Noisy, self-consciously "digital" images from Scarlet

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Oh please, Miami Vice was hardly an artsy movie...

The gain just took me away from the story, and I ended up not caring much for the characters...

I tried to convince myself that the gain was for "artistic purposes", and maybe it was...but it just detracted from the experience in my honest opinion.

If it had been one of those fictitious "doco" style films (which it wasn't) then maybe I would have got into it a bit more.

It's like when someone draws three lines on a canvas, and everyone says it's a revolutionary idea...when really, it's just three lines. The only revolutionary thing about it, is that it brings out the hype people put into it.

Seems like you are just sensitive to grain in an image.

I really like grain and it suits well gritty moments.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that sequence in Minority Report when Tom Cruise just had his eyes transplanted.

Wasn't that shot at an ISO 800 negative?

Anyway, that looks great.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

There is a difference between noise and grain.

Film grain is great for a gritty, grungy movie. Take Fight Club for instance. Filled with film grain, but it works for the style of the movie.

And then there's video noise. Noise, in my opinion, is a lot harsher and uglier than grain. Instead of it looking stylistic, it just looks poorly shot. Miami Vice looked worse than an episode of Cops. I started watching it and turned it off after the first 5 minutes. I couldn't take the cinematography. There's a difference between a gritty look and ugly look and IMO if you want to shoot a gritty movie, shoot it as clean as you can and add film grain in post.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

There is a difference between noise and grain.

Film grain is great for a gritty, grungy movie. Take Fight Club for instance. Filled with film grain, but it works for the style of the movie.

And then there's video noise. Noise, in my opinion, is a lot harsher and uglier than grain. Instead of it looking stylistic, it just looks poorly shot. Miami Vice looked worse than an episode of Cops. I started watching it and turned it off after the first 5 minutes. I couldn't take the cinematography. There's a difference between a gritty look and ugly look and IMO if you want to shoot a gritty movie, shoot it as clean as you can and add film grain in post.

Agree...

Thanks Jerrod.

 

[Barend Onneweer]

There's a difference between a gritty look and ugly look and IMO if you want to shoot a gritty movie, shoot it as clean as you can and add film grain in post.

Yes, and while you're at it just pick any girl from the street as your lead and replace her in post.

There are situations where you want to start with a generic, clean and sharp image in post. But there are also valid reasons to achieve your look in-camera - usually for less money.

Barend

 

[David Rasberry]

The difference is that with digital sensors the noise has a fixed pattern, unlike film which is random. Adding grain/noise in post to a clean digital image emulates the random quality of film grain.

 

[Ken Waller]

My friend directed his first feature film on Super-8mm and it looks nothing like Miami Vice's DV grain. He did a wet gate film transfer that came out really nice and clean for the DVD. http://tinyurl.com/Super-8mmFeaturefilmclip

 

[Florin Andrei]

There is a difference between noise and grain.

Film grain is great for a gritty, grungy movie. Take Fight Club for instance. Filled with film grain, but it works for the style of the movie.

And then there's video noise. Noise, in my opinion, is a lot harsher and uglier than grain. Instead of it looking stylistic, it just looks poorly shot.

That's just an acquired taste. Most people say that because they grew up on film noise, and now their brains are hard-wired to accept it and (gasp!) even like it.

It's kind of like the vinyl fans, who claim that CD sounds worse. ROTFL :smilielol5:

Or like the "24p look". How come something which is demonstrably inferior can be said to look better? The human eye can sense the imperfections of the display up to 70 ... 90 Hz or so. Ergo, the frame rate must be higher. I would shoot and display everything at 120p if there were displays capable of it.

The cinema industry needs to retrain itself and kill off the old habits. Artsy look my ass, just figure out new means of expression that can utilize better technology to convey meaning and feeling.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I'm sorry...
But I don't think 24fps is inferior.

It's all subjective and it's all about choices, so I'm not sure we can define better or worse.

Yeah, we've all thought about being able to use multiple framerates as a narrative device... But given all the complications we already have in distribution that doesn't sound plausible, not any time soon.

 

[Ameer Azari]

Good to see you over on Reduser Ameer. I kinda like the grainy look though

Yeah, I guess I kind of like the change of vibe when I read the posts over here...

I think I'm at that stage in the way I like to view images where I want everything to be nice, clean, pristine images...

As Pietro said, it's a matter of opinion I guess, but no one will be catching me putting out any grainy images for a while (or at least as long as I can help it!)

 

[Ameer Azari]

There is a difference between noise and grain.

Film grain is great for a gritty, grungy movie. Take Fight Club for instance. Filled with film grain, but it works for the style of the movie.

And then there's video noise. Noise, in my opinion, is a lot harsher and uglier than grain. Instead of it looking stylistic, it just looks poorly shot. Miami Vice looked worse than an episode of Cops. I started watching it and turned it off after the first 5 minutes. I couldn't take the cinematography. There's a difference between a gritty look and ugly look and IMO if you want to shoot a gritty movie, shoot it as clean as you can and add film grain in post.

Totally agree. Exactly!!

 

[Emiliano Ranzani]

Or like the "24p look". How come something which is demonstrably inferior can be said to look better? The human eye can sense the imperfections of the display up to 70 ... 90 Hz or so. Ergo, the frame rate must be higher. I would shoot and display everything at 120p if there were displays capable of it.

The cinema industry needs to retrain itself and kill off the old habits. Artsy look my ass, just figure out new means of expression that can utilize better technology to convey meaning and feeling.

I don't know if people would like higher frame-rates, as more fluid movements are commonly linked with TV. As movies aren't real, a lower frame-rate (even though "inferior" from a physiological pov) give them a more paintry\dream-like feel.

As for noise vs grain, I am not that fond of either of them: I generally like grain when it's a delicate layer on the images, adding to the textures. Video noise generally tends to be more intrusive....