When intentionally grainy movies are smoothed out for their DVD transfer

[Lex M]

One of my pet peeves about DVD is that we've become so accustomed to SUCH a crisp picture, that so many DVD reviewers gripe about "edge enhancement" and "light grain," that now quite a few films that were INTENDED to be grainy have been cleaned up when transferred to DVD.

Reading the FILE's review of TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE...

http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi...acre_2003.html

Bracke comments that grain is NON-EXISTENT, as opposed to the opening night print he saw in theatres. But the grain was intentional, and part of the film's visual style. I distinctly remember the opening sequences in the van being intentionally grainy and grimy and heavily stylized. Why would the authoring house "clean up" something that was MEANT to be there? And why are DVD reviewers so obsessed with a clean picture, so anti-grain, that they'll fault a transfer if it includes even INTENDED grain? I remember reviewers griping about the PI transfer, faulting it for stylistics that were 100% intended.

To me, the most egregious example of this cleaning up is EYES WIDE SHUT. In the theatres, the film had a fuzzy, grainy texture that added to the waking dream feel of the narrative. On DVD, it's been entirely smoothed over into typical WARNER HOME VIDEO SHINYVISION!!tm. It looks more like a Burton BATMAN movie than Kubrick's intentionally fuzzy original.

I'd also argue THREE KINGS looks pretty different from its theatrical exhibitions, and even TIGERLAND seemed moderately cleaned up from what it was.

I'm dreading what some post-house transfer jockey is going to do to Matthew Libatique's extra-grimy, fuzzy cinematography in NEVER DIE ALONE, which I saw this weekend, and is wall-to-wall grain ON PURPOSE.

Any thoughts?

[tomdkat]

I don't associate this phenomenon with the technology, but I understand and tend to agree with you on this. I think this issue wouldn't be an issue if the studios "learned" how to produce more accurate video transfers earlier on in the game. Things like adding edge enhancement to produce a sharp picture might have set expectations in the wrong place when they should have focused on producing as clean and accurate an image as possible and make minimal modification to the video a priority.

People might have complained that video quality them sucked but that would change as the technology used to produce the DVD content improved along with the expertise and experiencing in using this technology efficiently and effectively improved and increased.

Peace...

[ebuzz79]

One of my favorites is the file's review of To Live And Die In LA :

"Friedkin claims the DVD looks better than the original print. I believe him. But I was hoping for more. "

The director says it looks better than it ever has, but you want it more polished?

I think sometimes reviewers forget that they are not always reviewing the latest filmed in front of a blue screen, 95% CGI ridden Star Wars movie.

[larphillips]

ANIMAL HOUSE - Double Secret Probation edition comes to mind... even Landis admitted that they cleaned the film up too much, that it was never supposed to look that good. I agree, everyone that freaks out on grain and low-light lose sight of the fact that many filmmakers intended for their movie to have that look.

[3DMan]

I noticed this on Eyes Wide Shut. I attributed it to video being impossible to capture the uniquely filmic effects of the movie. I concur on Three Kings, but attributed it to the same reason.
Citizen Kane was digitally cleaned up so much that rain is missing from a shot.

[Riedenschneider]

Originally Posted by Lex M

the most egregious example of this cleaning up is EYES WIDE SHUT. In the theatres, the film had a fuzzy, grainy texture that added to the waking dream feel of the narrative. On DVD, it's been entirely smoothed over into typical WARNER HOME VIDEO SHINYVISION!!tm. It looks more like a Burton BATMAN movie than Kubrick's intentionally fuzzy original.

This is completely baffling for me. Eyes Wide Shut?!? That's one of THE most grainiest transfers I've ever seen. Either the RC 1 transfer is different from the RC 2, or I don't know what to say.

Here's a sample ('course it's very hard to capture grain on one "still"):

[3DMan]

Nice shot choice, Ried. I was never convinced it was grain that was missing from the dvd, but maybe a filmic effect like blown-out highlights or something. Like the Xmas lights in that shot, they look very different on the film print, in a more unique way than most other films. I could just chaulk it up to film's superior contast ratio, but I dunno.

[Drag Princess]

I have noticed that some films may appear to pristinely perfect & color on a standard tv. But viewing them on a WS monitor may make the grain & such more noticeable.

At least that has been my experiance with a few dvds I thought looked 'too' pristinely crystal clear on my 25inch 4.3 tv,meanwhile had a more filmlike grainy image on my WS notebook computer. This is not always the case though 99.9% of the time.

Still I do agree that sucking all the intentional grain out of a film is terrible,but the HT junkies just can't seem to grasp that grain is good..& not all films are meant to look as pristinely crystal clear as possible. In fact,i have a hard time taking them serious as reviewers,since they even whine about mono film soundtracks. Despite mono being original audio for many older films!

To top it off,they then chide themselves as 'true' film fans who 'respect' the directors intent & film art. When really,they are kidding themselves,since they want all films cleaned up to look 'great' on their HD/WS sets..& have their speakers 'filled' at all costs. The new form of J6P in my honeset opinion.

[JFelix]

Think of it as a device to remove current, hackneyed, boring, overused cliche film styles from movies.

Next up for DVD authoring to fix: Idiotic strobe effects during action scenes that supposedly make the action 'more intense'!

[Marq]

I too found Eyes Wide Shut's DVD to ideally capture Kubrick's slight grain throughout. But maybe I don't recall it beng even grainier on the big screen.

But, as a whole it is a silly practice to clean up the intentional grain (instances that are especially anoying are the aforementioed Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Three Kinggs, as well as The Evil Dead somewhat). The problem is probably that the folks cleaning the film up haven't been told whether grain was a stylistic choice or not and automatically assume it needs to be cleaned like most projects they work on. The only way to ensure a proper transfer is made would be to have the director or DP provide specific notes or be involved somehow in the transferring process, but that's not entirely possible all the time either.

[cardaway]

Wasn't there talk of the new Animal House DVD having to be taken down a notch because the transfer made it look too good?

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by cardaway

Wasn't there talk of the new Animal House DVD having to be taken down a notch because the transfer made it look too good?

It was... and they still found it to be too good looking.

[downhuman]

You know who I think does this right? Anchor Bay. On their best transfers, there is always just enough grain to give the illusion of celluloid

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by downhuman

You know who I think does this right? Anchor Bay. On their best transfers, there is always just enough grain to give the illusion of celluloid

And that example highlights the real difference between boutique *** producers and major studios. Normally, the smaller houses like Anchor Bay, Blue Underground, Criterion, Image/Something Weird, Kino, etc. have folks who intimately know the films working on the restorations and transfers. The majors don't have the time or the workforce to be able to treat all of their films as lovingly as the smaller shops do.