5 ms·

What's appealing about film grain isn't the grain as such so much as it is the knowledge that it's an artifact of an analog process in a world where nigh everyt

What's appealing about film grain isn't the grain as such so much as it is the knowledge that it's an artifact of an analog process in a world where nigh everything is digitally produced. It has a warmth that's inextricably tied to a sense of authenticity. Removing the real grain and adding synthesized faux-grain doesn't just remove that attraction, it feels actively deceptive, even if it's indistinguishable from the real thing visually.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
How is anolog "authentic?" How is anolog qualitatively different from digital from an authenticity standpoint?
- vagabund 4y ago
  I'm not saying it's inherently more authentic, just that that's the perception, and that perception drives part of the appeal for film grain.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    But my perception is entirely the opposite, that grain is the result of low quality film, low quality digital sensors, or a gimmick. Why should artists be targeting your perception over mine?
    - vagabund 4y ago
      Again, not making a normative statement about the superiority of film grain or analog or anything. If your perception is that grain is a gimmick, then you should likewise not want it synthetically reinserted into the stream. The point I'm making is that those who do like film grain overwhelmingly hold that view in part because of the source of its creation and not because of its detached-from-context aesthetic effect per se -- much the same way that people enjoy the warm crackle of a vinyl record, but don't want a facsimile of it overlayed on their spotify audio. So, for the majority of those that like film grain it feels deceptive, and for those that don't it's an added annoyance. It's only appealing to what I surmise is a vanishingly small subset of Netflix's customers that just want the visual artifact of grain and don't care where it came from or if it is original to the analog transfer.
KaiserPro 4y ago
Film grain hasn't been real since about 2007. (apart from a few cases) Even stuff shot on film tends to be degrained and re-grained. Also with film evolution, the film grain has changed.
- eru 4y ago
  Interesting! Do you have sources for that?
  - KaiserPro 4y ago
    I used to work in the VFX industry, specifically DI. However I can't find any reference to it online. There are loads of "degrain" workflows for things like nuke and AE, but thats not really the kind of evidence I would accept if I were you!
    - vagabund 4y ago
      Appreciate the insight. When you say even stuff shot in film is de and re-grained, are you referring to works shot recently? Or do you mean that the sort of restorations put out by Criterion/BFI/etc have fake grain added in? Would be interesting, and to me a bit disappointing, if so.
      - KaiserPro 4y ago
        thats a good and interesting distinction. So the golden standard (althought I am somewhat biased) for film scanning is this: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282841082109 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282841082109 (https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/northlight/overview_nl.php https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/northlight/overview_nl...) The Northlight film scanner. The reason why its good is because its not a realtime scanner (like a spirit) so it has the time to do "perfect" registration. This means that you should be able to re-scan the same thing twice, and any VFX/added in stuff will still line up. It has the light source well away from the film, so it doesn't heat it up. It also does an Infra red pass to allow for dust busting. (that is the removal of blemishes from the film) This scanner is the one you'd use for restorations/rescans and "digital remastering". With that in mind, its capable of scanning at 8k (which is then down res'd to 4k from memory). If you are doing a straight film-to-digital with no remastering (which are pretty rare) then thats what you'd do. Now, to answer your question! For restoration, there might be a bit of degraining and re-painting & reconstruction, followed by a regrain. This is because film grain is really hard to rotoscope/paint over. Because the edges all move, and its a general pain. So for some limited restorations there will be some "fake" grain. But only as much as needed to make it look like the rest of the film. Think of it as like a conserved oil painting, a light cleaning, some post processing to bring out the colours/contrast, bam off to digital. for "re-mastering" there might be some upscaling. Now, its my understanding that upscalers remove grain, because otherwise you'd just get large amounts of noise on the screen, rather than detail. But there are a large range of ways to upscale. The gold standard is basically re-painting everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrabKK9Bhds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrabKK9Bhds or with a 4k remaster of blade runner: https://youtu.be/tN0MtsIz6H0?t=15 https://youtu.be/tN0MtsIz6H0?t=15 where they have spent a lot of time removing film noise. in those, the film grain is removed almost completely. the BFI from what I have seen only do restoration and dust removal.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

