3 ms·

> In fact if the Sgt Pepper recording that sounds so right to you is in stereo (which has been the default version since 1968), you yourself aren't listening to

> In fact if the Sgt Pepper recording that sounds so right to you is in stereo (which has been the default version since 1968), you yourself aren't listening to the original canonical one. Just to add for neophytes-- audio improvements over the past 100 years have no discernible relationship to the pace or quality of video improvements. I say this because at least in the U.S. it is a highly visual culture. If you look at leaps from black and white to color to digital to hidef to 4k, etc. (and especially increasing framerate), you get a sense of monumental improvements in quality. New shit looks so good that the old shit is ruined now because it looks blurry by comparison and can even be pain-inducing to watch. So one might think, "Gee, stuff in stereo must be twice as good as old shit in mono!" But even paxys example of Sgt Pepper isn't pedantry. It's not just that mono versions are the canonical ones that the band actually help mix and approve. It's that they sound great. A listener doesn't have to do the aural version of "squinting" to hear what the Beatles were doing in that album.

sprafa 5y ago
A bit of a tangent but you can scan virtually any film made between 1915 and 2000 or so and get a pristine, super sharp 4K to 6k copy. That’s because they were shot on 35mm film. 35mm film is estimated to have a “resolution” of around 4K. Even black and white films, if you see an old nitrate print that’s been well preserved, it will be incredibly sharp. And I’m talking about stuff from the 1920s - 1930s. You might not know about this because the digital/tv versions of these films might be lower quality. But film capture technology has been sharp for 100 years. The exception to this is ofc stuff that was shot for television on video since its invention. But that would be mostly television shows or live broadcasts.
- joezydeco 5y ago
  Seinfeld went through one round of reprocessing for 1080 HDTV and the word is that Netflix is doing it again in 4K before they begin streaming it.
  - sprafa 5y ago
    was Seinfeld shot on video or 35mm film? Interesting to know. Also Netflix's obsession with 4K is slightly anti-scientific and counterproductive imo. They are really boxing in their content creators at times, plus 4K can't be resolved in a reasonably large television at a moderate distance from a couch anyway. 4K is the dumbest thing. There's one cinematographer who said for viewing even 1080p was pretty good, and hardly distinguishable from 4K - for CINEMA screens. HDR is cool tho.
    - joezydeco 5y ago
      But Netflix can upcharge for a 4K subscription. ;-) Seinfeld was shot on 35mm film so bully for them. The HD versions are interesting. You see parts of the set that were meant to be hidden in 4:3. You also see a lot of makeup errors. Once you see where the makeup ends on Elaine's hairline you can't unsee it.
      - sprafa 5y ago
        What do you mean the HD version of Seinfeld is 16:9? That is a complete distortion of the intention of EVERYONE involved with making the show. I hate when they do that. I can’t watch the HBO HD copy of The Wire for the same reason. The whole point of cinema is you choose what the f** is within the frame. That’s literally PART of the art form, and an integral one at that.
- jancsika 5y ago
  > A bit of a tangent but you can scan virtually any film made between 1915 and 2000 or so and get a pristine, super sharp 4K to 6k copy. Another tangent-- if you watch the original 35mm film on a 35mm projector, you won't get the same "pristine" experience as the 4K or 8K tv which does some uncanny frame-rate upsampling thing which makes the moving images appear as if they're happening in real life. If you listen to a mono reel-to-reel or record of Helter Skelter on equipment available to the Beatles at the time of the recording, McCartney's voice will sound pretty godammned close to as pristine (if not exactly for most people) as listening to a 24-bit zillion-herz professionally remastered digital recording of the same thing. We've spend the past fifty years developing so much fidelity in video that we scratch our heads thinking about someone watching Happy Days on an old school tube. We've spent the past 30+ years trying to convince cranks that CD quality doesn't degrade to triangle waves right below Nyquist. Meanwhile, it seems that vinyl made a comeback and shows no signs of slowing any time soon. Also meanwhile, absolutely nothing has improved audibly in terms of "framerate" because CDs really were able to encode the entire frequency range that is audible to human beings. (Higher sampling rate can be useful for digital filters and other purposes, but that's not what we're discussing here.)
coldtea 5y ago
>Just to add for neophytes-- audio improvements over the past 100 years have no discernible relationship to the pace or quality of video improvements. Not to mention the audio quality has declined in some ways. Back in the day even casual music fans had hi-fi systems (even if cheap ones). Today the huge majority, even so called music junkies (unless they're also into hi-fi), will listen through crappy headphones, computer speakers, and so on. (and/or heavily compressed mp3, streaming, or YouTube music)

