Steve T Power wrote:The picture was ridiculously sharp, devoid of any kind of grain or film-like qualities, which in and of itself was pretty damn cool, but it was the framerate that really bothered me.
So film grain is a bad thing?
Hell no. I prefer to have a bit of natural (re: not digitally re-added a-la 300) grain in my images. Did you read the part where i said we should have looked at a more grainy film to begin with?
A razor sharp image is nice sometimes, particularly to sell a shiny new TV, and some films are very well suited to it (Star Trek comes to mind), but when you get into the practice of adding it to digitally shot films, or completely removing it from films where it actually serves to add some texture to the image, i just can't go down that road. I also prefer to see it at manageable levels, which is why i CAN get behind DNR when it's used properly. ie: Not Fox's Patton disc. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
is a prime example of a blu-ray that looks so good it will melt your eye-balls, and is authored correctly, just enough noise reduction so that the grain isn't distracting or overpowering, but a natural enough looking image.
The biggest problem is education: So many people mistake compression artifacts or mosquito noise for film grain, they've become adverse to it. Take Casino Royale, an awesome, awesome blu-ray. In some of the scenes, particularly towards the end of the film when Bond is recuperating following the torture scene, there's grain all over the place. It's natural film grain, brought out by the white of the backgrounds in the hospital room, but a few friends I watched it with went ballistic over it, thinking it was just a crappy disc.
I'd have to check into this jitter control stuff - but i doubt Russ would let me mess with his settings