Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Can someone SHOW me what "texture" is....

Matthew Scott

Matthew Scott

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I've been reading a lot about film vs digital, this vs that.....and honestly, when people justify how much different/better film is to digital, the one thing that keeps getting mentioned is the "texture" it has. It's also been mention with Alexa files, having a "texture".

Is it film grain? Because I can add that in post! Is it noise? Cos I can add that in camera! Comparing one film to another, shot by different DP's, with different actors on different days, different lighting and different catering, how can you possibly compare an image from The Thin Red Line to Drive for example...in terms of texture especially. Color? yes. Skin tones? yes. Lighting? yes. Grain vs clean? yes. I get that. But if you were to give me an Epic and an Alexa, I'm 99% percent sure I could match them to a 2k output and you wouldn't be able to pick which one was which.....what is the texture I'm missing out on, or not seeing?


Here is me looking for texture, shot at 3k, 5200k, 800ISO. Is that texture on the bottom right hand corner? To me that's just noise...but maybe I'm wrong? And, that texture/noise is identicalish to the R3D, it's not jpeg compression.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Also, I don't mean to sound like a dick when I question texture....maybe it's a word that is used to describe the subtleties of film? Because it's almost like film has this magical quality that people talk about, and it's hard to describe....so texture is a good word? What I'd really love to see is a camera test done by a cinematographer who is deciding weather or not to shoot film or RED (or Alexa). And I'm not talking Zacuto style ;)
 
Texture in film terms means grain, in digital noise. Personally I think it's a nostalgia thing. I also think from a film stand point, grain is what gives the images life. Digital is clean and sterile (I like this better cause I can add this if need be:http://filmconvert.com/). Noise on the Alexa is very similar to a fine film grain which is one of the reason film guys love it. I would like to see more fine grain noise in low light with the Epic, which is what people want in noise.

Here's an example of texture and the varying degrees:
 
Thanks Matt :) So it's really just referring to grain? Then (like you've linked) really, the main different to me would be skin tones. That can also be fixed, but stuff like grain and texture and a look, can all be done effectively in post and like you say it's nice to have that option. Maybe you are right in that it's more of a nostalgia thing?

Here's a textured version, although I downloaded the grain scan from google and it was compressed to hell so you can see a pattern if you look at the full size image ;)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
People claim film texture (grain) gives the images life. It's a chemical response so the grain dances, moves, and is inconsistent. They argue digital is too clean and sterile and lacking in texture. I guess their argument is that digital looks to video like. I don't mind adding grain into my footage to get texture. My only wish is that RED noise looked more like fine grain, which is how the Alexa looks. Thats what film people are used to. Hopefully Dragon will address this with the smaller pixel size.

In your cat grain example if that was noise in lowlight, I'd love it. I think thats looks much better than the noise we get. Imagine if RED lowlight footage had noise like that (instead of the big blocky and blue noise)? not bad.
 
Yeah, that would be awesome. I'm really looking forward to Dragon, but still loving the MX :) Thanks for your thoughts!
 
https://vimeo.com/24822862

persona-3.jpg

35mm motion picture film

La_Jetee-profile.gif

from a film shot with a Pentax still photography camera

large_winters_bone_blu-ray_5.jpg

red one mx
 
Last edited:
With regard to understanding what film texture looks like, this would be a good place to start your research: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/new-format.htm. The Blu-Ray screencaps are great examples.

IMO, I would describe "film texture" as a subtle mixture of imaging artifacts (emulsion, lens, mechanical based) which when combined create an impressionistic effect on the image.

It's partly the way that silver halide grains in the emulsion react to light, tightening up in highlights and swirling and dancing in the mid tones.

It's partly the way that certain lenses will render a red or purple glow around highlights and the way that the emulsion's shoulder will render that soft transition smoothly into white.

It's partly the way that extreme specular highlights will halate, especially in black and white stocks with no remjet backing.

It's partly the way that the image projected by the lens is not focused on the surface of the film plane but just a few microns inside the emulsion, so that the CMY sensitive layers all have slightly different focus planes rendering a subtle softness to the image.

It's partly the way a hard specular source just outside the frame can strike the spinning mirror shutter and create an intermittent flickering.

It's partly the way shadow density is rendered by under or overexposure, either melting away into pure velvety black or gray, smoky gloom.

It's partly the color space, the way greens, blues, and reds are rendered on certain stocks and especially how shooting on tungsten stock without an 85 filter creates an attractive cool tone without becoming electric blue or magenta. It's how saturation is rendered by variance in exposure and processing techniques.

It's partly the way a projected film print will flicker and dance in a darkened theater, tickling our reptilian brains with ancestral memories of a time when we huddled around the bonfire, swapping stories to keep the shivering cold of the naked night sky at bay.

