/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 716
32 kB, 480 × 360
When I watch old TV transmissions, strange feeling doesn't leave me.
These transmissions seemed to be sharper.
Guess it's just our brain which makes a lot assumptions, so when I saw some picture, I could imagine more clear image than it is.
No. 724
Generally I find old photographies or videos which are not as realistic and sharp as nowadays to feel more alive. Looking and a clear and sharp photography is somewhat unsettling to me, maybe it's somewhat related to the uncanny valley effect.
It reminds me of when Gulliver lived among the giants and felt only disgust when looking at a female breast, seeing every every little particle and pore of the human skin in extreme detail. All the sweat, sebum and little hairs which a human usually wouldn't notice.
It could be similiar with photographies. Seeing a picture of fireflies glowing in the dark which can only be identified as glowing spots only is a beautiful sight, but let's say you have the bug in a laboratory and make a high quality photo of it - it probably won't be as beautiful no more.
No. 732 Kontra
OP suffers from a condition known as "the sovok eye". It makes him see everything in photos from before 1990 as perfect reality of a better world.
No. 737
Moving pictures don't need to be that sharp to fool the human eye/brain. Especially if the brain in question had never accesss to superior picture quality.
No. 744 Kontra
>>732 suffers from being a faggot and completely lacking comprehension skills.
No. 1036
That's because analogue photos are better than digital in some ways. But mostly because modern screens and cameras use postprocessing to make things look sharper and brighter. "true colours" became a marketing term that means the opposite nowadays, "pretty colours" are much better term
No. 1060
That's because it actually looked sharper in many cases. It used to be an analog signal you saw on a CRT television. Now when you see it on the internet or on TV it's likely a digitalized copy of the original.

It also might look worse because screens are bigger these days but that doesn't explain it fully.
No. 1477
40 kB, 372 × 348
No. 3002
29 kB, 400 × 300
89 kB, 800 × 600
things were better before the switch to hdtv
No. 3003
digital artifacts vs analog tape degradation
No. 3016
7,8 MB, 640 × 360, 1:35
Technicolour film > digital > tape
No. 3043 Kontra
It probably did look way better back then, most of that stuff wasn't archived very well.

But i noticed a similar effect with videogames that seemed to look so great 15 or so years ago and are just a mush of pixels today.
No. 3055
4 kB, 69 × 167
Why is the script of this BEAUTIFUL movie such utter shit (SHIT!)?

Argento really bums me out.
No. 3058
>are just a mush of pixels today
I disagree, they were always a mush of pixels. Only thing that might havrle changed - how you interpret these pixels.
No. 3067
4:3 is perfect ration.
16:9 is a film meme, unfortunately it is here to stay.
No. 3068
Good use of colour themes, Static camera, no colour filter and no fast motion.
No. 3091 Kontra
The movie is okay but by far not his best work, the Soundtrack is awesome.

No. 3092 Kontra
Of course the actual look didn't change but a game like Metal Gear Solid 2 for example was great looking for me back then.
I didn't notice low res textures and stuff like that but today that's the first thing i see.
No. 5593
7,9 MB, 320 × 240, 2:46
No. 22751
I personally don't care about the image but the ideas and discussions seem sharper. It could be survivorship bias but on the other hand, they simply stopped television broadcast during night time. And you used to have pure educational shows. No advertisement, no infotainment, no pc, no nonsense.

No. 22754
Same thing, it's time feeling after 4-5 years all looks little different clothes that people wear and other things that you don't care about but they make that feeling.
No. 23885
94 kB, 700 × 466
i think they used polarizers more often, its also what gives 90s porn that certain feel
No. 23891
Some old shows ran at 60FPS, which makes things move in a more realistic manner. The standard for film is much lower, but a lot of things really want to go for that "cinematic" quality.
No. 23972
They probably were better shown at the old TV-set with CRT compared to watching them on new hardware. Old CRT didn't have pixels so the signal takes that into account. There are some nice videos on YT that show how programmers could take advantage of this and make their games look as if they had more colours then the hardware could show if run at certain monitors or TV-sets for example. Also you remember it sharper because you didn't have a reference for anything else.

Also this is why I really dislike "retro". It is the past that never existed. The games at the time were and are really technical achievements. Programmers and artists were limited by hardware constraints. Nowadays you can do some "pixel" graphics without even lifting a finger. The only ones who have some or in some cases massive respect are the ones who makes it for the old platform and then manages to push the hardware to new limits.
No. 23978
302 kB, 550 × 364
>Old CRT didn't have pixels
wtf ur talking about?
No. 23983
No. 23986
116 kB, 1716 × 1145
Yeah I get this too, it's like everything is too vivid now, too in-your-face, like there's no place for the imagination to fill in the blanks anymore.
Aye, looking through my old photos from 1998 to 2008 they seem to have so much more soul, like pic related, my trip to Ukraine in 2002
No. 23992
Dear God my eyes what happened to them
This looks like average computer graphics to me
No. 23994
For anyone having actually used film and not having grown up with digital that pic isn't soulful, it is out of focus and a waste of on of 24 or 36 pictures.

Sad day when the photos came back and what you thought was a nice picture was ruined because it was out of focus or over/under exposed or something else. Sometimes it turned out artsy but it wasn't what you imagined when you took it.
No. 23996
No. 23997
129 kB, 1716 × 1145
115 kB, 1146 × 1698
95 kB, 1158 × 1709
It's not a fake or out of focus, it's just a photo taken on film with a cheap disposable camera 17 years ago, here's more from the same reel
No. 24002
This is so nostalgic. Reminds me of the holidays I had with my mother 20 years ago. The photos we have from back then are more vivid than my memory and I associate film-photography, even if crisp and sharp, with the feeling of being a well protected child. Good times. I wish I could be 10 again.
No. 24036
290 kB, 900 × 600
Overgivings, comrade. Providings through.
No. 24037
Ha ha, for me there not that much SOUL because it's litterlay what you can see still today around russia/belarus/ukraine lol and my dad used his old analog camera untill he got tablet with decent built-in camera.
I have some of his photos in late80s-early90s Argentina and Netherlands and they looks liknd of nice and soul. Don't want show them thought, since don't want to show father's face on internet.
No. 24223
It is out of focus because cheap disposable cameras wasn't very good at that focus thing.

But never mind. Sometimes a picture is better then none. But I don't buy into that "feel" or nostalgia. I have bad pictures of for example friends who are long gone but are they good pictures? Hell no, but I keep them because they mean something to me but to others they are just piss poor photos take by an amateur.