this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
97 points (95.3% liked)

movies

1769 readers
159 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

...on film that easily costs a buck per frame nowadays, Kodak actually raised prices last year because they can't keep up with demand. And that's not including developing it and making prints.

Don't get me wrong, analogue film is a great medium and the SRGB conversion you posted doesn't even begin to do it justice. But "it's cheaper" is in no way an argument for it.

Movies on analogue film are also a nice idea, a nice print of a nice movie for a reel-to-reel projector which are easy to build (use a white LED, please, no need even for electronics but power electronics but make it a LED) can have great quality and definitely do cinema history justice, but... VHS? Utterly atrocious quality. VHS had shoddy quality when it was new (much lower than broadcast) and it didn't get a single bit better.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

a buck per frame

I pay 12€ for 36, including development.