Comment on How are films recorded

crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• bestusername@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  What is quality to you? The image size/resolution, the audio sample rate, the noise?

  There’s a point where the difference is imperceptible.

  I think it’s largely nostalgia behind replies like yours, analogue and digital are different, not a blanket better or worse.

  source

  • crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Sure… Nostalgia is what drives the movie studios… That’s why they still use analogue despite the superior results of digital, at lower total costs… 🤡!

    source
  • schmidtster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I believe the difference is analog can be continuously remastered while digital you have to completely redo everything. You can’t just add pixels, well AI is changing this…

    source

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Analogue will only allow for improved remasters for as long as screen resolutions are lower than the level of detail provided by the film grain on the master. Film doesn’t have infinite resolution, and cinema cameras are fast approaching sensor sizes that compete with film.

      source

      • schmidtster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Right but even basic 35mm is above 4k in “resolution” though, or am I misremembering?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Ergo, analogue for now still beats digital at the highest ends of the market. There’s no digital camera outperforming the analogue ones.

        source
      • bestusername@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Well you’re definitely right about remastering/digitising old film…

        But if Star Wars was done on old DV, Lucas wouldn’t have been able to digitally butcher it, so there’s that.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• accideath@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If we‘re talking IMAX, sure. No digital camera can reach that kind of resolution. But the standard 35mm film and even regular 70mm has been surpassed by digital cameras for a little while now, if we’re talking pure quality. Digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, higher sensitivity, etc.

  What analogue film has is a texture and a feel that digital cannot emulate. It’s not objectively better but subjectively, it’s nicer. It has a certain look. It’s like vinyl records. They’re objectively worse than the digital masters but many still prefer them.

  source

  • njordomir@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I worked at a theater in high-school/college. I think it was Dark Knight, but at some point after going digital they brought back the film projector for certain shows and it was presented as a quality thing. I’m a super auditory person, so the thing that always stuck out to me in the IMAX was the sound. Those subs bump hard.

    Conversely, one of my worst experiences, subjectively of course, was HFR (high frame rate) movies. I think it was a LotR film, but it looked so weird that I couldn’t get lost in the story.

    source

    • accideath@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Interesting. I can attest to analogue IMAX having great sound, however, if you watched an analogue film projection of a current film in the last 20 to 30 years, the audio was most likely digital anyways and I believe that is also true for IMAX, since the film itself does not even have audio on it. I suppose, a good audio master and especially a good audio system do a lot of heavy lifting.

      And yea, hfr is meh. The effect it has on film is very underwhelming. The only film I have seen where it worked was Avatar. In Avatar 2 it works well in the scenes it’s in, however, the transition between the hfr and normal parts is extremely jarring and takes you out of the movie. The film you saw in hfr was probably one of the hobbit films, since it was a big marketing thing for them.

      source
  • crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I give up

    source