what people that dont know any better want, I dont think so. Thats really my only issue/fear.
In the end, it depends on who owns the final word. In some cases, it'll be the studios, in some it will be the director.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the director might want the sharper presentation.
You can read can't you?
You seem to like polarization of topics -- when the real world is rarely as simple as 1 or 0.
I don't have a problem with the stores being in torch mode, as long as the manufacturer gives me a picture setting that is in the ballpark of the established D65 white point.
I know it isn't happening but I can dream.
I'd like to see what Coppola thought of the Blu-ray, instead of taking someone else's word for it
Yeah, a good example is the new panny 800u thats "THX Calibrated". Early reviews seem to make one think its better to spend less on the 85u and pay $400 for a proper calibration ( exactly what Im doing)
I'd like to see what Coppola thought of the Blu-ray, instead of taking someone else's word for it
Me too, because it did look like ***T.
