No grain in movies from the 30's and forties.

RonD · Mar 4, 2016

Hello,
I watch the Turner movie channel quite a lot as I love films from the 30's and forties.
I notice that there does not seem to be any grain and , furthermore, I have seen retro black and white film in the past on the big screen with no apparent grain.
Afterall, these were all originally shown on the big screen.
I don't think these were shot on film bigger than 35mm.
How come ...no grain?
Thanks,
Ronald

Anon Ymous · Mar 4, 2016

Becauce what you see is practically an average of many shots and as such grain is hidden. If you could pause to a single frame or make a print from that frame, then grain would be noticable.

AgX · Mar 4, 2016

In film movies (especially from the 70s) sometimes a still from the cine-camera is mounted (in succession) into the movie. Then there is apparant grain, in contrast to the motion scenes.

Luckless · Mar 4, 2016

Another aspect that can help hide grain effects is that while the release reels were frequently only 35mm the movies themselves were often shot on larger formats, such as 65mm film stock. So you could get away with using a slightly faster/grainer film to shoot on and do your post production with, and then print out to onto a slower/finer grained release stock with no real loss in quality and not needing to really fry the actors with extra lighting.

But the biggest factor is the motion, multiple images, and general blur. (Film is shockingly blurry when you look at things frame by frame. It is kind of cool how the human brain handles things.)

Also another point to keep in mind when watching older films these days is what you're actually watching them on. Digital copying to project down to a mere 1080p resolution will hide a lot of sins and flaws.

BAC1967 · Mar 4, 2016

Anon Ymous said:
Becauce what you see is practically an average of many shots and as such grain is hidden. If you could pause to a single frame or make a print from that frame, then grain would be noticable.

Anon is correct, it has to do with how your brain puts the picture together. Your brain amalgamates the series of pictures to make them appear higher resolution.

This is a great explanation: http://petapixel.com/2014/03/12/answering-unanswerable-whats-resolution-human-eye/

There have been numerous debates on motion picture film forums as to weather an HD scan of 8mm film is needed. The answer is usually yes.

Early in the film industry frame rates were selected so that you would not detect the flicker as well. When they came out with 8mm film in the 1930's it was meant to be economical for making home movies. They used a frame rate at 16 frames per second because that is about as slow as you can go without seeing the flicker which in turn saves on the amount of film used.

nworth · Mar 10, 2016

Luckless said:
Another aspect that can help hide grain effects is that while the release reels were frequently only 35mm the movies themselves were often shot on larger formats, such as 65mm film stock. So you could get away with using a slightly faster/grainer film to shoot on and do your post production with, and then print out to onto a slower/finer grained release stock with no real loss in quality and not needing to really fry the actors with extra lighting.

....

In the 30s and 40s, the movies were shot on 35mm stock. The larger stock came into use in the 50s, and it was used mostly for color.

The main reason the grain is not visible is the averaging due to 24 frames viewed per second. Sometimes you can see grain effects on newsreels and shots made with high speed film, like Eastman 4X Negative. In general, outdoor scenes were shot of very fine grain films, like Eastman Background-X or sometimes Plus-X Negative. Indoor scenes were done on Plus-X negative (if you could put enough light on the scene) or Double-X Negative (which was more like Super-XX than the current Double X Negative, which has very fine grain). Development was in generally in D-76 or something very similar, which tended to hide the grain.

Sirius Glass · Mar 10, 2016

Also color did not exist then.

gone · Mar 10, 2016

Actually, none of the above, and I'm surprised that no one caught this. There's plenty of grain, but those movies you watched have been digitally transferred from film and cleaned up quite a bit (often too much, as things look unnaturally sharp sometimes). Go to the library and look for an EARLY transfer from film to DVD, and you'll see plenty of grain, especially if it's a B horror movie w/ Bela Lugosi or something like that. They didn't spend a lot of time or money on the transfers on those. Or better yet, if you live in or near a big city, you should be able to find art cinemas that run the old films straight from the projectors. The big screen will be alive and crawling w/ grain. Very nice and organic.

David Brown · Mar 10, 2016

momus said:
Actually, none of the above, and I'm surprised that no one caught this.

Respectfully disagree.

momus said:
Or better yet, if you live in or near a big city, you should be able to find art cinemas that run the old films straight from the projectors. The big screen will be alive and crawling w/ grain. Very nice and organic.

I have seen many old black and white movies in actual projection, and I don't recall being aware of grain. In fact, I have often been astonished at the tonality and quality of older films.

Truzi · Mar 10, 2016

The Cleveland Cinematheque often shows old films, art films, foreign films, etc. The oldest films I have seen there were Metropolis and Nosferatu. They were not "original" prints, but also were NOT digitally remastered.

The copy of Metropolis was the "most complete" version available at around three hours; it's hard to imagine it being longer. It was very good, and basically, every science fiction movie since has taken from it.
Nosferatu was accompanied by a live pianist who specialized in accompanying silent films.

I did not notice any grain, though I did not sit on the stage and ask them to freeze frames. Actually, I saw more grain when they screened Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars.

Arklatexian · Mar 10, 2016

nworth said:
In the 30s and 40s, the movies were shot on 35mm stock. The larger stock came into use in the 50s, and it was used mostly for color.

