←back to thread

252 points CharlesW | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
jedbrooke ◴[] No.44457031[source]
> This grain, formed from tiny particles during the film’s development, is more than just a visual effect. It plays a key role in storytelling by enhancing the film’s depth and contributing to its realism.

I never understood the “grain = realism” thing. my real eyes don’t have grain. I do appreciate the role of grain as an artistic tool though, so this is still cool tech

replies(20): >>44457115 #>>44457176 #>>44457190 #>>44457304 #>>44457366 #>>44457589 #>>44457682 #>>44457732 #>>44457872 #>>44457896 #>>44457993 #>>44458409 #>>44458653 #>>44459145 #>>44459768 #>>44463102 #>>44463118 #>>44464123 #>>44464590 #>>44471828 #
1. observationist ◴[] No.44457304[source]
People are always trying to rationalize and justify aesthetic preferences. The depth and nuance of your understanding of a thing will change how you perceive variations of that thing, whether it's guitar tonewoods, style of music, types of paint, flavor of beer, or the grain in film. If you know a lot about a subject, you can tell a lot about the history of a thing, and that's going to change how you feel about a thing.

A child watching a Buster Keaton skit and gasping and giggling and enjoying it is going to have a different subjective aesthetic experience of the media than a film critic who knows exactly what type of film and camera were used, and what the meaning of all the different abstractions imply about the scene, and the fabric of Keaton's costume, and so on, and so forth.

Subjective aesthetic preferences are in the realm of cognition - we need a formal theory of intelligence mapped to the human brain, and all of these subjective phenomena collapse into individualized data processing and initial conditions.

There's something about film grain contrasted against clean cel animation which might make it easier for people to suspend disbelief. They are conditioned to think that absence of grain is associated with unreal animation, particular types of media, and CGI. Home video and news and so forth had grain and low quality, so grain gets correlated with "real". In my view, there's nothing deeper than that - we're the product of our times. In 40 years, media will have changed, and it may be that film grain is associated with surrealism, or edited out completely, as it's fundamentally noise.