Talk:Film grain

Untitled
Sorry to say that except for the standard table there is not much more to add to the theme. It should be merged with other photographic film quality definitions.

Alf photoman 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs help.
This is, quite possibly, the most incomprehensible Wikipedia article I've ever read. The language and scope is so technical as to render it basically useless to the layperson, who should be its target. The only people who can understand it are the same people who don't even need to read it in the first place. The Film Grain section of the Film Speed article is much clearer and about the same length. This article needs to be deleted or to be overhauled. ExpulsionPapers 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't contribute any bit to this article, but I think this article doesn't have much problem in what's already written. The reference in Film Speed is written from a very different perspective and it's not fair to compare them. I see no need to delete this article. It can use some expansion, though. Phototech21 10:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is satisfactory. Instead of complaining about the article the user should copy-edit and improve the article.  Complaining, and then not contributing, serves nobody.  Wikipedia is not a critical sounding board. --KJRehberg (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is minor, but I suspect misuse of the word "objectionably" in the last sentence of the opening paragraph. Perhaps the author meant "objectively," although the word is redundant when paired with "noticeable." Did the author mean that the film grain effect raises objections in some people? In this case, film grain itself may be "objectionable," but, when used as an adverb, the word shouldn't be modifying "noticeable." I am not positive what the author intended, but I'll trust my judgment and try to fix this, so long as no one has any, er, objections.Saycsax (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it over and will leave it alone. The phrase just sounded weird to me at that moment.  Should anyone agree, leave a note.Saycsax (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Examples?
In addition to the "elements that make up film are called grains", shouldn't there be the "little spots on the movie screen" sense of film grain in this article? Perhaps some images from various films that have used the quality and aspects of a certain filmstock and corresponding grain? Say a frame from π (film) or something similar, perhaps contrasted with a digital or clean image? Gront (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge from RMS granularity
These articles were started in 2006, the RMS granularity before this one. But this one is a bit more general in title and topic, so how about merging to here? Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The original author of RMS granularity says OK (on his talk page). And after I took out the bit about logarithmic "ratings" that I could find no basis for, there's nothing left to merge, so I'll go ahead and redirect it.  If anyone objects, please do so here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdated
The article is missing the following information: Kodak has pretty much declared RMS an outdated system and has replaced it with Print Grain Index (PGI) either in the 90s or around the early 2000s. Here's an official Kodak document on the matter, KODAK Publication No. E-58, Print Grain Index—An Assessment of Print Graininess from Color Negative Films: While RMS is objective, easily scientifically measurable, and format-independent, PGI is based upon human perception and has to do with print contrast (when printing according to Kodak standards specific for every Kodak stock and Kodak print papers), viewing distance, and is dependent upon format size as well as print size. Kodak gives all that as reasons why PGI can't be compared, related to, or converted into RMS, and why they refuse to publish any RMS vs. PGI comparison tables.

It's resulted in a bit of an outrage among professional photographers who are pretty much left without a format-independent value now, and it's a real bitch especially if you're scanning your films where contrast has little to do with Kodak printing standards. Even though RMS is objective, absolute and format-independent while PGI is not, Popular Photography's Michael K. Davis gives a rough conversion formula of RMS = (PGI / 0.5335) ^ (1 / 2.8669).

I came upon this because I'm a Super8 enthusiast and K40 (discontinued 2005), Ektachrome100D and Fuji Velvia (both discontinued around 2014) were the last films with an RMS below 10 and thus suitable for the small medium (and because they all originally dated from before Kodak's official switch to PGI, they were still rated by RMS granularity). Today, all we have left in color stocks for Super8 are a reversal Belgian Agfa-Gaevert stock that's rated at ca. 12-14 RMS and it has grains as huge as golfballs in Super8, and the negative Kodak Vision stocks that have been around since the 1990s. Things is, as they were originally conceived at a later date than Kodak's reversal stocks above, the Vision stocks are rated not in RMS but in PGI (or at least Kodak Ektar100 is, which is pretty much a Vision movie stock that was ported to 35mm still photography around 2008, it's only different from the Vision stocks in that it has an added strong emphasis upon red and magenta hues). --80.187.106.104 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference to noise in film granularity
I'm removing the term 'noise' from the description of film granularity, as the cited source (Basic Photographic Materials and Processes, Second Edition) does not use the term noise to describe film granularity, as film does not share any aspect of 'signal to noise ratio' with digital/electronic imaging.

Imotor (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Drill bit -- needs source
This text has been in the article for 16 years without a reference. Feel free to return it to the article if such a reference and explanation can be found. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)