The main reason the grain is not visible is the averaging due to 24 frames viewed per second. Sometimes you can see grain effects on newsreels and shots made with high speed film, like Eastman 4X Negative. In general, outdoor scenes were shot of very fine grain films, like Eastman Background-X or sometimes Plus-X Negative. Indoor scenes were done on Plus-X negative (if you could put enough light on the scene) or Double-X Negative (which was more like Super-XX than the current Double X Negative, which has very fine grain). Development was in generally in D-76 or something very similar, which tended to hide the grain.

Also at 24 frames per second, the screen is dark part of the time but the eye does not catch it, retaining the image until the next frame is projected. The 24 frames a second has as much to do with sound as with the film....Regards!

nworth · Mar 11, 2016

momus said:
Actually, none of the above, and I'm surprised that no one caught this. There's plenty of grain, but those movies you watched have been digitally transferred from film and cleaned up quite a bit ...

I am also a big fan of TCM. You are right, to some extent. The restoration of some of the films makes them as good or better than new. But that is not always the case, and many films are not heavily processed on their way to digital TV. One thing we have ignored: great cinematography and great direction go a long ways to make you forget about grain.

AgX · Mar 11, 2016

Truzi said:
Nosferatu was accompanied by a live pianist who specialized in accompanying silent films.

I advice anyone to go to such life accompanied projection whenever there is a chance.

frobozz · Mar 11, 2016

Truzi said:
The Cleveland Cinematheque often shows old films, art films, foreign films, etc. The oldest films I have seen there were Metropolis and Nosferatu. They were not "original" prints, but also were NOT digitally remastered.

Metropolis (if you saw the version that was nearly 3 hours) did in fact undergo some unavoidable digital remastering... but your point is still valid!

http://www.kinolorber.com/metropolis/restoration.html

Duncan

Truzi · Mar 11, 2016

I'm not sure which version I saw; I'm trying to figure out when it was. Definitely no later than 2011. The guy who introduces the films at the Cinematheque is quite talkative, so I may have figured that into the total time, lol.

bvy · Mar 11, 2016

Curious, what "speed" was most motion picture film stock from the Silver Screen era?

nworth · Mar 11, 2016

bvy said:
Curious, what "speed" was most motion picture film stock from the Silver Screen era?

The speed rating system was different then, and the speeds varied over the 20 year period. In the early 1950s, Background-X was ASA 25 and Plus-X Negative was 50. From the Eastman H-1 packet dated 1966:

XT-Negative - 25 Daylight / 20 Tungsten
Plus-X Negative 80/64
Double-X Negative 250/200
4-X Negative 500/400

btaylor · Mar 12, 2016

"Persistence of vision." That's how our brains meld 24 frames per second into a single vision. That's why you don't see grain. We don't see the black moments when the next frame is pulled down either. Early silent films were shot in 35mm at 16 to 18 frames per second as that was the minimum before our brains saw the flicker. 24 fps (90 feet per minute) was the minimum for optical sound quality.

But I agree, I think it was the great cinematographers that kept us in the story and not looking at things like grain, shakey crane shots and registration issues. I am forever in awe of their control of the medium.

Arklatexian · Mar 13, 2016

btaylor said:
"Persistence of vision." That's how our brains meld 24 frames per second into a single vision. That's why you don't see grain. We don't see the black moments when the next frame is pulled down either. Early silent films were shot in 35mm at 16 to 18 frames per second as that was the minimum before our brains saw the flicker. 24 fps (90 feet per minute) was the minimum for optical sound quality.

But I agree, I think it was the great cinematographers that kept us in the story and not looking at things like grain, shakey crane shots and registration issues. I am forever in awe of their control of the medium.

Regarding your last paragraph, I just watched Citizen Kane for the third or fourth time. It still blows my mind, and it was the direction and the cinematography that is responsible.....Regards!

mr.datsun · Sep 5, 2016

I presume you are watching TV. What you see on TV is de-noised and compressed. Even the TV has de-noise and smoothing settings (which you can turn off or reduce). If you watch a digitised and cleaned up Hitchcock film at the BFI you will see the grain.

Arklatexian · Sep 5, 2016

Truzi said:
The Cleveland Cinematheque often shows old films, art films, foreign films, etc. The oldest films I have seen there were Metropolis and Nosferatu. They were not "original" prints, but also were NOT digitally remastered.

The copy of Metropolis was the "most complete" version available at around three hours; it's hard to imagine it being longer. It was very good, and basically, every science fiction movie since has taken from it.
Nosferatu was accompanied by a live pianist who specialized in accompanying silent films.

I did not notice any grain, though I did not sit on the stage and ask them to freeze frames. Actually, I saw more grain when they screened Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars.

truzi, I think you hit on the big reason for lack of apparent graininess in old B&W movies (some even from the 1920s). That is the distance that the audience sits from the screen. Even the closest row of seats is not exactly "sniffing" the pictures as many are guilty of doing to still prints on a wall. The people shooting those movies, even the cheapies, were craftsmen and very proud of their work. Early B&W movie film was, at least in Europe, pretty fine grain. When Barneck first built what became the Leica, he used movie film that was fine grain by today's standards. When the movie industry went to faster, grainier film, early Leica shooters had a hard time finding fine grain film to work with until people started making 35mm still film......Regards!

Gerald C Koch · Sep 5, 2016

Take even a modern cine film like Eastman 5222 and make a 16x20 print. You will see lots of grain. But it is the viewing distance that is important. Stand back from the print and the grain will disappear.

No grain in movies from the 30's and forties.

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency