141 Children of Paradise

[Highway 61]

In that third example that Nick posted, there's already more detail in the original image than in the de-grained one, but in the next shot there will also be more detail, and moreover, it will be different detail, so in motion the detail of the image will be compounded twenty-four times a second, whereas in the smoothed-over one, the detail of every single image will be reduced to the same, slightly fuzzy and waxy, base level, with none of that rich cumulative detail. Instead, what will be compounded in motion (at least in my experience of viewing overly de-grained transfers) will be that waxy artificiality.

Brilliantly put! That's exactly it.

There's an even better Leonardo analogy to be made: the Last Supper. Leonardo painted the fresco in an experimental à secco technique of his own invention, but unfortunately it wasn't stable, and the painting began to deteriorate a few years after its execution.

Now, if we take Lance's position that Marcel Carné would have shot Children of Paradise with better equipment if he could have, we can apply that logic to Leonardo's fresco and simply repaint the damn thing. Surely the master would never have experimented in the first place had he known the painting would not survive! And indeed, this is what so-called experts did until the second half of the twentieth century, which only caused more damage to the fresco.

I think film restoration firms could learn a lot from studying art history and contemporary conservation practices. They would find that many of the latest film restoration technologies and philosophies would be anathema in the world's greatest museums.

[movielocke]

since we're talking about the "magic" of film grain, which is more magical, the film grain of the original negative? The film grain of a contact print? The film grain of a second generation release print?

It seems a bit wishy washy to me to elevate film grain so highly without specifying which grain you want to see. Technology enables us to see the grain as it appears on the negative, but no person would have ever seen this 'magical' grain as we might see it on a bluray release. Even the editors and director, producers etc would see the "magical" grain in first generation contact prints, which will be a substantially different grain structure than found on the negative. most audiences would see prints that had a different grain structure still.

I think there's a big risk in sanctifying grain and the terminology used here in discussing grain most holy (hail) seems unhelpful or even counter-productive; when if you get into the details of grain it's going to be different depending on the heritage of the element you're observing.

I'm not defending this transfer, it's absolutely unfortunate that digital tools were used to destroy the image. I love it when grain is not fucked with in transfers, but I'm also aware that the grain of the original negative was never going to be viewed on a screen unless the negative cutter somehow rigged up a projector to run a negative and simultaneously reverse the image. Since that would never happen, I know that o-neg grain is not representative of grain seen by the filmmakers nor by audiences.

[zedz]

I think you're tying yourself in conceptual knots unnecessarily. The grain we want to see is the grain from whatever the print source of the digital transfer is. All we want is an accurate transfer of whatever film element was used, since that's going to be as good as it gets for that specific source. Hypothetical grain structures from other hypothetical sources don't need to come into it, though obviously the closer the source is to the original negative, the better it should be in terms of clarity and loss of detail from 'compounded grain' (if that's even a valid expression).

[Gregory]

What I'm hearing from most people in this discussion is not sanctifying the grain per se; it has more to do with the all-too-familiar problems involved in the removal of it, the attendant loss of detail, and the generally less film-like quality of the end product, but not because grain is being "elevated" to anything more than what it is. When I read people praising the presence of grain in a transfer, I think they're talking about something more substantial: the overall level of detail and fidelity to the source.

[MichaelB]

What I'm hearing from most people in this discussion is not sanctifying the grain per se; it has more to do with the all-too-familiar problems involved in the removal of it, the attendant loss of detail, and the generally less film-like quality of the end product, but not because grain is being "elevated" to anything more than what it is. When I read people praising the presence of grain in a transfer, I think they're talking about something more substantial: the overall level of detail and fidelity to the source.

Yes, absolutely - I certainly don't fetishise grain per se, and wasn't the least bit fazed by the news that MoC's The Passion of Joan of Arc isn't as visibly grainy as a lot of other 1920s Blu-rays: given that the source was an original nitrate print in surprisingly good condition, that's really not a surprise. Similarly, if the source was 65mm, or slow-speed 35mm, I'd also expect grain to be barely visible.

[movielocke]

What I'm hearing from most people in this discussion is not sanctifying the grain per se; it has more to do with the all-too-familiar problems involved in the removal of it, the attendant loss of detail, and the generally less film-like quality of the end product, but not because grain is being "elevated" to anything more than what it is. When I read people praising the presence of grain in a transfer, I think they're talking about something more substantial: the overall level of detail and fidelity to the source.

I agree, I should have just gone with a simpler post decrying the elevation of grain to magical status. it was the many repetitions of magic that caused me to type all that, and as someone else said, tied myself in conceptual knots.

