I have always had this concept in the back of my mind, but only just now became clear: Rotten Media.It's not Lost Media, although it can be. RM is media that has been found or maybe was never lost, and maybe isn't even obscure, but survives in a corrupt state, it has degraded and now it's a glitchy sort of mess. You can still consume it as intended, but most people won't because it simply looks and sounds bad.And to put it into categories, we have to be subjective because we need to consider quality. Since it's subjective, these terms can be useful because they can be used, they contain information and communicate, but they're not strict designations. I came up with four:MOLDY MEDIA.If something was never lost but the records of it are of low quality, and the quality is not *that* low so it can still be consumed properly as intended, that's Moldy Media. You hope to one day see a proper restoration, but the record of it can be used. Also, since the artistic quality of the work is high, the enjoyment of it remains intact despite the low quality of the record. Example, "I Can Remember" from 1972 Sesame Street.ROTTEN MEDIA.Media which is available, but the quality of most records of it are so degraded that most people cannot consume it, simply because the audio-visual elements are so corrupted that trying to consume it as intended becomes a chore. If it's also only partially found, that silidifies the status of it as rotten. If it's also of low artistic value, but not extremely so, that silidifies it even more as moldy. Example, the Itsy Bitsy Spider TV series.
RANCID MEDIA.Rotten media that would be hard to consume even if it was available in high quality, simply because the artistic quality of it is as rotten as the record of it. I can't think of an example of it, but maybe someone can give me an example.REPROBATE MEDIA.Media that is not necessarily lost or moldy, but of such low quality in art and execution that it *should* be lost. Again, I bet you guys can give examples.And for some reason, I think that /co/ is where we can have the most examples of each.Or maybe I'm talking shit! Let me know.
I thought you were calling Leslie rotten, OP. I came to be mad, but I see what you mean.You're clear, autistic, and clearly autistic, but I don't think those terms are gonna catch on. I'd like to see them being used, but I won't bet on that.
>>154081540I saw a video where a guy repaired an old film reel he found.It was basically glued together and it was a miracle he even separated the films without destroying them.Part of the film was covered in gunk but you could still see a girl dancing.
>>154081766Oh, share it please?
>>154081547>RANCID MEDIA.>Rotten media that would be hard to consume even if it was available in high quality, simply because the artistic quality of it is as rotten as the record of it. I can't think of an example of it, but maybe someone can give me an example.So when someone finds partially corrupt drives and damaged blurays of the slop we're making now, 20 years later.
>>154081540>Example, "I Can Remember" from 1972 Sesame Street.Made me look it up because I didn't remember "I can remember", but after briefly googling, I remembered "I can remember" because I knew it, but I had forgotten it. Now I remember "I can remember".
>>154081547Would The Christmas Tree (1991) be an example of rancid media or reprobate media?
>>154081540>RAW MEDIAOnly prototypes of the media have been found>STALE MEDIAEven more subtle degradation than moldy. Would more be used to describe more recent, digital media. For example, all that exists of a cartoon from 2010 is a 720p screenrip.
>>154081958Reprobate, I wanna send that shit to hell. I know some disagree, but I dont even think its "funny bad".
>>154081540>INGREDIENT MEDIAMedia where the fanlabor is generally considered to be just as legitimate as the source material, which may be abandoned or otherwise not exist in a finished consumable state. I'm thinking of Milky Way & the Galaxy Girls.>TAMPERRED MEDIAMedia where the legitimacy of the franchise owner's canon is rejected. Example: Star Wars
>>154082137Okay I just realized these are more epistemic and not really the point of what you're going for, OP.
>>154082137Oh, those are good too!I approve, except that we may need a better term for the first one. Why "ingredient"?>>154082167>these are more epistemic and not really the point of what you're going for, OPI was going for a good, interesting conversation about concepts, and your expansion offers that exactly.
>>154082188Well I was thinking like, you wouldn't really eat a handful of uhhh paprika or ice cream sprinkles on their own right?
>>154082227Paprika? No.Ice cream sprinkles? By the handful. But dependes on the brand. Some taste like nothing.
>>154082250If you're familiar with MWATGG, it's a series of drawings and gifs by Lauren Faust for a scrapped toyline. There was a fan series on YouTube, that fans of MWATGG pretty much treat as canon. It's an interesting anomaly in the nature of fandom. But the point is that the official source material is just ingredients, not a finished product.
