>Digital Cameras>look like ass compared to film photos>digitally shot films and tv shows>look like ass compared to shows and films filmed on film>digitally drawn and colored anime, western animation and comics>look like ass compared to hand drawn and colored workswhy does digital tech make things worse?
>>108483698>Digital Cameras>look like ass compared to film photosThis hasn't been true for about two decades now provided you shoot in RAW on a DSLR and actually process your photos competently.
>>108483720it's still true now. that's why DSLR sales are in the shitter and film sales have gone up to the point where kodak brought back ektachrome and fuji poloaroids are consistently the top selling photography product on amazon every year digital looks terrible and the only advantage is that it's cheaper and better autofocus and low light
>>108483727>DSLR sales are in the shitter and film sales have gone up to the point where kodak brought back ektachrome and fuji poloaroids are consistently the top selling photography product on amazon every year This is like saying vinyl sounds better than CD (it doesn't) because it outsells it these days. Both vinyl and film's popularity are driven by nostalgiafags, hipsters, zoomers etc. much like the recent trend of buying shitty mid-2000s era handicams and point and shoots.For both CDs and DSLRs, a technology that was "good enough" (streaming and smartphone cameras) replaced them leading to most people abandoning them. Retard.
>>108483727>digital looks terribleAgain this is purely down to how competent you are with processing your photos after the fact. You can make a digital photo look exactly like any film stock in lightroom, while having much more data and resolution to work with. Stop talking out of your ass.
>>108483698Luddite thread
>>108483740>This is like saying vinyl sounds better than CD (it doesn't)vinyl does sound better. MP3s only record to the 3rd or 4th oscillation while vinyl records unlimited oscillationspeople went to digishit because it was cheaper, not because it's better, retard. it's way worse, retard>>108483748which is why movies all look like ass now and professional photos look like ass now?>>108483750don't believe your lying eyes
>>108483770>vinyl does sound betterThank you for confirming you're a retard. I can leave this thread in peace now.
>>108483783not my fault you are deaf, retard
>>108483770you absolute retardcds? mp3?oscillations? what the fuck?
>>108484189when you play a musical note it makes an oscillating sound wave. there are like subwaves under the main waves and mp3s only go x layers of subwave deep because "that's all humans can hear" but you can pick up on it all the way down, that's why live music sounds different than an MP3
>>108483698I've been doing a lot of film photography lately, at least one 35mm roll a month and there is one area where digital is much better and that is low light / night photography. Everything else looks better on film though.
>>108484234This candid shot would not have been possible with film.
>>108484218this is what schizophrenia looks like
>>108484242This is what retardation looks like
>>108484234agreed>>108484242you can go look up the physics. I'm a chemist and I'm telling you what I learned in a physics class over a decade ago.
>what are VSCO presets /thread
>>108483720still true>>108483740>This is like saying vinyl sounds better than CDusing your gay analogy:film = 32bit 196khz uncompressed raw PCM, digital photography: 20kbps mono mp3. are you retarded? is it down syndrome? seek help, retard.
>>108484264>digital photography: 20kbps mono mp3>t. poorfag who's never owned a DSLR
>>108483720you know people like op just keep the preview jpeg's and don't know how to process photos>but i've never had to do that with film!they process those for you, and even then professionals may make special requests while processing film
>>108484248maybe you should have paid more attention. also, music CDs don't even use MP3.
>>108484270normalfags dont know this but every photo they have had developed ever had to be colour corrected
>>108484269>low iq monkey that knows nothing about digital photography or film has mental breakdown>t..poor or some shityou could be a billionaire and you're still a drooling and retarded fucking moron that has no idea how any technology works. i can't imagine ever being that fucking retarded to compare film to vinyl. that some fucking dumb shit only a dumb fucking retard would ever vomit up. what a loser.
>>108484234if this is supposed to be a good example of film then clearly you only prefer it because it looks like it was taken on an old camera, not becauae it's an objectively high-quality/accurate representation of the scene.not to say there's anything wrong with liking the "film look" to be clear
>>108484293recreating the film look entirely digitally is really easy, photoshop has had presets for it since the start
>>108484283reminds me of an article by a "photographer" which compared film and dslr. one example had photos of different iso levels. All the film prints looked about the same while the digital jpegs were all different brightnesses. He concluded that film could therefore be "pushed" more, seemingly oblivious thay the print shop corrected the film photos for him
>>108483748>You can make a digital photo look exactly like any film stock in lightroom,Nope.>while having much more dataWrong.>and resolution to work with.False.
