Film Grain

[mmonte000]

Hey what are the ways to get the least film grain onto your negative? I've heard people say you just have a lower Aperature for your key like 2.0 or 1.4, but I'm not sure.

[John Pytlak RIP]

With color negative films, avoid underexposure. A bit of overexposure (no more than one stop) puts scene information further up the curve, utilizing more of the finer-grained "mid" and "slow" emulsions. A "pull" process can reduce graininess, but will also reduce contrast. Finally, use the slower films if you have enough light, and the new Kodak VISION2 films which have the latest improvements in image structure.

 

And "Size Does Matter": larger image formats (e.g. Super-16 vs. regular 16mm, Anamorphic 35mm vs. Super-35) require less magnification, and therefore have lower graininess.

[mmonte000]

so it's better to have a smaller lighting ratio (between key and fill) than a larger one because the darker parts will be grainier? Also its better to have the key aperature at the lowest possible for the ratio you want? (ex: key=5.6 fill 2.0/2.8)

[Nate Yolles]

Not necessarily. The grain structure is going to be the same throughout the frame, but it will be most apparent in the midtones and any unvarying portion of the frame (e.g. a large single colored wall). By trying to keep the key to fill ratio low, you are simply controlling your contrast. By opening and closing your iris, you are affecting depth of field. For your apature to key light correlation, you should set the apature according to where you want to place your key light (i.e. a stop hotter, 2 stops hotter etc.) I don't believe there is any connection between the apature and apparent grain.

[mmonte000]

Okay thanks, that makes sense.

 

is it better to keep the key at a middle aperature (5.6) or at a higher aperature (8/11)

[Nate Yolles]

That depends on how much depth of field you want. A 1.4's depth will be far more shallow than an 11. Aside from depth, over time many people come to the conclusion that they find an apature that works best for their lenses.

[John Sprung]

is it better to keep the key at a middle aperature (5.6) or at a higher aperature (8/11)

If you have the light to make f/8 or 11, you'd do much better to go to a slower stock and open up. For the same exposure, aperture has no effect on grain -- f/8 at 800 footcandles will give you the exact same grain as f/2.8 at 100 footcandles.

 

 

-- J.S.

[mmonte000]

So aperature doesn't affect grain unless it's uderexposed (more grain) or overexposed (less grain)

[mmonte000]

Great thanks a lot I'm glad I stumbled onto this site

[mmonte000]

what's the difference between Vision 2 film and the regular film?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Oh, come on, you can Google for that. I'm sure Mr. Pytlak will post info for you, but really!

 

Phil

[Matt Pacini]

So aperature doesn't affect grain unless it's uderexposed (more grain) or overexposed (less grain)

It does affect sharpness, however, but it's a function of the performance of the lens.

 

MP

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak VISION2 Color Negative Films:

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...s/v2/news.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...wvision2P.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/index.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.1.4.4.4&lc=en

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

Using f stops smaller then 5.6 usually results in loss of sharpness due to diffraction .

 

The "sweet spot" on all photo lenses is usually 2 to 3 stops smaller than maximum apreture. an f or T 2 lens would be f or T 4

 

Shooting at f8 f11 f16 is something to be done only when it is to bright and you do not have ND filters. Or you absolutely need the depth of field.

 

Overexposure can result in grain also. The whole concept of latitude is very mis-leading. To get optimum performance you need to be with in 1/2 stop of normal to Overexposure. Many shooters shoot 7218 at 400 which results in better detail in the shadow areas and less grain over all.

[Dominic Case]

Remember there is a differnece between granularity - which is an objective measure of the average size of the grains,- and graininess, wich is the subjective sense of the grain structure of the image.

 

Aperture and depth of field have absolutely no effect on the acual size of grains (assuming the expsure is correct). But as someone has mentioned, large uniform areas of mid-tone or less-than-black shadow will make the grain more apparent. The eye/brain likes to have something sharp to lock on to. If the image is sharp, it will look at the image. If the image isn't sharp, it will notice the grain. So a large bland background that is out of focus because of a limited d-o-f will result in a perception of more graininess.

 

Slight over-exposure will ensure that the blacks are truly black, thus masking the shadow grain, as well as (as John said) placing everything else a bit further up the curve, and bringing a bit more of the finer-grained emulsion layers into play.

 

Finally, make sure you always have a bright white somewhere in the frame (also to give the eye something to lock onto). A rim light is good if it's a dark scene.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Grain is most visible in the midtones --- near a density of 1.0 on the print. Fortunately, high densities make grain less visible, so the faster, larger-grained emulsions that capture the shadow detail end up in the darker areas of the print, where the grain is less obvious.

 

As Dominic notes, an image with sharp detail distracts the viewer from seeing any graininess.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

This discussion relates to a music video that I shot recently. This would be an example of what not to do to reduce grain. We wanted a home movie 8mm look and we were shooting 16mm. So I shot this on 8622 one stop underexposed to bring out the grain and did not pull focus. I just told the boy to run in circles around me getting closer until he could tag the meter pouch on my hip. He is about to tag the pouch. Add a few scratches and ta da! Home movie.

 

 

So as you can see, underexposure and lack of sharpness really emphasizes the grain. In actuality this scene is a bit "sharper", I don't know how to export frames from my NLE and retain all their sharpness.

[kent kay]

Is there any way to remove/reduce grain after the film has been transfered to video? I'm editing with Avid Xpress Pro and After Effects.

 

Shooting with an Arriflex 16BL

 

Kent

[Alvin Pingol]

There is a great smoother/denoiser filter written for VirtualDub. Check it out here, scroll down for samples.

 

EDIT: Just saw Mr. Rhode's reply, he mentions trailing on moving objects - this is more of a problem with temporal smoothers. Spatial smoothers usually don't do that, but usually don't do as good of a job, either.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Yeah, I'd definitely recommend overexposing at most 1 stop when shooting, then pulling the film back to normal during processing. You'll notice much more color saturation, deeper blacks and better contrast if your key-to-fill ratio when shooting was on the high side.

 

Also, go for the slowest film stock you can find. The faster the film, the grainier the image. The Kodak Vision2 100T is nice, or you can go for the 50D with an 80A filter.

 

Good luck!

 

Jon Bowerbank

[Will Montgomery]

Yeah, I'd definitely recommend overexposing at most 1 stop when shooting, then pulling the film back to normal during processing. You'll notice much more color saturation, deeper blacks and better contrast if your key-to-fill ratio when shooting was on the high side.

 

Also, go for the slowest film stock you can find. The faster the film, the grainier the image. The Kodak Vision2 100T is nice, or you can go for the 50D with an 80A filter.

 

Good luck!

 

Jon Bowerbank

Umm, Jon? That was a post from 2 years ago you responded to...

[Patrick Cooper]

"Using f stops smaller then 5.6 usually results in loss of sharpness due to diffraction."

 

Not necessarily. Some lenses have a maximum aperture of f5.6.

 

F5.6, f8 and f11 are usually considered quite good optically, depending on the lens of course.

[kelly tippett]

I had to delete message- read one of the previous posts wrong.

Edited October 29, 2006 by kelly tippett

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Umm, Jon? That was a post from 2 years ago you responded to...

 

Hey man, as far as I'm concerned this is still an open forum for discussion

 

:)