It is worth remembering that not all grain is created equal, and giving it an aura of "magic" is unhelpful, imo.

[Gregory]

Peerpee used the word in two posts, and I believe no one else did. In the latter of the two he referred to "magical detail and depth" with respect to transfers with intact grain so I thought it was fairly clear that it wasn't about grain per se being "magic" but more a question of what's lost when it's treated as a problem and tampered with.

[peerpee]

It's "magic" that is lost when natural grain is removed and a computerised "regraining" is attempted. I don't think there's anything unhelpful about using this word in this context – 35mm film is as close to magic as we get in the real world. Degraining it removes so much, and then attempting to regrain it (with random grain) is not at all clever and should be discouraged as much as possible.

[David M.]

Personally, I don't feel as strongly against regraining as that. It's one of those cases where you would likely only notice the process if it's done badly. But, you would need a hell of a good reason to go down the degrain/regrain route, and only for a handful of shots where there was no alternative. Doing it routinely would be insane.

[peerpee]

But you're regraining something that's been smoothed out and denatured from frame to frame to start with (because it's been degrained). You're adding a texture (no matter how good) to something that is now much less than what it was. So you're polishing a turd no matter how you regrain. It's not so much the "regraining" as the fact that *degraining* went on beforehand.

Obviously, there are situations where grain might need to be carefully subdued, but not completely removed and then regrained.

[movielocke]

as someone who has handled a lot of 35mm film elements in various stages (unexposed, exposed, processed, printed etc), I can assure you that 35mm has nothing to do with magic. Film is science and viewing a film print is an optical illusion that is enabled by the sorry limitations of the human brain, there's no more magic to it than there is to a common coin or card trick.

Naturally you know all this, but I think entering all these subjective associations of mystique to something that is knowable is quite silly, film grain adds to the image detail not because of 'magic' but for quite sound, knowable reasons. If you want to obscure those reasons, it just makes it easier for technicians who don't think film grain is magic to ignore the real, defensible reasons for maintaining film grain.

TECHNICIAN 1
Ugh! Look at all that grain, better wipe that crap out, so ugly!

TECHNICIAN 2
No, don't! It has a really great look.

TECHNICIAN 1 (laughing)
What?

TECHNICIAN 2
I mean, that film grain, it kind of has a magical feel to it don't you think?

TECHNICIAN 1
You're such an idiot. Hey everyone, Doofus here thinks film grain is Magical

Everyone laughs. Forever more, at that job, Technician 2 is continually mocked because of this event. Ignorance endures and bad practices persist.


****

TECHNICIAN 1
Ugh! Look at all that grain, better wipe that crap out, so ugly!

TECHNICIAN 2
No, don't! It adds a lot detail to the image.

TECHNICIAN 1 (laughing)
What?

TECHNICIAN 2
I mean, that film grain, any given frame it looks like a mess. But each frame is different, and when you play it back, those differences add up to a lot more detail for your eye to discern. Look play back this shot you just took the grain off of. It's smoothed out everywhere. Now play back the shot as it was originally, it's grainy, but look at all the extra detail in the backgrounds, in the clothing textures, and everywhere else. Now play back your shot, no grain, but most of the detail is gone too!

TECHNICIAN 1
Holy Shit. Hey everyone, Doofus here figured out that film grain is good, take a look at this!

Everyone is astonished. Forever more, at that job, Technician 2 is lauded, and eventually promoted.

[peerpee]

Movielocke, I think you're being a little pedantic. I described the effect of film grain as magical. I didn't suggest that it was outside the realms of science. The removal of grain, removes this "magic". It's pretty obvious what I mean.

Using the word isn't "silly" – I'm not "obscuring" any scientific reasons. Please try and read my Sight & Sound article "CRIMES AGAINST THE GRAIN" (December 2012) where I describe everything in non-mystical language.

[David M.]

But you're regraining something that's been smoothed out and denatured from frame to frame to start with (because it's been degrained). You're adding a texture (no matter how good) to something that is now much less than what it was. So you're polishing a turd no matter how you regrain. It's not so much the "regraining" as the fact that *degraining* went on beforehand.

Yes, that's where the damage lies. My point though is that in cases where there there's no other option, degrain and regrain done properly isn't always noticeable. There are good and bad ways to do the initial grain reduction and then the new grain sampling.

Again, I'm talking about when it's necessary, not doing it "because we can".

