4 ms·

Film grain that is an artifact of the recording media I think is fine, because it inherent to the media (film). Added film grain to digital to me is very dumb.

Film grain that is an artifact of the recording media I think is fine, because it inherent to the media (film). Added film grain to digital to me is very dumb. It is hard for me to think that it is a strong authorial intent and not just a legacy idea that is basically assumed by default because that is how it used to be. Same thing bothers me in games. I can’t even begin to understand why someone wants film grain slapped over a game. Another reason why I think of this as an assumed convention instead of a meaningfully intended or utilized convention in modern media.

PrivateButts 4y ago
IMO grain and artifacts are a tool, like any other part of the post processing pipeline. Those tools can be abused, but they aren't valueless. I'd think that most people reach for these tools for two reasons, adding detail to bland sets, or adding authenticity to your setting. Our brains are weird and sometimes seeing less of the scene allows your mind to fill in the gaps better than the budget allows a texture artist or a set designer to do. The lack of post processing in general is what gives bad games that Unity Engine look that people hate. As for the other reason, it's sort of like how we perceive people as older due to the clothing they wear and their hair style, our cultural reference for how old a piece of media is can be tricked by the mimicking the imperfections of the filming techniques of the time. Take a photo of old brick building with a Polaroid camera and ask folks when that was shot, I would bet that most folks would say 80s or 90s more than the 2020s.
herbstein 4y ago
Knives Out is an interesting edge case there. It was shot almost completely on digital (on scene was on analog) but was post-processed by the Director of Photography to achieve the look of analog recordings. A process he has spent many, many hours perfecting. This Polygon article touches on some of the process and considerations: https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-de...
KaiserPro 4y ago
most film grain since the mid 2000s has either been fake, or augmented. Anything that went through a VFX pipeline was denoised (so that trackers, painters & rotoscoper can work more efficiently.) once the effects applied, then film grain was put back in. (even if it was to be lasered back out onto film.) Film stock improved significantly from 2000 to maybe 2008. grain getting smaller. optical resolution getting better. (well maybe digital intermediary got better.)
lozenge 4y ago
Your comment reminds me of the idea of reification explained here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G77ev9pks4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G77ev9pks4I Film grain doesn't mean anything, except what the public have been conditioned for it to mean back when it was a natural chemical process.

PrivateButts 4y ago

IMO grain and artifacts are a tool, like any other part of the post processing pipeline. Those tools can be abused, but they aren't valueless. I'd think that most people reach for these tools for two reasons, adding detail to bland sets, or adding authenticity to your setting. Our brains are weird and sometimes seeing less of the scene allows your mind to fill in the gaps better than the budget allows a texture artist or a set designer to do. The lack of post processing in general is what gives bad games that Unity Engine look that people hate. As for the other reason, it's sort of like how we perceive people as older due to the clothing they wear and their hair style, our cultural reference for how old a piece of media is can be tricked by the mimicking the imperfections of the filming techniques of the time. Take a photo of old brick building with a Polaroid camera and ask folks when that was shot, I would bet that most folks would say 80s or 90s more than the 2020s.

herbstein 4y ago

Knives Out is an interesting edge case there. It was shot almost completely on digital (on scene was on analog) but was post-processed by the Director of Photography to achieve the look of analog recordings. A process he has spent many, many hours perfecting. This Polygon article touches on some of the process and considerations: https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-de...

KaiserPro 4y ago

most film grain since the mid 2000s has either been fake, or augmented. Anything that went through a VFX pipeline was denoised (so that trackers, painters & rotoscoper can work more efficiently.) once the effects applied, then film grain was put back in. (even if it was to be lasered back out onto film.) Film stock improved significantly from 2000 to maybe 2008. grain getting smaller. optical resolution getting better. (well maybe digital intermediary got better.)

lozenge 4y ago

Your comment reminds me of the idea of reification explained here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G77ev9pks4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G77ev9pks4I Film grain doesn't mean anything, except what the public have been conditioned for it to mean back when it was a natural chemical process.