Grainy cinematography

Eddie B

Eddie B

Active member
Typically on filmmaking forums like this one, a lot of people are looking to get the clearest, most-HD look they can. I personally lean more towards a grainy super8 and 16 mm look. It's just more interesting to me.

At the same time, I'm well aware that just turning gain up and getting a noisier image doesn't mean all of a sudden you have anything like a 16 mm or super8 look. Now it just looks like bad video.

To get to my point: I'm looking for DVX100b settings that will give me a good, grainy look. I realize that good is always subjective so if you can just share your thoughts I'll try everyone's ideas out and see which I prefer, if not elements from every suggestion.

If you also have the time, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why setting something will work in this favor to help me greater understand. For example, instead of merely giving me settings, give me a why such as: "Turning the master pedestal down gives you more contrast." Again, if you don't feel like teaching DVX100b 101, that's fine; just offer some settings. But if you like talking about that kinda stuff, it'd be hopeful to know to make educated decisions for myself. I'm not being lazy; I'm reading books on the subject myself but your input and experience is appreciated.

A lot of you may also feel much of this should be left to post. I can buy that. I use Sony Vegas 8.0 and Magic Bullet Looks. If you have any setting recommendations for those, let's hear them as well. Again, a why would be nice but not necessary.

I'm including some pictures to further give an idea of what I'm going for:

breakingthewaves.jpg

derekjarman.png

derekjarman2.png

faces1.png

faces2.png

faces3.png

juliendonkeyboy.jpg

juliendonkeyboy2.jpg

juliendonkeyboy3.jpg

lastofengland.png


Thanks in advance.
 
In my opinion comparing film grain (actual grains) and digital noise (pixels) are apples and oranges. Yes they are in essance the same, but are very different.

Film grain structure is 'packed' in the same density (resolution) but each frame of film is unique and different. Therefore the grain is random, organic, and etc.

In digital terms, it's on a pixel grid, which is an inorganic and possibly repeatable situation. It's square, inorganic. I find it ugly and repulsive.... and use it only when wanting that effect.

It's of course all subjectively up to the DP, but if I wanted digital to look like it had film grain, I'd let a talented person in post add it in for me at my discretion. Therefore it can be random. I've seen many professional films add grain in post with much better results then using digital noise as a substitute.
 
I can accept that, but in my own experience in post I've found that in addition to adding plug-in grain, you can also emulate some grain by exposing otherwise obscured artifacts by decreasing the offset and raising the gain. I like the results I've had.

So then, even with your advice about shooting normal and adding grain in post, I would still pose the question to you of what type of settings you would choose to shoot in (I'm not talking about upping gain and getting digital noise). Even with matters of contrast and colors, what settings do you think would lend themselves best to adding grain in post and achieving a super8 and 16 mm effect?

And I know I keep bringing those up, but at the same time I'm not attempting to trick anyone into thinking I shot on those formats. By the nature of it being digital, I'm well aware that it will still have a digital look regardless. I'm fine with that. I like low-fi digital images, as well. I really appreciate the aesthetic quality Harmony Korine obtained by shooting in standard definition digital, blowing that up to 16 mm and then blowing that up to 35 mm. The results are a beautiful marriage of digital and film, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Eddie B said:
So then, even with your advice about shooting normal and adding grain in post, I would still pose the question to you of what type of settings you would choose to shoot in (I'm not talking about upping gain and getting digital noise). Even with matters of contrast and colors, what settings do you think would lend themselves best to adding grain in post and achieving a super8 and 16 mm effect?
Click to expand...

That entirely depends on what film stock you plan on emulating.

Vision3 500t can have grain and so can reversal stock... they look completely different from each other.

As far as grain size:
35mm will have greater resolution so apparent grain size will be smaller. 16mm will have larger grain, and 8 the biggest (remember apparent size). This is because it's the apparent grain size when projected to the same size.

So contrast, latitude, saturation, etc are completely up to the film stock you chose, from old ones to new ones.
 
To get the ball rolling with tests, let's say 16 mm.

Btw, I hope other people will be interested in these little tests. Perhaps we can all try them out and share our results on Vimeo to post here or something?
 
Well film emulsions for 16mm are the same for 35mm

Take Kodak for instance. They make their film in large batches... sheets, if you will. These sheets are then cut and perfed in different sizes... hence 35mm & 16mm.

This is why Kodak 5217 and 7217 are the same emulsions... the 52 stands for 35mm film, while the 72 is the prefix for 16mm film. Hence the only difference when projected is grain size. They both have the exact same grain structure, but since 16mm has a smaller negative, when it is projected to the same size as 35mm is projected, it 'appears' to have larger grain. Again, this relates to your grain size, but not necessarily any sort of look you are gunning for aside from noticeable grain and grain size.

So you'd be better off to pick an emulsion and even a still image.

Determining how to get any 'look' is difficult because even once you pick an emulsion you like it can be used in many different ways... for example, Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay uses the same two film emulsions as The Dark Knight... only re-enforcing how important lighting, set design, and processing can be. (along with many other things.)

If you have a still of something you like I can start to attempt to help you disect the many layers and possiblities to achieve it.

By simply saying 16mm, I think you are going to have many people who will submit a grainy 'reversal' stock, as that might be the most commonly thought of 16mm 'look', made popular in early home movies type look. Now-a-days, I can shoot the brand new Vision3 500t film on 35mm, 16mm and 8mm cameras. All having the same exposure curve, latitude, etc. The only difference is resolution, apparent latitude, and apparent grain size.
 
Last edited:
Shoot it as clear as possible, and add the grainy look you like in post. You'll have choices, shooting grainy from the get go leaves you none.
 
Since I said I'd help you with an example... I'd venture to guess the following:

- The film is an old one. Most likely 16mm based on the large grain size.

- Although it is very high contrast, I do not think it's reversal film.

- I'd say it's 7222 or 7231, both of which are the only b&w Kodak film stocks available since the early 1960's. I've never seen faces, but I'm going to assume it's 7222, as it's grain is not only larger in apparent size but therefore it's more sensitive to light, making shooting interiors less taxing (7231 is 64 asa/iso while 7222 is 200 asa/iso)

So how is it so contrasty? It might just be the way the film was lit or processed. Since I have never shot with 7222 negative b&w film, i can't identify if the grain appearance is 'normal' or artificially increased.

To go a bit further, I'd say there is a possibility the film was underexposed a 1/2 or full stop, then pushed 1/2 or 1 stop in developing. This would create a more contrasty image AND really get the grain to appear even more overt, on screen.

That's all I can tell. I looked it up on IMDB, and it said the film negative was 35mm, although I have doubts looking at the size of that grain. I know the release print was most likely 35mm, but the negative? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
Great points,

It's amazing how we all strive to get the cleanest and sharpest image from a camera and then we spend hours afterwards trying degrade it. Big fan of grain, I like static adapters for that reason as well, no circular patterns and no banding. Grain in Post is something i do all the time as long as we realize we need the grain fx at the same frame rate as the image. On set tricks can work as well , as long as you know what shots you want to have the look.
Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top