[Jeff]

The December Sight and Sound just arrived stateside a few days ago, and I hadn't had a chance to peruse it yet until I was prompted by this thread. Nick's piece on grain is absolutely essential -- explaining it in a way I where I think I finally understand what's happening. The whole issue is pretty great. There's a piece on The Passion of Joan of Arc by Michael Somethingorother that's exceptional too.

[feihong]

Couldn't help noticing how Lance has failed to turn up again to defend his baby after everyone responded to his first post. Maybe the arguments against his poorly-employed product are a lot to take in, but people here have been pretty categorical in their trumping of the "we did a good job on Children of Paradise" argument.

[AidanKing]

The December Sight and Sound just arrived stateside a few days ago, and I hadn't had a chance to peruse it yet until I was prompted by this thread. Nick's piece on grain is absolutely essential -- explaining it in a way I where I think I finally understand what's happening. The whole issue is pretty great. There's a piece on The Passion of Joan of Arc by Michael Somethingorother that's exceptional too.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. The December Sight and Sound seemed to me to be a particularly good issue, with these two articles being the highlights. The revamping of the magazine has been a triumph in my opinion. I found Nick's article to be especially useful in explaining the difference betweeen BluRay and DVD and the issues involved in dodgy transfers: I've finally realised that there's no point in saying that the DVD looks OK on my limited equipment as an alternative to a problematic BluRay.

[kuzine]

Couldn't help noticing how Lance has failed to turn up again to defend his baby after everyone responded to his first post. Maybe the arguments against his poorly-employed product are a lot to take in, but people here have been pretty categorical in their trumping of the "we did a good job on Children of Paradise" argument.

Well, to be fair he did say

I will check back in a couple weeks.

[jojo]

Degraining movies is a 24/7 job, fellas! So many movies, so little time.

[HistoryProf]

Couldn't help noticing how Lance has failed to turn up again to defend his baby after everyone responded to his first post. Maybe the arguments against his poorly-employed product are a lot to take in, but people here have been pretty categorical in their trumping of the "we did a good job on Children of Paradise" argument.

perhaps he's having computer problems. clearly his spell check was on the fritz when he first attempted to defend his software.

For the record, i'm kind of in the middle on this. I think the blu ray looks fine in motion, and is an improvement on the 2002 DVD and very much enjoyed watching it. I understand the complaints, but I think people are blowing things out of proportion just a tad. Of course I want these great films to look as good as they possibly can and I agree that this could have been done better, but i don't agree that it's a ruinous catastrophe like some here seem to. My enjoyment of a beautiful film was not diminished one bit. That doesn't make some of the suspect choices okay....but it's hardly the end of the world.

That said...if Lance is going to make any attempt to answer to the fierce rebuttals he received, I hope to god he learns to spell. That post is brutal for a few reasons....basic errors chief among them.

[jindianajonz]

perhaps he's having computer problems. clearly his spell check was on the fritz when he first attempted to defend his software.

I don't think it's fair to harp on his spelling skills. I know a lot of very smart people who are excellent at their jobs but have horrible typing/spelling skills (they are called "engineers"). I was able to understand what he was saying perfectly fine (even if I may disagree with some of it) so his spelling isn't a barrier to his communication. In fact, I kind of appreciate the fact that he was willing to give us some off the cut remarks, rather than regurgitating a well-manicured statement from PR filled with fluff and buzzwords but with very little in the way of content.

[RossyG]

Yes, I don't care about his spelling, either.

It's the fact that he's unwittingly a cultural vandal whilst believing to be the exact opposite that's more of a concern.

[Gregory]

Most browsers have built in spellchecking now, and when there are something like 18 misspellings in a single post, it's especially cumbersome to read. I don't see any of our regular members being called out for this, though, so it seems unfair to have this problem pointed out repeatedly about a visitor's post.

[Mr Sausage]

Most browsers have built in spellchecking now, and when there are something like 18 misspellings in a single post, it's especially cumbersome to read. I don't see any of our regular members being called out for this, though, so it seems unfair to have this problem pointed out repeatedly about a visitor's post.

Have we ever treated new members fairly around here?

[David M.]

perhaps he's having computer problems. clearly his spell check was on the fritz when he first attempted to defend his software.

I don't think it's fair to harp on his spelling skills. I know a lot of very smart people who are excellent at their jobs but have horrible typing/spelling skills (they are called "engineers"). I was able to understand what he was saying perfectly fine (even if I may disagree with some of it) so his spelling isn't a barrier to his communication.

I was about to post the same, taking pot shots over spelling seems a little silly given that we can understand the posts clearly. It's hardly text speak.

[AidanKing]

Yes, and they're obviously inadvertent tyops rather than actaul speeling errrors.