Blu-ray discs possess enough storage-space to recreate very dilligently exactly what the camera records on film. Film is able to capture quite a bit of light, which is why it's possible to do hi-definition transfers of 70-year-old films. VHS and DVD are comparatively poor storage-mediums. When transfering from the original film print to a DVD, a lot of data gets lost. With blu-ray, however, all of the data gets recorded, and then more space is left over, so that some studios have begun tweaking the image-quality of their various films.
There are a variety of processes which may be implemented to achieve different looks. Digital washing can make outlines "pop" more and digital noise reduction reduces "grain," which is really what the subject of this post is about, as two distinct camps have sprung up in relation to whether or not studios should remove grain from their older films. The grain-haters say yes, the fidelity-freaks say no.
Predator (1987) has been released on blu-ray twice: once as a grain-heavy release and then recently as a digitally-reduced special edition, washed of its grain. See the respective screenshots below.
Ok, so the differences aren't huge on these tiny screenshots, but when the images are blown up on a 42" television screen, the disparity is immense.
The people who want grain to remain in the frame (I see what you did there!) say that, as a matter of principle, the studios should present the film exactly as it was shot, which was, for this film, in the middle of the Central American jungle on a batch of cheap 1980s Kodak 16mm. The picture is bound to look a little muddy.
Not only do the fidelity-freaks like grain in their old films, they don't like digital noise reduction (DNR). This computer process removes the grain but gives the image a kind of plastic-look. People look like "oil paintings." Five-o-clock shadow looks "airbrushed on." Et cetera.
The grain-haters, on the other hand, simply hate the look of grain. They say the image looks cheaper, muddier, less pretty. Sure, Predator was filmed in the jungle, but you don't have to feel like you're in a jungle to appreciate the film. So the argument goes.
Me, I'm stuck in the middle somewhere. I do think grain looks gross but I'm worried that if studios feel they can wash away the grain to make the image look better, they might not stop there. They might decide that adding a CGI horizon to Casablanca (1942) would look better than a matte painting. Ugh, did you just get that bile-taste in your mouth? Of course, the fear of societal decline has always been worse for society than actual societal decline, so maybe I should accept DNR while it's simply making the image look better and call it a day.
Are you still reading? Man, are you a gearhead.
--Serge
PS: Yes, this was Saturday's post. I accidentally posted it early, and blogspot won't let me unpost it without deleting it entirely, so, myah.
0 comments:
Post a Comment