Doing that sort of thing to a picture is actually very addictive at first. I think some of the poorer technicians like to leave their mark on the picture.
-
-
Great post Chain!Comment
-
You're welcome mate. Now go forth and spread the word! Grain Is Good!Comment
-
It should be said just because grain is there doesn't mean that it's "meant" to be there - sometimes it's an aesthetic choice but sometimes it's a) crap stock b) the result of the film being pushed or c) a by-product of old-school opticals. In all of those situations, a director of photography would tell you he'd prefer it if the grain wasn't there.Comment
-
Hold on, are the super waxy pics of Arnie the Ultimate hunter edition or fully loaded?
Im sure the rip I downloaded isn't that crazy waxy . . . . maybe because its 720p not 1080p then? Glad my post kicked of some facts from the more knowledgeable members here.Comment
-
-
Because the film is processed twiceOriginally posted by Matt View Post
Traditional matting is the process of compositing two different film elements by printing them, one at a time, onto a duplicate strip of film. After one component is printed on the duplicate, the film is re-wound and the other component is added. Since the film cannot be exposed twice without creating a double exposure, the blank second area must be masked while the first is printed; then the freshly-exposed first area must be masked while the second area is printed. Each masking is performed by a ?traveling matte:? a specially altered duplicate shot which lies on top of the copy film stock.They are the same discOriginally posted by bash View PostComment
-
I'm no purist or av expert but I prefer authenticity over artificial enhancement (unless it's really subtle or a restoration).Comment
-
Yeah, especially when the "enhancement" isn't really "enhancement".Comment
-
-
Spags you need to get yourself a copy of Fiddy's 'Get Rich Or Die Tryin' on Blu Ray.......Originally posted by spagmasterswift View Post
It will rox your sox straight outta it's box, like a wild-wild fox wearin' a pair of reebok shox, blazin' old skool tuowns from around the block by NY's Lox!
Now THAT is a quality movie with NO grain, but a lot red stain
112
Comment
-
Oh I thought he meant lenses or something which wouldn't cause any issues.Originally posted by dvdmike View Post
I don't think anyone other than Nolan edits that way these days. And you won't get the issues compositing used to cause as it's all digital these days of course.
Older films with Interpositives will have issues compared to any composited her elements, DNRing won't help as it obliterates everything. You have to remaster to get the best transfer there,with original grain from the reel in the camera, but that's not realistic for most titles. So I'd gladly take a grainy As It Was Seen In The Cinema any day of the weel
Comment
-
Gentlemen, it got a whole lot worse
Comment
-
God that 2nd picture looks like something people create when they first discover the filters in Photoshop its horrific.Comment
-
That first pic is the best shot in the film. That's what happens when you remove grain, you lose every****ingthing.
I've got the original BR on my shelf.Comment
Comment