Basically, it's a combination of happy accidents which make the image more representational and less realistic. In general, we are trending closer and closer to a cinematic ideal that is more like looking thru a window than at a painting. 16fps became 24fps; silent film became talkies; black and white became color. But I would argue that in the transition we are losing sight of something important. Art is the interpretation of reality, not a reflection of it. It is the interpretation, the personal vision, that we feel compelled to share. By itself, the image means nothing.
 
Shame.jpg

SHAME shot by Sean Bobbitt was a good example of texture for film in the current era.

collateral_2004_5.jpg

Collateral shot by Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron is a good one for being shot with digital.

To me these two films were amazing. Now in terms of "texture"/"noise"/"grain" look at Collateral and there are whole scenes with noise going off like a firecracker. Then ones likes this are beautiful. In Shame I can't think of one that did that. Then again you'll see it crisp and sharp.

Both on blu-ray show the strengths and weaknesses of both mediums. I prefer both.
 
Satsuki your list made me want to shoot all the film in my closet before midday tomorrow

to take quite a few of your points into a liquid, arguable example, I'd guess this little video

would look overlit, rough, and odd if shot on pretty much any digital system.

alexa, red, ikonoskop could "approach" the 16mm look in different ways, none could replicate it. video could add a thousand different styles, few of which you might actually watch for 48 seconds.

would texture ever be forgotten by a sculptor, painter, dancer? it is just as important to us.

this is what makes the penelope delta, and jim's excitement over the future, so vitally important.

Jannard said:
In the end... it is all about the image.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Satsuki Murashige said:
With regard to understanding what film texture looks like, this would be a good place to start your research: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/new-format.htm. The Blu-Ray screencaps are great examples.

IMO, I would describe "film texture" as a subtle mixture of imaging artifacts (emulsion, lens, mechanical based) which when combined create an impressionistic effect on the image.

It's partly the way that silver halide grains in the emulsion react to light, tightening up in highlights and swirling and dancing in the mid tones.

It's partly the way that certain lenses will render a red or purple glow around highlights and the way that the emulsion's shoulder will render that soft transition smoothly into white.

It's partly the way that extreme specular highlights will halate, especially in black and white stocks with no remjet backing.

It's partly the way that the image projected by the lens is not focused on the surface of the film plane but just a few microns inside the emulsion, so that the CMY sensitive layers all have slightly different focus planes rendering a subtle softness to the image.

It's partly the way a hard specular source just outside the frame can strike the spinning mirror shutter and create an intermittent flickering.

It's partly the way shadow density is rendered by under or overexposure, either melting away into pure velvety black or gray, smoky gloom.

It's partly the color space, the way greens, blues, and reds are rendered on certain stocks and especially how shooting on tungsten stock without an 85 filter creates an attractive cool tone without becoming electric blue or magenta. It's how saturation is rendered by variance in exposure and processing techniques.

It's partly the way a projected film print will flicker and dance in a darkened theater, tickling our reptilian brains with ancestral memories of a time when we huddled around the bonfire, swapping stories to keep the shivering cold of the naked night sky at bay.

Basically, it's a combination of happy accidents which make the image more representational and less realistic. In general, we are trending closer and closer to a cinematic ideal that is more like looking thru a window than at a painting. 16fps became 24fps; silent film became talkies; black and white became color. But I would argue that in the transition we are losing sight of something important. Art is the interpretation of reality, not a reflection of it. It is the interpretation, the personal vision, that we feel compelled to share. By itself, the image means nothing.
Click to expand...

Hey Satsuki,

Thanks for your detailed reply! Those things sound awesome. It really helps me understand your view on film and how it differs from Digital. I feel that even though I have never shot with film for cinema (only with stills photography, although quite extensive) I can understand where you are coming from. I can also relate it to the piano. I REAL piano, with strings and hammers, feels and plays so much more beautifully than a Digital one....even the best digital ones (I have sampled a few) are missing that magic, organic experience. The range of touch that a real piano allows for is far greater than any digital piano I have ever played. And I think maybe that's what this boils down to. Maybe it's more about the experience of film, rather than the final result? There are higher risks, it requires more commitment, more patience, a higher degree of trust and allows for the happy accidents that you talked about - something that digital strips away to a certain extent. What do you think?

However, I believe that with the amount of freedom and control we have with digital (especially R3Ds) both during production and post allow us to create with such fineness....and because I'm obsessed with post, I feel I could make any digital film I shot, look like film, to the point you wouldn't be able to tell. So that's the point of my post, as cocky as it may sound.....the end result can be anything you want it to be. The experience however, is quite different.
 
And thanks Andrew :) I am yet to see SHAME, however I've seen Collateral a million times and watch the bluray behind the scenes even more :) I'm starting to see the difference between film and digital....the "texture" and something to do with the exposure....it seems flatter, without looking flat....hmmm. But I'm not convinced that a digital shot can't be matched to that of film.
 
Texture is to me the difference from what it looked like on set and final image. Some cameras and lenses has more built in textures than others. RED with their raw approach let you be the man to decide what kind of texture you want to add if any, other cameras are introducing more texture before the image hit the mag.

