←back to thread

AV1@Scale: Film Grain Synthesis, The Awakening

(netflixtechblog.com)
252 points CharlesW | 2 comments | 03 Jul 25 16:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.425s | source
Show context
fidotron ◴[03 Jul 25 17:02 UTC] 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 ◴[03 Jul 25 17:39 UTC] 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 ◴[03 Jul 25 18:33 UTC] 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 ◴[03 Jul 25 19:13 UTC] 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 ◴[03 Jul 25 19:49 UTC] 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 #
wbl ◴[03 Jul 25 19:54 UTC] No.44458628[source]▶
Movies are best enjoyed in the theater.
replies(1): >>44463068 #
1. account42 ◴[04 Jul 25 10:01 UTC] No.44463068[source]▶
What, cramped into a room with tons of other people who can't help themselves from making noise or moving in front of you while you only have limited and overpriced snack options. As nice as a big screen and professional sound equipment is the downsides make the experience strictly worse than a big OLED + half decent soundbar.
replies(1): >>44464684 #
2. dylan604 ◴[04 Jul 25 14:04 UTC] No.44464684[source]▶
You must live alone. Even at home, you have people called family or friends that do not necessarily sit idle while watching TV. Watching with kids at home is worse than at the movies because they are at home and don't have the same social rules to follow. People at home are also not under the social rules of not using their devices, and second screening has become the norm.

Yes, a theater probably holds more people than your typical viewing experience at home. Unless you go to the movies during the week and avoid crowds. The last movie I saw at the theater was on a Tuesday after opening weekend as 4pm. There might have been 2 other people in the entire theater. It was amazing.