The Hot Blog

It's interesting that they went primarily with pre-1980s films. It's a nice cross section, but invariably the older films will have more grain. And I wonder how that'll play in HD...

TWO BEST MOVIES IN THE CRITERION CATALOG:

1) ARMAGEDDON
2) THE ROCK

With STRAW DOGS and THE KILLER running 3 and 4.

I was looking for the appropriate thread here yesterday to post this, but couldn't find one.

I was giddy all yesterday when I heard the news. I'll pick up the vast majority of this initial lineup, if not all of them. Now bring on La Belle et la Bete, Brazil, all the Tatis (Playtime in HD!), all the Kurusawas, all the Bergmans, all the Powell & Pressburgers (Black Narcissus in HD, the mind reels).....good times people, good times.

I've never understood the aversion to film grain. I've heard this complaint many times from people who don't understand that it's SUPPOSED to be there in older films. Cleaning up scratches, splotches, damages to the film master itself, that's one thing, but the inherent film grain is just part and parcel, and using DNR (Digital Noise Reduction) is a BAD BAD THING. Funnily enough, TheDigitalBits has an entry on the very thing today.

"We've been getting a few e-mails a week (over the last month or so) from readers who are new to Blu-ray, who say they're disappointed in the quality of older catalog titles on the format. They disappointed not so much the selection, but the actual video quality. One person said the colors weren't as vibrant as they were expecting. Another thought the image looked too soft. Several have complained of "noise" on their TV screens when they watched certain older films. It actually took me a while at first to understand what they meant, but now I've figured it out... and as a serious film enthusiast, it's troubling to say the least. That noise some are complaining about? It's film grain! It seems that many people who came to home theater more recently via DVD, and so who may never have seen older films in an actual movie theater before, simply don't understand what film grain is. They don't realize that it's SUPPOSED to be there.

Now, if you're one of those people... look, don't feel bad. It's okay that you didn't know what that so-called 'noise' was, because having grown up seeing older films only on DVD or cable TV, how could you know otherwise? Here's what you need to understand: Film grain is an inherent part of the texture and character of older movies, which of course were shot on photochemical film stock. The grains are tiny bits of metallic silver that are part of the actual physical structure of a piece of film. The amount of grain you see in the image may be the result of a stylistic choice by the director and cinematographer, as determined by their selection of film stock used during the production, or it's the product of the aging process of the film itself, the chemical composition of which changes over time. Often, it's a little of both. DVD didn't always have enough resolution to render grain properly, but Blu-ray does. So now many people are seeing it for the first time, and those who don't understand the nature of film think it's a defect in the disc! It's not, folks. Just like those black bars are supposed to be there on 2.35 (Scope) films - yes, even on your new widescreen HDTV sets - that grain is part of the film medium itself. Unfortunately, it seems that all too many people are expecting older films on Blu-ray to look like Ratatouille or Star Wars: Episode III. In other words, perfect - super-clean, super-clear, super-vibrant. No 'noise.'

To quote Han Solo, "I've got a BAD feeling about this." I suspect THIS issue is going to be the new anamorphic widescreen, the new black bars. This is the issue that enthusiasts and the studios are going to have to make an effort to explain to consumers who are new to Blu-ray and high-definition in general. Unfortunately, what seems to happening right now is that the studio marketing folks are conducting focus groups with new Blu-ray consumers, who are saying they want perfect pictures every time. As a result, a few of the Hollywood studios are currently A) using excessive Digital Noise Reduction to completely scrub film grain from their Blu-ray releases, or B) not releasing as many older catalog titles as they might otherwise for fear that people will complain about grain. Some studios are even going so far as to scrub the grain out of NEW releases that have been shot on film. Case in point: New Line's Pan's Labyrinth Blu-ray Disc. When I saw this film in the theaters, it was dark and gritty. The grain was a deliberate stylistic choice - part of the artistic character of the film. New Line's Blu-ray, on the other hand, is sparkly and glossy - almost entirely grain-free. So much fine detail has been removed that the faces of characters actually look waxy. Everyone looks like a plastic doll. It's worth noting that the European release doesn't suffer the same fate."

ThriceDamned, interesting post;

I've complained about this for some time now-- DVD so spoiling modern-day audio/video wonks who just don't get, or are too young, to understand that sometimes grain and imperfections are MEANT to be there.