Basically I prefere to have options, settling for a given look of a camera is like saying I only shoot with one filmstock nothing else.

Using the EPIC MX sensor and doing th following is to me the absolute best way to achive a mathimatically correct and very good looking "film texture".

R3D raw stragiht into flame batch with full resolution and redlogfilm.
Add a LUT editor, set it to LOGtoLIN
Adjust iso and kelvin in the R3D node so the image land in the middle of a the above LUT, i.e so the whole histogram goes between the black and white point.
Add another LUTeditor before the one mentioned above. Make a 3DLUT import, (flame has a few Kodak en Fuji stocks to choose from as default, Kodak has them all) Pick stock after taste. You can choose, maybe first apply a negative stock and then add a print stock so you actually mimmic the complete film process not just half way to negative as films you seen in cinema are a positive sturck form a negative, now look at your LOGtoLIN Node...

If you picked any good emulsions it should look nice... if not do some grading, change emulsion... or if that does not work... go shoot something better looking...
Then you add a grain node. You need to do a Custom grain match to the stock you picked so you get the right singnal noise ration. The best is Kodak Genesis grain samples. Also make sure to set the right Fstop in the grain node. In other words if you push the exposure one step do the same with the grain Fstop setting.

There is no body that can tell me that the above process does not give a REDlogFilm file a far better and more controllable "film texture" than good old film itself.

But there is a problem.... To me it's quite simple, there are so many people out there fiddling around with their newly downloaded free version of resolve thinking they know whats what... They think it's just to adjust the color temperature, contrast, and saturation... ie they got no texture, then people look at their work and say... red is bad it does not got any texture... when the correct conclusion is RED is what Kodak and Fuji so much tried to make. A super clean negative, ready to be processed in any way the DP, director or who's in charge wanted.

Polariod has a lot of texture, it does not make polaroid the best shooting media for every picture.. Also My iphone4S has great texture... as in, great texture of poor looking mini sensor with small as cheap ass lens capturing with high compression... my old Iphone has even more texture in the picuture but I think I like my new one better. :)
 
Hey Bjorn, great to read about your workflow. Sounds awesome. You are right in a way about Resolve Lite in a way, but don't forget how powerful it is if you actually know what you are doing - adding texture is very simple, so long as you have some scans of grain, stocks, etc. It's a basic blend (or composite) mode as I'm sure you know. And, when you're on a budget, like I am, it's a great tool to have :)
 
I think "texture" is also not just noise, but also a number of other things that lenses can provide: flaring, artifacting, strange bokeh's, reflections. Digital sensors are wickedly clean, but so are modern lenses like RPP's and Ultraprimes. I'm a firm believer that if you want to add "texture" to a digital image, then choosing optics that break up this cleanliness is a good place to start. Also, the filtration you use can add to these "artifacts". There's a reason when you read American Cinematographer that pretty much every DP working in digital is throwing some kind of diffusion on. Even DP's working on film with super clean new stocks are doing that. On The Descendants, the DP was worried that his film stock was going to be far too clean and "perfect", so he dirtied it up diffusion. He wanted his film to really look like it was shot on film!

Old lenses call a lot of attention to themselves. The way they flare, the way they can get soft in the edges, the busier bokehs (sometimes), it's these hard to control elements that give the image an "organic" quality that looks both rough, and interesting. It's not right for ever project, but it certainly helps add something (some call it texture) when you don't want it to always be perfect.

One humble man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

PS - you can argue that the Alexa is designed with "texture" in mind. It has a filter placed ontop of the sensor to give the camera a certain soft textured rendering more analogous to film. It's a deliberate choice.
 
Yes!!! My prime kit is 25 year old Nikkors and I love the look the have (especially wide open or close to). That being said, I put broken and scratched glass in front of these shots to add some texture :)


TIFF_stills_10 by [MTS]Films, on Flickr

TIFF_stills_07 by [MTS]Films, on Flickr

TIFF_stills_06 by [MTS]Films, on Flickr

TIFF_stills_01 by [MTS]Films, on Flickr

more on that experiment at my blog: http://www.mattscottvisuals.com/blog/2012/6/20/destructive-creation.html

This is my point/argument. Film has something built in to it (as you also pointed out, so does the Alexa) but just because Red doesn't, doesn't mean we can't add something to the mix, during the shoot. Thanks for your input :)
 
Beautiful images, Matthew!

There have always been DPs going back to the beginning of cinema who have felt the latest film stocks or lenses were too clean and needed some diffusion. I think it's something built into our DNA, needing to alter reality somehow.

I just wrapped on a project where the DP's filter pack included a Tiffen Soft Con 2, Smoque 1, AND a front net (green, brown, or blue depending on the scene). We shot with the Alexa on Cooke S4s. He was trying to get the look of uncoated lenses, which were unavailable to us. We definitely see eye to eye in terms of our vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top