>indie film>shoots on cheap digital 4k>they don't add some subtle and carefully curated film grain emulation in the end>ends up look like smooth realistic assIt's so easy to fix it.
>>108484251film looks better>>108484269DSLR sales are in the shitter while film sales are going back up
>>108484293It's obviously taken with a disposable style camera with a plastic lens. It's more about the colors, dynamic range and grain. If I had taken the photo with actual glass it would have looked much better. Photography is about soul and film has so much more soul than digital.Take photos of the sky with film vs digital and the differences are huge.Pic related would have looked better with film.
>>108484322perhaps the main dowside with dslr's is that you do need to know how to process photos. film processing isn't something the person taking the photo needs to even know is happening
>>108484218>Digital sound after DAC sounds different based on format you out it onWtf are you talking about?
>>108484343you can make a digital photo look like film if you want to, as it has more information to work with.it's like what someone else said about cd vs. vinyl, vinyl is a more limited format, but some people like the limited quality of it. if you record output from a vinyl and burn the sound to a cd, it will sound exactly the same
>>108484339If you have to over process your photos you're not a photographer but a photoshopper instead. I've seen retards spend hours processing their raws for it to still look like steaming shit in the end while others do a quick 5min level and curve adjustment and the results are amazing. Over processing is a cope and compensation for taking bad photos.
>>108484366not sure how that relates to my post
>>108484362>you can make a digital photo look like film if you want to, as it has more information to work with.
>>108484369I developed film and you're exaggerating at the amount of processing going vs digital.
>>108484370i accept your concession
>>108484357You do know that vinyl is digitally mastered since like 70s? Just because your interface is analogue doesn't mean your music is.
>>108484376My concession is my dick in your ass (without lube) so bend over and bite your sleeve
>>108484385i'm not gay, sorry
Film has a digital resolution equivalent.They have rescanned some of the old well preserved films close to it in digital format.Old epic movie film was indeed better than most resolutions it was played back on a digital format for a long time.But film and digital are often quoted in resolutions that do not equate to real levels of detail transferred because the image is still limited by the lens and glass it goes through as much as the medium it is recorded on.Many smart phones have impressive resolutions shot through tiny pathetic lenses and a picture with 20% of the resolution shot through a high end lens would still have better detail.Imagine people thinking a microscratched dime sized lens kept in a pocket or purse with dust, keys, change, etc even comes close to lenses like a high end telescope.
>>108484343>you're asking me to remember the jargon from something over 10 years agodid it ever occur to you that if you don't remember what you are talking about that you might be wrong?
.>>108484396It has to do with you being wrong about analogue vs digital debate. You brought up digital format (vinyl) and compare it to CDs and act like there is a difference, showing your own ignorance and lack of rational though.Your assertion on analogue vs digital images can be disregarded because we can assume you have no knowledge based opinions on the matter just like with vinyl.
>>108484264>32bit 196khz uncompressed raw PCMlow iq post
>>108484396it's more like "starting from 1979", digital mastering was literally a selling point in the '80s as doing more digitally result in less losses and higher quality records. i doubt anything past probably the mid-80s used only analog equipment in the production of records
>>108484284And you know a lot about digital photography do you? What equipment and workflow did you use? Talk us through it mister expert
>>108484396>what does it have to do with...he's guaging if you're a "analog is better because it's analog" type people>>108484444If you cared you can look it up, there's lots of info on it, it's not secret information. like i said it was a selling point, your record sleeves may even have an icon on it to show if it was recorded and/or mastered digitally.>Take Donald Fagen’s “The Nightfly” from 1982. Vinyl collectors love showing off this album, praising its warm, analog sound. In fact, according to Paul, some of them even cite this album as a benchmark for vinyl’s superior sound.>Plot twist: it was made entirely with digital technology.
>>108484444>that doesn't look like a source every vinyl post 1970 is digitalDo you think ANYONE is recording directly onto a wax master disc anymore when producing "vinyls"?
>>108483720Dude...x)Seriously?Digital RAW vs Film RAWIt is not same format.Digital Raw is used in so called professional consumer electronicBut Hollywood still use classic RAW Film.You making fun Of yourself here Do you know that !?Right ?x)
>>108484444>nope. and that doesn't look like a source every vinyl post 1970 is digital. Common knowledge doesn't need to be cited. Go use Google and you'll find that 70s is where it started.90s is where only metal bands and other indies used analogue (hence the shit muffled sound).You know nothing on the subject and ask for citations on common knowledge.