>>154081540Are you making this thread because of that one time you found a moldy VHS tape in a thrift store?>picwhat is that aspect ratio?
>>154081870The mom though.
>RECALLED MEDIAOriginal version of a piece of media that now an alternate version is officially distributed under the same title. Example: the Derpy Hooves voice change
>>154082039Here's a good example for stalehttps://youtu.be/9Tsub52FmgcThis show does exist in full quality though, but pretend this is the best that exists. I think moldy would be too harsh. It's just stale.
I have one: WHAT IF MEDIA.Media that we know could have been, that almost became a reality, but ended up not happening.I named this what if because "aborted" sounds bad, and "parallel universe" sounds too wishful. That being said, I would jump into another dimension just to watch Toil and Trouble.
>>154082039Both good. Stale media is a good subset of moldy. It makes sense to have a special designation for moldy that had characteristics unique to digital and not to analogue.
>>154081540>RAW MEDIAMedia that wasn't well seasoned and cooked at all.
>>154082039>RAW MEDIAI think this concept works, and is useful, but the name is confusing because you can have prototypes of something that then went into production, so the concept is not fully understood at first glance by the name alone.I think RAW ONLY MEDIA works better.
>>154081698I can. Are you forgetting the lost media community is already founded on autism? I could easily see on the wiki, STATUS: ROTTEN
>DEAD MEDIAMedia that the only legitimate copy available is degraded to the point of incoherence, and the actual content of the material is not conveyed. This doesn't necessarily speak to how the quality effects enjoyability, but there would realistically be a lot of overlap.
>GAY MEDIASomething only faggots and trannies can enjoy.
>>154082668Fucking kek
>>154082580>Are you forgetting the lost media community is already founded on autism?Oh, that's an excellent point.I think we need a chart, autistics love charts (I know from personal experience). Also, a clarification in the chart itself: These designations aren't meant to be strict, just to communicate universally understandable qualifiers. They're subjective and should not be used to discourage the search of lost media or the expression of enjoyment by others. The moment you use these designations to subjugate or denigrate someone else's taste, their enjoyment of any given piece of media, or their efforts to find lost media, is the moment you start misusing them.Something like that, or else people,e could use it as a tool for nastiness.
>SPIKED MEDIAMedia where the only copy available is irreversibly filtered in some way, usually by the uploader. The example I have is this obscure metalcore song https://youtu.be/VaZXKOOMmZU there's an album version that exists, but this is the demo. I used to have the original but I can't find it anymore, only this pitched up copy remains. The pitch shift algorithm is lossy so the filter cannot be reversed without more loss. Spiked media is extremely rare but it does exist
>>154082746I love this kind of hyper specificity.>>154082644>DEAD MEDIAThat's excellent, but I vote that we call it CORPSE MEDIA, because DEAD MEDIA communicates easier a different concept: that the piece of media is no longer in production.Also, I'm pretty sure that's a common term.
>>154082711I don't know if there's a system here though, so a chart would be difficult. This more of a case-by-case science, there a lot of dimensions here.
>SCAM MEDIAMedia in the public domain that was gatekept for pure capital gain just to get leaked anyway through unconventional means.
>>154082791Yes, many such cases
Not sure if this is within the spirit of the thread, but I have this subset of the Weird Al effect: RULE-RUINED MEDIA: a piece of media better known for the R34 of it, to the point where a good portion of the people that knows of it assume that it has only ever been porn. Or a piece of old media that would have almost no cultural significance if not for the porn parodies, lewd fanart and sexual online conversations. A piece of media that, when discussed online, has only lewdposts and when fanart of it is made, it's always porn, and no longer people engage in conversation online about it except for sexual things. It has no online interest except for the lewders that have fully captured it. Example: PreTeena.
>>154082874Gameoverse
>>154082913Maybe, but it's too early to call it.
>>154082791I know this isn't /co/ but there was a black metal band that made a release with one copy and buried it in the woods as a conceptual statement. However, it was supposedly found. I think this warrants changing the category's name because the same thing happened except it was a thought experiment, not a scamhttps://youtu.be/o738mh_qyMc
>>154082874sex trafficked media
>>154082940Scam media works for greedy fucks, then.Your thing is a different category: LEAK-RUINED MEDIA.Something like this. If the spirit of the thing was greed, then scam. If it was something artistic or experimental, leak-ruined.