How is anolog "authentic?" How is anolog qualitatively different from digital from an authenticity standpoint?

vagabund 4y ago
I'm not saying it's inherently more authentic, just that that's the perception, and that perception drives part of the appeal for film grain.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  But my perception is entirely the opposite, that grain is the result of low quality film, low quality digital sensors, or a gimmick. Why should artists be targeting your perception over mine?
  - vagabund 4y ago
    Again, not making a normative statement about the superiority of film grain or analog or anything. If your perception is that grain is a gimmick, then you should likewise not want it synthetically reinserted into the stream. The point I'm making is that those who do like film grain overwhelmingly hold that view in part because of the source of its creation and not because of its detached-from-context aesthetic effect per se -- much the same way that people enjoy the warm crackle of a vinyl record, but don't want a facsimile of it overlayed on their spotify audio. So, for the majority of those that like film grain it feels deceptive, and for those that don't it's an added annoyance. It's only appealing to what I surmise is a vanishingly small subset of Netflix's customers that just want the visual artifact of grain and don't care where it came from or if it is original to the analog transfer.

KaiserPro 4y ago

Film grain hasn't been real since about 2007. (apart from a few cases) Even stuff shot on film tends to be degrained and re-grained. Also with film evolution, the film grain has changed.

eru 4y ago
Interesting! Do you have sources for that?
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  I used to work in the VFX industry, specifically DI. However I can't find any reference to it online. There are loads of "degrain" workflows for things like nuke and AE, but thats not really the kind of evidence I would accept if I were you!
  - vagabund 4y ago
    Appreciate the insight. When you say even stuff shot in film is de and re-grained, are you referring to works shot recently? Or do you mean that the sort of restorations put out by Criterion/BFI/etc have fake grain added in? Would be interesting, and to me a bit disappointing, if so.
    - KaiserPro 4y ago
      thats a good and interesting distinction. So the golden standard (althought I am somewhat biased) for film scanning is this: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282841082109 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282841082109 (https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/northlight/overview_nl.php https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/northlight/overview_nl...) The Northlight film scanner. The reason why its good is because its not a realtime scanner (like a spirit) so it has the time to do "perfect" registration. This means that you should be able to re-scan the same thing twice, and any VFX/added in stuff will still line up. It has the light source well away from the film, so it doesn't heat it up. It also does an Infra red pass to allow for dust busting. (that is the removal of blemishes from the film) This scanner is the one you'd use for restorations/rescans and "digital remastering". With that in mind, its capable of scanning at 8k (which is then down res'd to 4k from memory). If you are doing a straight film-to-digital with no remastering (which are pretty rare) then thats what you'd do. Now, to answer your question! For restoration, there might be a bit of degraining and re-painting & reconstruction, followed by a regrain. This is because film grain is really hard to rotoscope/paint over. Because the edges all move, and its a general pain. So for some limited restorations there will be some "fake" grain. But only as much as needed to make it look like the rest of the film. Think of it as like a conserved oil painting, a light cleaning, some post processing to bring out the colours/contrast, bam off to digital. for "re-mastering" there might be some upscaling. Now, its my understanding that upscalers remove grain, because otherwise you'd just get large amounts of noise on the screen, rather than detail. But there are a large range of ways to upscale. The gold standard is basically re-painting everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrabKK9Bhds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrabKK9Bhds or with a 4k remaster of blade runner: https://youtu.be/tN0MtsIz6H0?t=15 https://youtu.be/tN0MtsIz6H0?t=15 where they have spent a lot of time removing film noise. in those, the film grain is removed almost completely. the BFI from what I have seen only do restoration and dust removal.