sprafa 5y ago

A bit of a tangent but you can scan virtually any film made between 1915 and 2000 or so and get a pristine, super sharp 4K to 6k copy. That’s because they were shot on 35mm film. 35mm film is estimated to have a “resolution” of around 4K. Even black and white films, if you see an old nitrate print that’s been well preserved, it will be incredibly sharp. And I’m talking about stuff from the 1920s - 1930s. You might not know about this because the digital/tv versions of these films might be lower quality. But film capture technology has been sharp for 100 years. The exception to this is ofc stuff that was shot for television on video since its invention. But that would be mostly television shows or live broadcasts.

joezydeco 5y ago
Seinfeld went through one round of reprocessing for 1080 HDTV and the word is that Netflix is doing it again in 4K before they begin streaming it.
- sprafa 5y ago
  was Seinfeld shot on video or 35mm film? Interesting to know. Also Netflix's obsession with 4K is slightly anti-scientific and counterproductive imo. They are really boxing in their content creators at times, plus 4K can't be resolved in a reasonably large television at a moderate distance from a couch anyway. 4K is the dumbest thing. There's one cinematographer who said for viewing even 1080p was pretty good, and hardly distinguishable from 4K - for CINEMA screens. HDR is cool tho.
  - joezydeco 5y ago
    But Netflix can upcharge for a 4K subscription. ;-) Seinfeld was shot on 35mm film so bully for them. The HD versions are interesting. You see parts of the set that were meant to be hidden in 4:3. You also see a lot of makeup errors. Once you see where the makeup ends on Elaine's hairline you can't unsee it.
    - sprafa 5y ago
      What do you mean the HD version of Seinfeld is 16:9? That is a complete distortion of the intention of EVERYONE involved with making the show. I hate when they do that. I can’t watch the HBO HD copy of The Wire for the same reason. The whole point of cinema is you choose what the f** is within the frame. That’s literally PART of the art form, and an integral one at that.
jancsika 5y ago
> A bit of a tangent but you can scan virtually any film made between 1915 and 2000 or so and get a pristine, super sharp 4K to 6k copy. Another tangent-- if you watch the original 35mm film on a 35mm projector, you won't get the same "pristine" experience as the 4K or 8K tv which does some uncanny frame-rate upsampling thing which makes the moving images appear as if they're happening in real life. If you listen to a mono reel-to-reel or record of Helter Skelter on equipment available to the Beatles at the time of the recording, McCartney's voice will sound pretty godammned close to as pristine (if not exactly for most people) as listening to a 24-bit zillion-herz professionally remastered digital recording of the same thing. We've spend the past fifty years developing so much fidelity in video that we scratch our heads thinking about someone watching Happy Days on an old school tube. We've spent the past 30+ years trying to convince cranks that CD quality doesn't degrade to triangle waves right below Nyquist. Meanwhile, it seems that vinyl made a comeback and shows no signs of slowing any time soon. Also meanwhile, absolutely nothing has improved audibly in terms of "framerate" because CDs really were able to encode the entire frequency range that is audible to human beings. (Higher sampling rate can be useful for digital filters and other purposes, but that's not what we're discussing here.)

coldtea 5y ago

>Just to add for neophytes-- audio improvements over the past 100 years have no discernible relationship to the pace or quality of video improvements. Not to mention the audio quality has declined in some ways. Back in the day even casual music fans had hi-fi systems (even if cheap ones). Today the huge majority, even so called music junkies (unless they're also into hi-fi), will listen through crappy headphones, computer speakers, and so on. (and/or heavily compressed mp3, streaming, or YouTube music)