←back to thread

252 points CharlesW | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.197s | source
Show context
fidotron ◴[] No.44457084[source]
There are definite philosophical questions over the merits of adding noise, but the problem with their example here is their denoising process appears to excessively blur everything, so both it and the synthesized grain image look noticeably less sharp than the source. The grain itself also looks too much like basic noise, and not really grain like.
replies(8): >>44457155 #>>44457423 #>>44457483 #>>44457566 #>>44457894 #>>44458122 #>>44458449 #>>44459011 #
rainworld ◴[] No.44457423[source]
These days, when we see noise/grain in an end product it has likely been added in post-production. So, ideally, studios would provide distributors with a noiseless source plus grain synthesis parameters. Bonus: many viewers would welcome an option to turn it off.
replies(2): >>44457784 #>>44457942 #
dylan604 ◴[] No.44457942[source]
> provide distributors with a noiseless source plus grain synthesis parameters.

What parameters would that be? Make it look like Eastman Ektachrome High-Speed Daylight Film 7251 400D? For years, people have taken film negative onto telecines and created content of grain to be used as overlays. For years, colorists have come up with ways of simulating the color of specific film stocks by using reference film with test patterns that's been made available.

If a director/producer wants film grain added to their digital content, that's where it should be done in post. Not by some devs working for a streaming platform. The use of grain or not is a creative decision made by the creators of the work. That's where it should remain

replies(5): >>44458163 #>>44458275 #>>44458299 #>>44459072 #>>44463016 #
rainworld ◴[] No.44458275[source]
And yet here we are: DNR -> fancy grain -> DNR -> basic, approximated grain. Because noise doesn’t compress. And you get compression artifacts even in Blu-ray releases. What’s the point of applying fancy grain when what a lot viewers end up seeing is an ugly smudge?
replies(3): >>44458425 #>>44458579 #>>44461065 #
kridsdale1 ◴[] No.44458579[source]
Because it looks amazing in the editing studio. Just like the sound mix is incredible on the Atmos monitors in the sound mixing room, even though the home viewers have a soundbar at best and tiny stereo speakers in a flat panel typically. The dynamics and dialog channel will be fucked. But that’s user error.
replies(3): >>44458628 #>>44459170 #>>44463054 #
Wowfunhappy ◴[] No.44459170[source]
This is exactly why theatrical releases are so important to movie producers, isn't it?
replies(1): >>44459256 #
1. dylan604 ◴[] No.44459256[source]
Theatrical release qualifies for certain awards and shiny statues. That's their concern. If a streaming platform wants to give them enough cash to beat out projected box office earnings, then they'll take it if they don't have any grandiose visions of golden statues.