As you say, old movies are one thing, but this has affected MANY "new" movies that looked grainy or imperfect on the big screen, only to be scrubbed clean by some overeager transfer jockey for their DVD release, in order to comply with contemporary notions of perfection.

THREE KINGS, EYES WIDE SHUT, FLAGS OF OUR FATGERS, the 2003 TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE -- these are but four random examples of beautifully grainy or intentionally blemished movies that unfortunately look as crisp and shiny as any summer blockbuster on their standard DVDs... I can imagine this tendency only gets worse on BD.

And, yeah, going back in time, I for one find it unsettling to see an old gem from the '70s looking as bright and cheery as a FRIENDS episode on their DVD. For some of those movies, I doubt they ever looked so crisp and current in their theatrical incarnations, and for so many of us, we came to know them via endless TV and cable showings in subpar prints.

Obviously those transfers wouldn't cut it today, but in some ways that tarnished look is part of what made so many movies just that much more awesome for so many years. And often it seems the folks in charge of the transfer are clueless to the original look or intention, and just run everything to the scrubmaster 2000 for a pristine transfer, regardless of circumstances.

I know what you're saying, and in some ways I agree. I do agree that the super squeaky-clean "video" look that some transfers exhibit is crappy, especially with films (as you point out) had film grain or blemishes as an artistic aesthetic. Removing those is compromising the original artistic intent, and is clearly an extreme negative.

Where I disagree is that there is some inherent charm, "awesome"ness, in seeing subpar transfers of films. Of course that's how I and most other people got to know a lot of films originally, but I've yet to encounter one of those that wasn't made better and more immersive with a clean new master, lovingly restored to its original state (or as close to as possible).

That goes for B-horror, vintage sci-fi, grindhouse flicks, or whatever you would want to throw out there as having the crappy transfers being part of the charm, let alone the true classics (The Searchers for example is really a thing of true wonder on blu-ray).

I don't have a problem with grain. My question was how people in general would react to it. That said, digital does not translate grain well -- it never seems to look right, either it's coarse or splotchy. So I do expect this to be an issue for people.

I've seen a lot of classic cinema at the theater on original prints, so I know how film grain is "supposed" to look like, and my experience is that Blu-Ray translates that extremely well. It is by far the most filmlike experience you can have in your own home.

That being said, the article at the Digital Bits supports your theory that obviously the regular Joe 6-pack (if there is such a thing) doesn't know what this "noise" on his brand-new blu-ray is and he doesn't like it. He wants the squeaky clean video look he has become accustomed to from DVD.

Regarding the SK disks, I know people who are averse to picking up Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange because of the grain, sticking instead with 2001 or say The Shining.

There is a disconnect between seeing a grainy movie in the theater and seeing one on video. In the theater it's inherently understood because of the nature of the projection -- light is going through the celluloid, and it feels organic. But in digital, that isn't the case. You're seeing a scan of the film, a simulation, if you will -- and the grain doesn't really feel natural. Because that grain doesn't actually exist in digital.

I agree with the grain concern. I had this discussion with a friend of mine a while back who is a huge technophile and couldn't wait for Blu Ray.

The problem is as you say...there is a point where the sheen of digital on some films looks every bit as unnatural as the degradation of an old VHS does.

As many people also point out, in some cases it makes the film feel "off".

I still pick up really old VHS for my library (some films are actually still not available on DVD) and for some old films I prefer a VHS. I am not talking about grade A stuff...but the grindhouse sort of horror, sci-fi schlock from the 70's and 80's.

I recently saw Krull on full screen VHS. It is a cheap, shoddy film. That is actually made more fun with a lesser format and makes you appreciate it on another level. If you up Krull to Blu Ray...where it has to stand against Transformers or Raiders...what is the point?

My guess is that true cinephiles will understand the film grain issue, just like they got letterboxing. "Joe Six-Pack" will probably never get it. "Joe" has gradually come around on letterboxing, thanks to its ubiquity on DVD and certain TV series. But grain is a thornier issue, because "Joe" isn't likely to buy or rent old movies anyway, and the newer ones can be scrubbed "clean." He'll never understand how a grainy transfer is preferable to a squeaky clean one. He'll just give you that Nigel Tufnel "These go to eleven" look.

I'll definitely be interested to see how Criterion handles this, because they set the standard for the cinephile market.