>>154082711Boi what's the sauce? I love black lolis
>>154082940That was a boring song.
>>154081540Now this is interesting, when I've gone crate digging for obscure media I've come across an spectrum of this.For example last year I saw Fantastic Max, the first season survives in SD but the second only survives as zoomed in or stretched pus Fantastic Max is so damn bland it doesn't matter if it rots.Lots of golden age cartoons only survive in really crummy prints, there is people restoring them but for years people only knew Terrytoons and Columbia from yellowed prints full of dust.Digital media has it worse because some stuff was made in 360p and one has to pray that somebody made a back up.Either way, discussing stuff because obscurity and rot are its main features is something I'd love to do.
>>154082711>not cropped nothing to see in the margins trust me bru.pngOK, I was gonna ask, but now that you said this I believe you...NOT!
>>154082973I would say call it all something. Motive doesn't really matter. I thought about it, maybe black market media?
>>154083073>Fantastic MaxFuck, I had forgotten about that silly shit. Yeah, bland as can be.>>154083076>I believe you...>NOT!Would I lie to you, Borat?OK, fine, I made a mistake, there's more to it. But that's it, now for real, nothing in the margins. Ignore the partial text which implies there's something in the margins. Ignore the fact that I'm clearly lying, also.>>154083132I'm with >>154082973I think intent matters because the point of these terms is to quickly and easily communicate concepts. If the reasons behind hiding pieces of media are different, then the concepts are different too.
>>154083174>Blonde hair>Wonder BreadWhy?
>>154083347>Why?Because she _can remember_ the meme!Cheer up!
>>154083174Just show us the thing, nigga!!!
>>154082990>>154083398https://litter.catbox.moe/ofpo06.jpg
>>154083566I'm not into lolis that little but that's pretty funny.
>>154081540This worst kind of media has to be when you can only find A.I. restorations of it
>>154083801AI-BURIED MEDIA?
>>154081781He is making it the fuck out
>>154083566Is the playboy poster a reference? Probably not a sesame street reference, but is it a reference to something else?
What does the "rancid" and "reprobate" definitions have to do with the overall topic of media preservation? Some people would consider Rock and Rule or Fritz the Cat to be 'Rancid', some would not, but that's not meaningful to the factual discussion of whether the media is accessible and what state its in. People are either willing to preserve it or they aren't, the "why" is getting into the weeds of a different topic.
>>154081547>REPROBATE MEDIA.>Media that is not necessarily lost or moldy, but of such low quality in art and execution that it *should* be lost. Again, I bet you guys can give examples.This just sounds like a call for censorship.
>>154083832Synthetic media
>>154084403>sounds like a call for censorshipIt's not, because it's not a call at all. It's just a way to express opinions. See:>>154082711>These designations aren't meant to be strict, just to communicate universally understandable qualifiers. They're subjective and should not be used to discourage the search of lost media or the expression of enjoyment by others. The moment you use these designations to subjugate or denigrate someone else's taste, their enjoyment of any given piece of media, or their efforts to find lost media, is the moment you start misusing them.>>154082990Found it! https://boards.plus4chan.org/pco/t477887.html#p479848
>>154084594>Found it!Cool, but it's already posted here: >>154083566
>>154083566Thanks anon.I'm not up on the references though
>>154084594I would definitely like to see that design in HD, a sketch or cel, or otherwise
>>154084594So who drew it?
>>154085013>I'm not up on the referencesThe Joe Dirt, treasure from a fish tank, and "bitch actress" text refers to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MsH8VoR-8MThe bottom part with the bread refers to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL8_c8WW1YAThe Playboy poster, if it's a reference, I don't know it. At first I just thought it was a funny thing but now that Anons are saying it must be a reference, I don;t get it. I figured it was just there for lol and also because Playboy was at its highest cultural weight in the 70s.If there are more references, I also don't know.
>>154085616Is there anything Family Guy hasn't referenced?
>>154085923Quality and good writing.
>>154086046
>>154085923Seriously thoug, "I can remember" has been a conversation among certain animators since the 90s, and they've used it for study. It's not that odd that it gets referenced.
>>154081540>>154081547What would you call media that is complete, uncut, and in its highest quality, but the context of who made it, why, when, and where is unknown?
>>154086510Oh, good question.
>>154082791I remember that one Buster Bear thread, good times were had by all.
