4 ms·

I don't really get what this person is complaining about. Sure, old film upscaled, coloured etc. is not as good as if it had been shot on modern equipment. Stil

by jemmyw 3y ago

I don't really get what this person is complaining about. Sure, old film upscaled, coloured etc. is not as good as if it had been shot on modern equipment. Still looks better than the original, for the most part. I couldn't even really see the problems in most of the shots on the site.

forgetfreeman 3y ago
It doesn't look better than the original to folks who grew up with media shot on actual film. Historically the crunchy-lighting-and-every-last-wrinkle levels of detail that are omnipresent in modern media were reserved for the lowest budget daytime soaps, and were a hallmark of cheap equipment, limited post budget, or both.
- piaste 3y ago
  So? 35mm movies were shot at 24fps while TV shows used higher frame rates. And because TV shows used to be cheap soap operas or comedies, for a long time high-FPS video gave you a feeling of cheapness. But that doesn't mean that 24fps was actually better! It was a technological limitation that got enshrined by its use in high art.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    "Better" is one of those obnoxious concepts that can be pivoted to whatever one wants it to mean to win an argument. Crispy ultra-high-def video is esthetically inferior to smoother presentations given by older equipment and methods. Yet another classic example of new isn't necessarily improved.
    - piaste 3y ago
      The first talkies were artistically inferior to the best silent movies of the time, too. And shooting in black and white retained its charm for a long time after Technicolor. Proclaiming that a strictly bigger toolset is "[a]esthetically inferior" because directors are still learning how to use it is pure reflexive conservatism. There's no reason you have to show wrinkles just because you're shooting in 8k, it just becomes possible to do so while it was impossible before.
      - forgetfreeman 3y ago
        Piss on "reflexive conservatism", the inferiority is pervasive and trivial to discern. Given HDTV made it's debut in 1998, unless making ultra-high-def media has a steeper learning curve than the Manhattan project I'd say your argument that this is down to directors and not the technology itself seems flawed.
        Mr_Minderbinder 3y ago
        >Given HDTV made it's debut in 1998 TV engineers started working on HDTV in the 70s. Sony demoed a HDTV video camera in 1981. HDTV made it's broadcast debut in the late 80s in Japan, under the name "Hi-Vision". First version of Rec. 709 was published in 1993.
        forgetfreeman 3y ago
        All true, and high def broadcasts didn't begin in the continental US until 1998.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Still looks better than the original What I can see this with film restoration like the WW1 footage where you're dealing with severely damaged originals, but most film images shot on 35mm look great. While film has grain it also has great resolution, and cinema lenses tend to be the state of the art in optics. AI is ideal for fixing things like hairs in the gate, judder, and other shutter-related problems. I think it has excellent potential for image restoration as well. But it's not yet good enough to handle texture and most integrators don't have a good idea of how to develop intra-frame continuity.

by jemmyw 3y ago

forgetfreeman 3y ago

It doesn't look better than the original to folks who grew up with media shot on actual film. Historically the crunchy-lighting-and-every-last-wrinkle levels of detail that are omnipresent in modern media were reserved for the lowest budget daytime soaps, and were a hallmark of cheap equipment, limited post budget, or both.

piaste 3y ago
So? 35mm movies were shot at 24fps while TV shows used higher frame rates. And because TV shows used to be cheap soap operas or comedies, for a long time high-FPS video gave you a feeling of cheapness. But that doesn't mean that 24fps was actually better! It was a technological limitation that got enshrined by its use in high art.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  "Better" is one of those obnoxious concepts that can be pivoted to whatever one wants it to mean to win an argument. Crispy ultra-high-def video is esthetically inferior to smoother presentations given by older equipment and methods. Yet another classic example of new isn't necessarily improved.
  - piaste 3y ago
    The first talkies were artistically inferior to the best silent movies of the time, too. And shooting in black and white retained its charm for a long time after Technicolor. Proclaiming that a strictly bigger toolset is "[a]esthetically inferior" because directors are still learning how to use it is pure reflexive conservatism. There's no reason you have to show wrinkles just because you're shooting in 8k, it just becomes possible to do so while it was impossible before.
    - forgetfreeman 3y ago
      Piss on "reflexive conservatism", the inferiority is pervasive and trivial to discern. Given HDTV made it's debut in 1998, unless making ultra-high-def media has a steeper learning curve than the Manhattan project I'd say your argument that this is down to directors and not the technology itself seems flawed.
      - Mr_Minderbinder 3y ago
        >Given HDTV made it's debut in 1998 TV engineers started working on HDTV in the 70s. Sony demoed a HDTV video camera in 1981. HDTV made it's broadcast debut in the late 80s in Japan, under the name "Hi-Vision". First version of Rec. 709 was published in 1993.
        forgetfreeman 3y ago
        All true, and high def broadcasts didn't begin in the continental US until 1998.

anigbrowl 3y ago

Still looks better than the original What I can see this with film restoration like the WW1 footage where you're dealing with severely damaged originals, but most film images shot on 35mm look great. While film has grain it also has great resolution, and cinema lenses tend to be the state of the art in optics. AI is ideal for fixing things like hairs in the gate, judder, and other shutter-related problems. I think it has excellent potential for image restoration as well. But it's not yet good enough to handle texture and most integrators don't have a good idea of how to develop intra-frame continuity.