Yancy,

Your talking about "Joe Sixpack" means that - you - do not get the grain issue. The issue with letterboxing was to - as best as possible - approximate the image as you saw it on the screen in a movie theatre.

The grain issue on digital...makes the film feel slightly (or in many cases drastically) different than it did in a movie theatre.

It is not as simple as Joe Six Pack Vs. the cinephile.

It's about purity of image. Remember when all of the "cinephiles" loved that TV shows were being letterboxed. They were the "Joe Six Pack" in that scenario because the TV aspect ratio is not supposed to look like a film screen aspect ratio of the modern era. I remember Michael Mann giving an interview once saying you could always tell a poseur by whether or not they cheered the letterboxing of TV shows...

...it is not about "Joe Six Pack" it is about purity of image in relation to what you see in the theatre. That is the standard in most cases. Perhaps purely digital films being the exception.

And don't even get me started over the fact that most films are - not - actually composed for widescreen anymore but for your full screen TV.

But if it makes you feel smart...

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Most films are not composed for widescreen anymore?...but for full screen TV...in the year 2008.

Aha

That statement has absolutely NEVER been true, and least of all now, with the ongoing and relentless push towards widescreen HDTV's. I would love for you to back up that ridiculous statement with, well, something. Not that you can, since it has no basis in reality. I believe it was Mark Twain who said that it's better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Oh, and I do feel smart most days...thanks for asking though.

Nicol: I have no idea what you're talking about in relation to my comment. Maybe the negative connotation of the term "Joe Six-Pack" (which I carried over from ThriceDamned's post) made my post sound snarkier than intended. I totally get that the grain of a projected film may not translate comfortably to DVD, and that both "Joe" and the cinephiles may notice and bemoan the difference. But perhaps I should have made it clearer that my point was primarily intended to go to older films, which most folks will only ever see on DVD (or download, I guess). To the extent that "Joe" will even bother with such films, he's likely to be taken aback by the grain issue, unless it's been "scrubbed" out. This is just a reiteration of the point made in the Digital Bits article quoted upthread.

As you say, the overriding issue with letterboxing is approximating the theatrical experience at home. I fear the issue with grain has more to do with approximating the experience one has had with other DVDs, not with projected film. My guess, supported at this point only by the anecdotal evidence in the DigitalBits article, is that "Joe" will want all his Blu-Rays to have that digital sheen, regardless of any other consideration. Whereas the cinephile may say, "Well, this grain doesn't look ideal on Blu-Ray, but it's preferable to excessive DNR."

As someone who started getting into film pre-cable TV and pre-home video, and often first experienced classic films on a tiny B&W TV with incorrect aspect ratio, faded prints and tons of commercial interruptions, I'm pretty tolerant of the compromises that may be necessary in bringing older movies to DVD. But soon we'll have generations of both "Joes" and cinephiles alike for whom that format is the first they experienced. And all the logic in the world may not placate them. We still have folks who won't watch letterboxed films because "those black bars cut off half the picture" or B&W films because "the world is in color" or musicals because "people don't break into song and dance in real life." "Movies aren't supposed to have that 'noise,'" may be the next mantra. I hope that whatever happens, this "purity of image" issue doesn't keep people away from discovering films on DVD. "Joe" should realize there's more to Citizen Kane than some annoying visual "noise," and "Cinephile" shouldn't avoid Pan's Labyrinth just because he's heard all the grain has been digitally scrubbed out.

Off subject, but here's hoping that when they get around to putting Citizen Kane on Blu-Ray they fix the contrast levels in the screening room scene at the beginning - it's too bright.

I'm with thricedamned. I like film grain. I don't need a digital sheen on all my films. That's why I still have a library of tape and laserdiscs, etc. Of course, I lovd GRINDHOUSE so what do I know?

its the same as cds taking all the charecter out of a song you used to listen to on a LP.

Dagnabbit, just a few weeks ago i splashed out $64 on that Last Emperor box set. If only i'd known..... a visual masterpiece like this positively demands high-def.

hcat, I'd suggest that if a song needed the scratches of a record to give it "all the character" then it wasn't a very good song in the first place.

I adore film scratches and the like on old movies or genre flicks but if the movie in question is bad it's going to enhance anything.

it's NOT going to enhance anything.

Geez, my typing is getting atrocious.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: