5 ms·

> presumably historians aren't upset about that Few historians will rail against an inaccurate portrayal of historic events in fiction. For one, many enjoyable

> presumably historians aren't upset about that Few historians will rail against an inaccurate portrayal of historic events in fiction. For one, many enjoyable books or movies would be rather dull if authors didn't have the liberty to beef up the story. However, historians will pipe up when fiction is taken for a historical fact. That's what historical research is all about: uncovering the facts and testing how those facts support different theses, narratives and perspectives. This debate though, isn't about misrepresenting history through fictionalized stories. This is about enhancing the quality of the footage itself and how that impacts our response and understanding of the past. Which is something else. The issue here is the intent with which such enhanced footage gets purposed and repurposed later on. Today, it's sights and sounds of cities, or a snowball fight. Tommorow, someone might apply those same techniques to reels of film which are culturally, socially and politically sensitive in order to elicit a specific, strong emotional response with their target audience. If done subtly, an unsuspecting audience might never even realize that they are watching enhanced or re-touched footage, instead assuming or accepting that the footage was made during that era. That's what is pointed out here: by enhancing the footage - removing the artefacts that show it's true age - you also remove barriers that create a gap between you and the past. For better or worst, that is.

OJFord 6y ago
But who thinks there was 1080p colour video in 1886? You're surely more likely to assume it's a scene from a modern film set in the period. I was surprised enough there was footage at all, anything to colourise. (Sure enough TFA says the creators were pioneers.)
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  It's a good question, and it's a delicate question to ask. You'd be hard pressed to find people on HN to believe that this enhanced footage is original. Why? Because this audience understands that these techniques exist and is able to apply their knowledge to what's presented to them. However, the world is big and not all humans are in a position to spot the difference. Either because they never attained that level of education, don't have access to knowledge, lack the incentives to get educated, aren't aware of their own biases, and so on. This isn't a small group of people, and going out you're going to encounter people who would totally end up believing this is original footage if you primed them before showing them. Now, you might think "Well, luckily I can spot that difference." but you're not entirely out of the woods either. See, this is a clear example of altered footage. The contents and the time period are clear from what you see. But things aren't always that clear. For instance, someone decides to make a documentary on a contemporary hot button topic. The premise of the documentary already aligns with your point of view on that topic. Now, the makers of that documentary could decide to spruce things by interspersing their film with carefully chosen, spliced footage which is subtly enhanced. That footage is then passed off as "fact" in order to make things even more poignant. If you watch an hour long documentary containing five 5 second long shots with such enhanced footage, would you be able to pick them out as you are watching the documentary? Without anyone telling that those shots were there in the first place? Now, to be clear, I'm not against enhancing footage. I think that's inevitable. And it's not a new thing either. Altered copies and mucking with documents has existed since the dawn of recorded history. What matters, though, is understanding how these techniques could be used for better and for worse; but - above else - also daring to question your own biases and perspective on the world coloured by your personal circumstances. I'll give two reasons why assumptions about general knowledge levels are biased: Geography: > The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and National Geographic commissioned a survey to gauge what young people educated in American colleges and universities know about geography, the environment, demographics, U.S. foreign policy, recent international events, and economics. The survey, conducted in May 2016 among 1,203 respondents aged eighteen to twenty-six, revealed significant gaps between what young people understand about today’s world and what they need to know to successfully navigate and compete in it. The average score on the survey’s knowledge questions was only 55 percent correct, and just 29 percent of respondents earned a minimal pass—66 percent correct or better. [1] [1] https://www.cfr.org/global-literacy-survey https://www.cfr.org/global-literacy-survey And, far more important, literacy: > According to data from the 2014 U.S. Census Bureau, 21 percent — or nearly 60,000 — of working age adults in the city lack a high school diploma. At the same time, 19 percent of adults cannot read a newspaper, much less complete a job application, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The situation is just as worrisome at a national level. Approximately 32 million adults in the United States can’t read, according to the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that 50 percent of U.S. adults can’t read a book written at an eighth-grade level. [2] [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/01/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-adult-literacy-crisis/?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/... The real trouble with a digital world, in which the wide proliferation of these technologies is driven by their low cost and ease of use, is that entire strata of the human population lack the critical skills, time and energy to even remotely come to develop a critical view of anything which is presented to them.
  - OJFord 6y ago
    > See, this is a clear example of altered footage. The contents and the time period are clear from what you see. But things aren't always that clear. For instance, someone decides to make a documentary on a contemporary hot button topic. Sure, and I agree that's an issue, but here we're talking about historical footage for the purposes of understanding history.. frankly anyone that 'matters' and especially actual historians aren't going to think it's original, contemporaneous footage, whether they understand how it could have been produced/altered or not. If it 'goes viral' and the uneducated assume it's an original C19 recording... It doesn't really matter? It's sad for misinformation to be 'viral' instead of stellar reporting, sure, but it doesn't alter learned knowledge of history.

