Why do movies look so much more cinematic with grainy footage and a lower frame rate than they do in super HD and a high frame rate?
>>62946578
It depends on the film. A lot if blu-ray transfers actually retain that old grainy look to them, but up the detail tremendously. It really does depend which movie you're talking about, cause there are some truly amazing HD transfers out there.
Agreed. HD just looks like bad video a lot of the time. Grainy 80s projected look is GOAT.
That's what you've been brought up with, it's like dinosaurs that think VHS is better than bluray or morons that think vinyl is better than flac
Because 24frames-per-second photochemical movies have been the norm for almost a century, and has come to define what "cinema" should be.
>>62946578
Cameras have certain formats they're supposed to be shown on
there's many types of cameras that give completely different looks
Most of Scorsese's new films still have that "cinematic" look
Inland Empire was unwatchable for me because it was filmed on digital, can't stand that shit
>>62946578
suspension of disbelief or something. when shit is grainy everything blends into each other. when you put it on super hd, you can see that the prop and makeup look just like what it is. likewise your eye can tell that, at 24fps, that the shit on your screen isnt real, so it's easier to accept shit. at 60 fps, it looks weird, and your mind thinks "wtf, no one would move like that or look like that irl" and it just looks goofy.
>>62946647
This. Blade Runner is my demo disc because the detail is absolutely astounding, and the look of the film is still kept intact.
>>62946684
Vinyl has like 20 times the effective bitrate though
>>62947161
vinyls are done after a couple of plays, same with vhs
It looks like fucking photoshop, like fucking cgi game video.
I know, i also prefer the grainy look. Gives a film more grit, more realism, as opposed to the fakeness of super clear modern movies.
>>62947236
>like a fucking photoshop
You're actually not too far off the mark. With bad transfers like that, they run the footage through a bunch of smoothing and sharpening filters. It's complete overkill.
>>62946684
>people actually thinking VHS is better than bluray
how why who
>people not knowing what DNR is
>people not knowing that even movies on dvd and vhs sometimes suffered from DNR
It's not just blurays you faggots.
![HDTV_35[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/swGgvG7.jpg "HDTV_35[1].jpg")
le melting chocolate man
>>62947542
Literally looks faker than the original
>>62946578
One of the reasons I still have a DLP TV rather than LCD.
>>62946979
Inland emire was designed to be hard to watch.
>>62946578
I'm with Quintin Tarantino on this, HD is a shit, fuck all that shit to hell. 70 mm grainy footage is master race.
Old movies had to use more makeup and different lighting so it looked right on older hardware. Just doesn't match up to HD.
![lastcrusade1].webm](https://i.imgur.com/mXjkz8B.jpg "lastcrusade1].webm")
>>62946578
it entirely depends on how they do the HD remaster. Unfortunately, it seems like 90% of those responsible for HD remasters think adding tons of stupid digital effects like digital motion processing and sharpening actually make the movie look better (not to mention the fucking blue-color-grading added to every single sci-fi movie)
Not all movies were horribly re-mastered, though. The Indiana Jones trilogy, for example, looks great
>>62949491
another example
>>62949491
>>62949550
More plz.
>>62946578
It's your conditioning, also filmakers have adopted techniques that are based an the look of 24fps
>>62947200
>>62946684
Vinyl ARE better, you fucking pleb. Objectively so.
And grainy movies at 30fps tops are better too, go back to /v/ you 60+fps pleb.
>>62950013
>conditioning
nah, they factually look better.
If this bugs you a lot, check out
http://tehparadox.com/forum/f63/kk650s-list-available-releases-7028193/#post13341918
they regrade a bunch of bluray releases
>>62946578
>films were made to work with the technology of their era
What a surprise
>>62949550
her tits were the best thing in that movie, tho.
>>62950514
If they "factually" looked better why wouldn't film makers still be making them like that you mong?
>>62950425
objectively, yes. Do we get anything of that benefit? Hardly, unless you're still 8 years old and can hear shit above 19Khz.
Besides, anything released on vinyl post 2000 is a digital recording. Either recorded digitaly or transfered digitaly and then to vinyl.
Nobody records on tape anymore, nobody.
Digital vs analoge in the 80's, analoge wins hands down.
Digital vs analoge in 2015, digital blows analoge out of the fucking park m8.
The former are for patricians, the latter are for pkucks from /v/.
>>62946578
Because you were born before 2000.
>Why do movies look so much more cinematic with B&W footage and no sound than they do in Technicolor and Phonofilm?
A better question is why do films look so much more better when there is a black bar on top and bottom of the screen as opposed to when the film takes the whole screen. Anyone know why it looks so much more better?
Isn't grain a mistake? It's an artifact, like cel dirt in animation.
I can understand wanting to see a film as a product of its time, but it's not something we should have now. Film technology has gotten better.
>>62951435
because you can actually see everything.
When it fills the whole screen that means that the sides are getting cutoff.
>>62951435
Something about our eyes seeing more horizontally than vertically
because our brain/eyes can understand that nothing in real life is actually supposed to look as "crisp" as HD. No matter how good any CGI is, or how clear HD is, our brains can tell that something is not real
In real life, a human's vision is not perfect. It's blurry, it's grainy at times, the colours in the distance mend together, the contrasts of lights, etc. you understand
Our brain doesn't feel as fooled when watching old footage, because it doesn't look like real life. Our brain can easily tell that it's okay, because the film obviously isn't real. Turn it to HD and the brain is confused
>>62946578
Is there a webm of this?
>>62946979
Yeah this:
>>62948954
You were supposed to have a hard time watching it. Lynch accomplished what he was setting out to do, then.
