No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Analoge beats digital in quality.
Edit: y'all have to take back them downvotes... You know I am right! 😤
What is quality to you? The image size/resolution, the audio sample rate, the noise?
There's a point where the difference is imperceptible.
I think it's largely nostalgia behind replies like yours, analogue and digital are different, not a blanket better or worse.
You are correct.
The figure I was given at art college was that a well exposed and developed 35mm negative had a minimum resolution of 90 million pixels, which is higher than 8K at ~75 million.
What? Not at all.
I'm saying we can already scan stuff at way beyond the resolution film is able to record, how is that mutually exclusive with there only being useful detail in the film up to a certain scale?
I'm not correcting what you said, I'm correcting what you think I said.
AI could add detail that isn't there in the film, but it is unnecessary to recover detail that IS there because we absolutely have the tech to get the full detail that is available in the film. No need to make up for lost detail with AI.
I though you meant we'd have to use AI to match film, because we can't scan it at a superior-to-film level.
Film is also so so insanely high detail, that the idea of enhancing it further never even occurred to me. It'd be utterly pointless.
There is only a contradiction if you interpret my words in a way I didn't intend.
So don't. If you still do after I've told you otherwise, yes, you'd be being disingenuous.
No, we can scan things at a molecular level, I never said that'd produce a result beyond what's there in the grain, why would you think I meant that?
I said it's not infinite, film only carries detail down to its grain size. That detail is still insanely high, but not "infinite" and as such you won't be able to just keep re-scanning it forever, at ever higher detail.
No I haven't, you read meaning from my words that wasn't there.
Yes.
Also yes. These things can be true at the same time.
Still yes, eventually you'd be scanning at a higher level of detail than what is there. And by that point, you'd have achieved resolutions that exceed the human eye. Though this depends on what kind of film the master is on. Some works will be on grain and film sizes that didn't have that high quality to begin with.
Well you're definitely right about remastering/digitising old film...
But if Star Wars was done on old DV, Lucas wouldn't have been able to digitally butcher it, so there's that.
He probably might have remade them.... Give me chills thinking about it
Ergo, analogue for now still beats digital at the highest ends of the market. There's no digital camera outperforming the analogue ones. I want some of them upvotes back!! 😤
Sure... Nostalgia is what drives the movie studios... That's why they still use analogue despite the superior results of digital, at lower total costs... 🤡!
If we‘re talking IMAX, sure. No digital camera can reach that kind of resolution. But the standard 35mm film and even regular 70mm has been surpassed by digital cameras for a little while now, if we’re talking pure quality. Digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, higher sensitivity, etc.
What analogue film has is a texture and a feel that digital cannot emulate. It’s not objectively better but subjectively, it’s nicer. It has a certain look. It’s like vinyl records. They’re objectively worse than the digital masters but many still prefer them.
I worked at a theater in high-school/college. I think it was Dark Knight, but at some point after going digital they brought back the film projector for certain shows and it was presented as a quality thing. I'm a super auditory person, so the thing that always stuck out to me in the IMAX was the sound. Those subs bump hard.
Conversely, one of my worst experiences, subjectively of course, was HFR (high frame rate) movies. I think it was a LotR film, but it looked so weird that I couldn't get lost in the story.
Interesting. I can attest to analogue IMAX having great sound, however, if you watched an analogue film projection of a current film in the last 20 to 30 years, the audio was most likely digital anyways and I believe that is also true for IMAX, since the film itself does not even have audio on it. I suppose, a good audio master and especially a good audio system do a lot of heavy lifting.
And yea, hfr is meh. The effect it has on film is very underwhelming. The only film I have seen where it worked was Avatar. In Avatar 2 it works well in the scenes it’s in, however, the transition between the hfr and normal parts is extremely jarring and takes you out of the movie. The film you saw in hfr was probably one of the hobbit films, since it was a big marketing thing for them.
I give up