Do you think that the advent of extreme HD has actually lead to declining quality in films?
While watching a VHS, I often won't notice when something looks fake or ridiculous due to the low quality of the video. It makes watching some films, especially ones with low budgets, much more believable.
Also, with the creation of CGI against an HD background, it becomes much more obvious when the CGI is fake.
What do you think?
I've watched most movies I've seen over the last 10 years in 240p on an iPod video screen, so no, I haven't really noticed that.
HD does make some older digital effects look especially dated, like in Ghostbusters
>>62658201
shit I meant to post this one
>>62658234
SHE CHEATING MANG!!
NO HOMEBOY FOR HER TONITE MANG
>>62658201
>>62658234
>digital effects
well, there's your problem. those are top-of-the-line analog effects,
>>62657831
no because I realize movies are not real
part of whats i interesting to me is the actual craft and skill went into making certain shots and scenes.
When people saw classics in theaters they saw the movies as it was shot on film, which blu ray hasn't even caught up in quality
>>62660370
I think he means that seeing that in 1080p or better makes is look more fake. The only think that looks shitty about that scene is at the very end when they turn around and it looks like they are floating above the ground but I noticed how fake that looked back in 1990 on my VHS.
>>62660428
Most classics, of whatever kind, have been seen by the majority of people who saw them, in a home setting. Check.
>>62657831
That movie was only good for the exploding rocket.
>>62660731
I don't care about plebs though
>>62660696
it looked like crap in theaters in 1985 but its a tiny flaw
>>62660782
fuck off
KOOOYYYYAAAANIIIISQAAAATSIIIIIII
>>62660782
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpId8SquVOY
The first Atlas-Centaur test May 8, 1962.
>>62658155
are you homeless?
>>62657831
ive only seen this movie at the end of an acid trip
It's not picture quality. It's because until the past decade film was shot... on film. It has a texture which digital can't duplicate. So movies look glossy and insubstantial - disposable. Like all those forgettable pictures taken by your digital camera compared to the much fewer pictures in your parents' photo albums from when they grew up.
>>62660902
this is the best version of pruitt igoe (and prophecies):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0RKpmjjpLQ
>>62661086
Bite me, Zack Snyder.
>>62660945
That must have been fun
KOOOYYYYAAAANIIIISQAAAATSIIIIIII
>>62657831
>What do you think?
I remember when tv people used to unironically turn to the camera and say that
now nobody can be sincere about it
![lastcrusade1].webm](https://i.imgur.com/IoDGwRB.jpg "lastcrusade1].webm")
>>62657831
some old movies, like the Indiana Jones trilogy, look amazing when converted to digital HD
>>62663354
whoops wrong webm
still
What I always find jarring is shitty and/or low budget horror movies given beautiful HD blu-ray transfers.
Seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre remastered in HD was fucking weird.
>>62663354
That looks amazing.