But yes OP, film grain is GOAT. That's why all this digital shit dilutes the quality of movies these days. Only a few directors are still using Film today, Nolan gets it.
>>62951435
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJhM3So4y8
>>62951564
Are you talking about "HD" as in digital video, or "HD" as in 1080p+ blu rays? Because the presentation of a film on blu-ray is much closer to how it would actually look on film in a theater. People who say that HD is worse are just conditioned to like unnatural grain and compression
>>62951709
>>62951435
I think he meant certain aspect ratios that are thinner than standard tvs/monitors and have black bars as opposed to the ratio perfectly fitting the screen
>>62951836
I'm not sure I understand, sounds like a shitty resolution issue
If the film grain and frame-rate is representative of the master video, then it is the true copy. If you run a bunch of filters and interleave frames, you get less detail, less true information.
On audio: The harmonic distortion and noise is higher on a Vinyl record than any CD recording from the 80s to 2015. Digital has always won. Audio recordings are digitally mastered. There is no reason to buy any Vinyl records ever. Anything beyond CD quality is barely audible. The CD standard was a smart choice. A Vinyl record will never sound better and have more detail than a CD.
>>62946684
there u go making baseless assumptions. Many, including myself, do contend that the vhs still has some worth since lots of movies never made the jump to dvd, let alone blu-ray.
Even the complete blu-ray library is shit compared to DVDs catalog. I have many obscure horror and comedy films on VHS that can't be found elsewhere.
For example,I have Split Second on vhs and the dvd rip on my comp but no way I can afford over $100 for the actual dvd. This shit will prob never come to blu-ray so suck a dick u underage fuck
>>62949550
>ACTING !
>>62947317
it's a maymay...
It's solely because you've been conditioned to associate that look with film.
>>62951973
Do you always miss the point this hard?
>>62951709
I watched this in my film class in college.
>>62951918
I don't know the specific numbers for ratios, but when I play Fargo (the show) on my laptop it completely fills the screen. Spirited Away has thin black bars, and I think "feels" more cinematic.
1.85 > 2.40
fite me
>>62951666
>Only a few directors are still using Film today, Nolan gets it.
>implying Nolan directing is a good thing, for any reason
>>62950698
looks like somebody is up to date with the latest in underground dance music, senpai.
tape is the new vinyl
>>62952188
way to contribute nothing u faggot
>>62946578
Never watch the RoboCop blue ray.. you can see how plastic he is.
>>62951509
Film grain isn't an artifact, it's literally what the image is made of. Larger film grain means more light absorption and a faster stock.
Just watched Saving Private Ryan on HD. In HD, it loses the cinematic feel and actually looks like a History Channel production.
>>62953836
>the way Spielberg shot it and the way it was shown in theaters makes it lose its "cinematic feel"
>>62949491
the Nazi turned into Doc Brown?
>>62946578
Framerate isn't the whole issue either
HD footage from the 2000s looks very clinical and low contrast, for example Avatar
>>62954207
like 80% of Avatar is CGI, but the live action stuff was shot with the Sony F23, which was a very early cinema HD camera that had a 2/3" sensor (roughly the size of Super 16) and used B4 lenses and had very little sensitivity and dynamic range. avatar was shot in 2007
>>62952282
i think its more to do with the camera or some other shit. ive seen many of full screen movies that look very cinematic and also some widescreen movies that look amatuer as fuck.
>>62954326
>the live action stuff was shot with the Sony F23, which was a very early cinema HD camera that had a 2/3" sensor (roughly the size of Super 16) and used B4 lenses and had very little sensitivity and dynamic range.
what did he mean by this?
>>62949491
>>62949550
gorgeous
>>62946684
what if you record a vinyl to flac.
>>62947161
dragging a metal needle across a vinyl grove, which degrades with every use is in no way superior to lossless digital files. also static and dust.
>b-b-but my thousands of dollars worth of equipment that diminishes, but doesn't eliminate these effects!
shit is for fools or hobbyists.
sometimes the mastering can be fucked up for digital, which makes the LP the superior listen. it's not because of the format itself, but because the format has limitations that keeps producers from doing retarded shit to the tracks.
god i really don't want to think about all this garbage again.
>>62954012
Yeah. Personal bias and all that. I guess it depends on what you grew up with. I was born in the late 70's and grew up in the 80's and 90's. There was a distinct look and feel of movies compared to tv productions. Nowadays, tv had caught up and in some cases you can't tell them apart anymore. My prerefence is for ye olde cinematic feel but I can understand why the younger generation will prefer the HD look.
>>62946684
I think VHS is superior for porn. Nothing do with image clarity, just a preference of moving through the movie better. Rewind/fast-forward is where it's at for finding that perfect conclusion to your session of self-abuse.
>>62950698
>Nobody records on tape anymore, nobody.
Well, you're wrong about that.
>>62954326
Yes that's what I noticed
It's almost like a signature look from 2006 to 2009
Cold, washed out, somehow sharper than film but lacking detail too
The live action bits from MGS4 were like that too
>>62954565
This guy knows ^^^^
>>62954585
Even your post is based about you and your story, that's exactly the type of efete cork sniffing retro fetishist bullshit that is always a smoke screen for, look at me and my quirky film camera making my own viewmaster slides for a feminist art intallation
>>62954827
Dave Grohl made a movie about how his band is still just an analog garage band making rock music, in a mansion with butlers and engineers ....
sure bounce it down to tape and back?
The bottom line is that retro fashion tourists offer no insight or innovation. Nobody is less punk than punks!
