Re:Film grain synthesis in AV1 (2019)
by babypuncher on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @11:33AM
(#32153023)
Even before 2010, directors and their cinematographers put a lot of thought into what film stock to use in order to build the aesthetic they want for their film. Grain characteristics are one of the most prominent distinctions among different stocks.
Again, depends on what's being shot. Like I said, 300 is a good pre-2010 example of a film stock/grain specifically chosen for it's artistic value.
However, for a bunch of film and especially tv shows, the choice had FAR less to do with aesthetics and was more related to cost. Big budget films certainly could pick any sort of equipment/stock they wanted. Lower budget productions didn't necessarily have that luxury.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, rather that the choice in stock was more often than not "cheap while being as clear as we can afford".
Again, you see this with modern film where grain is almost never added (except for specific scenes trying to give more of a dated effect). That, to me, says cinematographers aren't generally trying to pick their stock to add grain. Some do, but that's the exception and not the rule.
However, for a lot of film shot pre-2010, grain is an artifact that's not there by choice or artistically. Other than perhaps the film 300.
It just so happens that most of my personal media fits in that box of being pre-2010 which is why I generally denoise.
Something like 30 rock, or The Office, for example, don't have film grain because of some artistic choice.
Interestingly, though, "That 70s' show" does in a few cases even though it's somewhat noisy be default. That's a more tough call.