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

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • 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
>>716
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
>>732
this
>>
No. 3002
29 kB, 400 × 300
89 kB, 800 × 600
>>724
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
>>3016
Why is the script of this BEAUTIFUL movie such utter shit (SHIT!)?

Argento really bums me out.
>>
No. 3058
>>3043
>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
>>3016
Good use of colour themes, Static camera, no colour filter and no fast motion.
>>
No. 3091 Kontra
>>3055
The movie is okay but by far not his best work, the Soundtrack is awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woR3r-ujMTU
>>
No. 3092 Kontra
>>3058
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