>>108484477What the fuck is film raw? You mean film?
>>108484462all your favourite records past the early 80s went through a digital stage no better than what cd's offer, so it is actually, objectively impossible for records to have better sound than cd past that point. and i don't see people using older records as prime examples... almost like they were even worse pre-digital-mastering
>>108483770>digital sound is only mp3sturbo retard
>>108484503you're talking with someone who has no clue about this subject
>>108484517Don't need to site common knowledge. It's on you to know about basic debate topic. I'm not here to teach you jack shit I'm here to tell you, you are a retard who knows nothing.
>>108484512again, prefering the look of film does not mean it is objectively better. nobody is saying you can't have a preference for film
>>108483770>Recording in MP3LMAO @ ur lyfe
>>108484542you can find info about it anywhere, here's one since your google seems to be broken;https://midnightrebels.com/mastering-engineer-debunks-vinyl-myth-analog-warmth-has-been-digital-for-45-years/
>>108484542>it is objectively better.If it's objectively better then you can just cite sources for comparison. Should be easy.
>>108484393Neither am I, now prepare your bussy
It's not the tech as much as how it's used. Like look at Breaking Bad for example. It looks incredible. I was on the bus the other day and they were showing some Venom movie, capeshit special... The color grading made it look almost like you're watching HDR badly tone mapped to SDR. All the actors didn't look like movie stars to me. They looked like they belong on some shitty drama on CBS. The big budget special effects don't help with the suspension of disbelief. It's not the canvas or the paintbrush, it's the skill of the painter.
>>108484496A negative you retard. Movies are projected with positive film by the way.
>>108484542I'm pro film but movies look bad today due to bad lighting because everything is flat so it can be fixed in post and most LEDs don't have the full spectrum of color as the old hot and expensive lights
>>108484628But they don't actually fix it correctly in post. They leave it looking terrible.
>>108483770What does mp3 have to do with CDs?
Just use a film filter on digitalhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueB0oNajuEg
>>108484634It really isn't the cameras. Something like Before The Devil Knows You're Dead has a lot of flaws but the look is not one of them. It was very much intentional for the story that was being told and enhanced the parts of it that weren't weighted down by bad acting, cheesy melodrama, or overbearing music.
>>108484630That's the irony of it all. Somewhere we stopped striving for excellence and settled into the good enough club. I think millennials have very low standards.
>>108484642Bad lighting will look like shit on digital and film
>>108484651Well I'm a millennial and I hate all of this garbage. But I just pirate everything and don't spend lots of money on movie tickets or streaming subscriptions. The last time I went to see a movie was a re-release of The Shining on IMAX. Doesn't help that the country I moved to is fucking capeshit central and the movies I do want to see aren't often showing.
>>108484477>x)Stupid fucking slav
>>108484673Now I know you're just retarded lmao. You didn't engage with anything I just said. I don't respect you.
>>108484634>gunbusters, akira and ghost in the shell 1995 look better than any anime that has come out since 2005prefering the look of film anime doesn't mean digital video is worse.in your defence i will say that digital video mastering is a lot easier, which has the unfortunate effect of allowing more lazy production.
>>108483698I still think its funny that we have movies from the 1930s that look better than blockbuster titles from the 00s. 35mm film is equivalent to 6K resolution while these retards actually switched to 1080p digital camera's for movies like star wars episode 2 & 3.
>>108484681It's like; doing cool effects straight on film requires time and skill, while pressing a button in a digital NLE does not, so it's to be expected you will get more low quality stuff with digital processes
Are you one of those retards who saw a signal quantization picture and now you think you know what you're talking about?pic related, something like this
>>108484694I'm American, actually. I bet you're the sort of person who would fawn over some slut's instagram picture shot on an iPhone that had a film grain filter slapped on it. You're the sort of person who fetishizes the medium and it's general aesthetic rather than actually being able to articulate what does and doesn't work about what you're seeing. Clean picture, no grain, bad. Grain good. Like the sort of person who brings up pops and crackles when you talk about a vinyl record.
>>108484694>I don't care what homosexuals thinkHe doesn't care about his own thought and opinions, very sad.
>>108483698digital != film, and that's it, you are not really limited with digital, you just have a different workflow, many top tier films are filmed with digi, so pretty much eat a trillion dicks with your weak cope
>>108484726Yes, you can project with film
>>108484723Easy access to guns is not the best part of being an American. Easy access to a ticket out of America is the best part of being an American.