OJFord 6y ago

But who thinks there was 1080p colour video in 1886? You're surely more likely to assume it's a scene from a modern film set in the period. I was surprised enough there was footage at all, anything to colourise. (Sure enough TFA says the creators were pioneers.)

CaptArmchair 6y ago
It's a good question, and it's a delicate question to ask. You'd be hard pressed to find people on HN to believe that this enhanced footage is original. Why? Because this audience understands that these techniques exist and is able to apply their knowledge to what's presented to them. However, the world is big and not all humans are in a position to spot the difference. Either because they never attained that level of education, don't have access to knowledge, lack the incentives to get educated, aren't aware of their own biases, and so on. This isn't a small group of people, and going out you're going to encounter people who would totally end up believing this is original footage if you primed them before showing them. Now, you might think "Well, luckily I can spot that difference." but you're not entirely out of the woods either. See, this is a clear example of altered footage. The contents and the time period are clear from what you see. But things aren't always that clear. For instance, someone decides to make a documentary on a contemporary hot button topic. The premise of the documentary already aligns with your point of view on that topic. Now, the makers of that documentary could decide to spruce things by interspersing their film with carefully chosen, spliced footage which is subtly enhanced. That footage is then passed off as "fact" in order to make things even more poignant. If you watch an hour long documentary containing five 5 second long shots with such enhanced footage, would you be able to pick them out as you are watching the documentary? Without anyone telling that those shots were there in the first place? Now, to be clear, I'm not against enhancing footage. I think that's inevitable. And it's not a new thing either. Altered copies and mucking with documents has existed since the dawn of recorded history. What matters, though, is understanding how these techniques could be used for better and for worse; but - above else - also daring to question your own biases and perspective on the world coloured by your personal circumstances. I'll give two reasons why assumptions about general knowledge levels are biased: Geography: > The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and National Geographic commissioned a survey to gauge what young people educated in American colleges and universities know about geography, the environment, demographics, U.S. foreign policy, recent international events, and economics. The survey, conducted in May 2016 among 1,203 respondents aged eighteen to twenty-six, revealed significant gaps between what young people understand about today’s world and what they need to know to successfully navigate and compete in it. The average score on the survey’s knowledge questions was only 55 percent correct, and just 29 percent of respondents earned a minimal pass—66 percent correct or better. [1] [1] https://www.cfr.org/global-literacy-survey https://www.cfr.org/global-literacy-survey And, far more important, literacy: > According to data from the 2014 U.S. Census Bureau, 21 percent — or nearly 60,000 — of working age adults in the city lack a high school diploma. At the same time, 19 percent of adults cannot read a newspaper, much less complete a job application, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The situation is just as worrisome at a national level. Approximately 32 million adults in the United States can’t read, according to the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that 50 percent of U.S. adults can’t read a book written at an eighth-grade level. [2] [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/01/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-adult-literacy-crisis/?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/... The real trouble with a digital world, in which the wide proliferation of these technologies is driven by their low cost and ease of use, is that entire strata of the human population lack the critical skills, time and energy to even remotely come to develop a critical view of anything which is presented to them.
- OJFord 6y ago
  > See, this is a clear example of altered footage. The contents and the time period are clear from what you see. But things aren't always that clear. For instance, someone decides to make a documentary on a contemporary hot button topic. Sure, and I agree that's an issue, but here we're talking about historical footage for the purposes of understanding history.. frankly anyone that 'matters' and especially actual historians aren't going to think it's original, contemporaneous footage, whether they understand how it could have been produced/altered or not. If it 'goes viral' and the uneducated assume it's an original C19 recording... It doesn't really matter? It's sad for misinformation to be 'viral' instead of stellar reporting, sure, but it doesn't alter learned knowledge of history.