Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!media-lab!ereidell
From: ereidell@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Evan A. Reidell)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Generating photographic grain imperfection in computer graphics?
Summary: I'd like a few pointers, maybe a discussion
Message-ID: <5644@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Date: 12 Apr 91 01:48:25 GMT
Reply-To: ereidell@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Evan A. Reidell)
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA
Lines: 23

Rendering using stochastic sampling with jittered subpixel locations
introduces noise into computer animations that makes each frame appear
"alive" and flickering.  Pretty neat, but it still doesn't have that
"film" look, it just looks a bit noisy and fuzzy.

Richard Greenberg of R/Greenberg Associates hinted that he had some
interesting algorithms which faked "the look" for use with his stuff,
but he didn't say what they were.  probably top-quality trade secret, eh?

can anyone "in the know" think of good SIGGRAPH papers that do their
best to describe why film stock looks the way it does, and how that
might be synthesized as a filter through which CGI rendering takes place?

how about scientific photography papers, are there any good books or
documents that discuss the mathematics of that "film" look?  why we can
recognize the difference between a black-and-white movie made in the 50s
and a black-and-white movie made today, within seconds?  how can we port
that look to computer graphics?

Any pointers or discussion welcome, especially about the "look" of
visual displays, video, film and animation.

Evan A. Reidell (ereidell@media-lab.media.mit.edu)