3 ms·

I scanned our family 35mm slides on a good scanner a few years ago and the resolution, even after scanning, is incredible. It took a long time for digital camer

by beachy 3y ago

I scanned our family 35mm slides on a good scanner a few years ago and the resolution, even after scanning, is incredible. It took a long time for digital cameras to catch up.

mustacheemperor 3y ago
Even today, you’d be hard pressed to find a digital camera with a sensor resolution equivalent to medium or large format film.
- yakkers 3y ago
  Medium format digital is a thing for those with deep pockets (e.g. Fujifilm GFX). Large format, on the other hand…
jxramos 3y ago
This is why the 70s look amazing. All those film recordings to be remastered over and over again and keep putting out. The 80s and 90s will forever be stuck in lousy low resolution.
- pfranz 3y ago
  You see convenience jump and quality (temporarily) regress over and over in the short time photography has been around. Black & white film and photos look amazing. When color started coming around you needed more light and the quality dropped for awhile. In the 70s you can see faster film become available to filmmakers. This let them move out of the studio with more outdoor footage instead of large studio lights and hand-held instead of being locked on a tripod or crane. In exchange, the quality of the picture dropped. Then again, with digital scanning and vfx. I remember hearing vfx studios would sometimes get away with 1k images for theatrically released feature films if the effect was fast or blurry enough.
- zokier 3y ago
  > The 80s and 90s will forever be stuck in lousy low resolution. You are off by few decades though. 35mm film photography and cinematography was still dominating until the end of 90s. Nikon D1 and Canon 1D were released in 1999 and 2001 respectively, and Star Wars EP2 in 2002 was notably first major movie recorded with digital cameras. Pleasantville (1998) and O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000) were early examples of using digital intermediates.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jxramos 3y ago
    yah, I'm speaking of mostly TV productions, music videos, and that level of video material. We do have thriller in 4k, other productions too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnqjkJTMaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnqjkJTMaA. Now those are interesting examples of digital cameras you provide above; definitely worth sharing and bringing to the table. Now that I think of it, I think video recordings existed in the 70s too? Like how exactly were TV shows broadcast anyways now that I think about it. The Abba remastered stuff is where my association got set https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8s, that stuff is incredible.
    - gwbas1c 3y ago
      > Now that I think of it, I think video recordings existed in the 70s too? The cliff note's version is that the BBC perfected filming live TV. It worked because their analog version of deinterlacing 50 fields per second to 25 frames per second matched European film. But, in the US, where TV ran at 60 fields per second, filming it at 30fps was just too short of an exposure time. So video was favored in the US. A lot of pre-digital stuff was shot on film for various reasons. One reason is that 24/25fps film adapts very well to 50 fields per second or 60 frames per second; the consequence is a very minor speedup / slowdown. In contrast, it's a lot harder to adapt video between the two framerates with analog technologies. Edit: I also suspect cost may have had something to do with it. I suspect that film was cheaper than video in the 1970s, but someone who was around at the time might understand the cost difference between video versus film. I don't know if anyone "anticipated" HDTV in the 1970s, but back then artists did like putting their videos up on a big projected screen. At least in the 1990s, a lot of content, like Seinfeld and Friends, was done on film; both for the look, and so that it could be remastered for HDTV.

by beachy 3y ago

I scanned our family 35mm slides on a good scanner a few years ago and the resolution, even after scanning, is incredible. It took a long time for digital cameras to catch up.

mustacheemperor 3y ago

Even today, you’d be hard pressed to find a digital camera with a sensor resolution equivalent to medium or large format film.

yakkers 3y ago
Medium format digital is a thing for those with deep pockets (e.g. Fujifilm GFX). Large format, on the other hand…

jxramos 3y ago

This is why the 70s look amazing. All those film recordings to be remastered over and over again and keep putting out. The 80s and 90s will forever be stuck in lousy low resolution.

pfranz 3y ago
You see convenience jump and quality (temporarily) regress over and over in the short time photography has been around. Black & white film and photos look amazing. When color started coming around you needed more light and the quality dropped for awhile. In the 70s you can see faster film become available to filmmakers. This let them move out of the studio with more outdoor footage instead of large studio lights and hand-held instead of being locked on a tripod or crane. In exchange, the quality of the picture dropped. Then again, with digital scanning and vfx. I remember hearing vfx studios would sometimes get away with 1k images for theatrically released feature films if the effect was fast or blurry enough.
zokier 3y ago
> The 80s and 90s will forever be stuck in lousy low resolution. You are off by few decades though. 35mm film photography and cinematography was still dominating until the end of 90s. Nikon D1 and Canon 1D were released in 1999 and 2001 respectively, and Star Wars EP2 in 2002 was notably first major movie recorded with digital cameras. Pleasantville (1998) and O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000) were early examples of using digital intermediates.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jxramos 3y ago
  yah, I'm speaking of mostly TV productions, music videos, and that level of video material. We do have thriller in 4k, other productions too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnqjkJTMaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnqjkJTMaA. Now those are interesting examples of digital cameras you provide above; definitely worth sharing and bringing to the table. Now that I think of it, I think video recordings existed in the 70s too? Like how exactly were TV shows broadcast anyways now that I think about it. The Abba remastered stuff is where my association got set https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8s, that stuff is incredible.
  - gwbas1c 3y ago
    > Now that I think of it, I think video recordings existed in the 70s too? The cliff note's version is that the BBC perfected filming live TV. It worked because their analog version of deinterlacing 50 fields per second to 25 frames per second matched European film. But, in the US, where TV ran at 60 fields per second, filming it at 30fps was just too short of an exposure time. So video was favored in the US. A lot of pre-digital stuff was shot on film for various reasons. One reason is that 24/25fps film adapts very well to 50 fields per second or 60 frames per second; the consequence is a very minor speedup / slowdown. In contrast, it's a lot harder to adapt video between the two framerates with analog technologies. Edit: I also suspect cost may have had something to do with it. I suspect that film was cheaper than video in the 1970s, but someone who was around at the time might understand the cost difference between video versus film. I don't know if anyone "anticipated" HDTV in the 1970s, but back then artists did like putting their videos up on a big projected screen. At least in the 1990s, a lot of content, like Seinfeld and Friends, was done on film; both for the look, and so that it could be remastered for HDTV.