>>108484723Ah, so you are. lmaoing at your life, faggot
>imax filmyikes>35mmSoul
>>108484753>>108484750>no gunyou aren't American, faggot. I don't know a single heterosexual with a passport >>108484753>>108484742faggot
>>108484781yeah, you're so limited that literal top tier films are now being filmed in full digi, kys retard
>>108484782I don't plan on shooting anybody dead so I don't need a gun. The fuck else am I gonna use one for? Sitting in a deer blind for hours out in the cold waiting for a chance to take a shot that may never come? If I'm going to waste all my time away I demand that I do so in total comfort and relaxation, like a real American. Can't get no damn food delivered innawoods.
digital is only getting pushed because companies want to make money and governments want to improve economyif it weren't for that, adoption rate would be way lowerbecause even the most dense people will be able to see how analogue just looks better
>>108484802It's not as if the look is the only problem. You can't just make something that looks like a proper movie, throw Brad Pitt out there, then pretend you got Oscar bait with a populist bent. You need a decent script and a director who isn't a hack too. The whole team has to be doing their jobs correctly.
>>108484396>heres a bunch of retarded shit i claim with ZERO credibility or evidence>b-b-but do you have the everdence???fuck off with your double standards retard
>>108484642>wmvAnon...
>>108484812What for? Why would I buy and learn to use something that I have no use for? I wouldn't blow anybody's brains out for ethical reasons. Even if some people deserve it I'm not interested in going to the vagina free zone for the rest of my life because of it.
>>108484837i dont watch anime, im not a brain damaged child
>>108484802>and they look like fucking asslel, yeah ok retard, good luck with your down syndrome crusade, and remember to kys to save your family from the embarrassme that is watching you breath
>>108484847this is a TECHNOLOGY website retard
>>108484851its a freudian slip, he meant that he likes fucking arse
>>108484847Defend myself, my family, and my country from what? Nothing ever happens where I'm from. That's why I left the country. In the US either you live in the most boring place where people have nothing to do but get drunk and fuck or you live in a dangerous city. The suburbs might as well not exist. It's like being in purgatory. I wrote some thing about film, digital, and the loss of craftsmanship in the industry but my browser crashed and I raged. Instead of trying to write it again I'm going to fix 4chan-xt to save what I type in case of failures.
>>108484879Everything good about the US is outweighed by all the negatives. It's a nice place to visit. A terrible place to live.
>>108484847Explain in your own words what is wrong with urbanization.
>>108484900I like my foreskin thank you very much.
>>108483698>>108483750based threadthe luddites were right
>eh thinks his film photos aren't handled digitally at the print shoplmao @ ops's life
try watching anything shot on film these days: - washed out colors ever- grain and noise - low resolution digital conversions- vaselin effect on TV showsyeah no
>>108483727It's because DSLRs aren't made anymore.It's all mirrorless shit
Early digital... soul...
>>108484634>gunbusters, akira and ghost in the shell 1995 look better than any anime that has come out since 2005Subjective, opinion based garbage.
>>108485041>no one buys those eitherTell that to canon
>>108485041while GitS and Akira are amazingly animated they are the outliers not the erule
>>108485077Because they have one in their pocket at all times. The consumer market isn't that relevant for this discussion.
>>108485077Normalfags aren't buying shitty digital cameras, but people into photography are still buying pro gear.
https://youtu.be/tvwPKBXEOKE?si=oUVJsn3UNqWgFusuI think there are many things that cause today's movies to look like shit and digital vs film is only a small piece of it. The video points out numerous things that are different today that cause films to look awful. If directors worked on fixing all of those instead of filming the same slop on film it'd improve things far more than just switching to film.
>>108485112Digital cameras did not decline at all. They just come bundled with another device that surpassed the sales of both standalone digital cameras and film cameras combined many times over. Even poor people who could never dream of having a digital camera or a computer to plug one into now have a smartphone. Also you're pretty slow on the uptake. I'm not sure if you should be trusted with a firearm.
>>108485186Your posts make a great case for the narrative of the decline of the American educational system. No child left behind? Bullshit, your district probably blew it's whole budget on t he football team.
>>108485244>Americans>RaceOh god it's retarded
>>108484444checkedquads of truth
>>108483740>vinyl sounds better than CD (it doesn't)oh no, it's retarded
>>108485244>we>backloleven if space is real (it's not), (You) will never go there :)
>>108485280Here's the part where I go WELL ACTUALLY it depends on how the vinyl or CD was mastered. Botch jobs are possible on either. I prefer CD in most cases but if there is no good digital version, or the tapes are damage, or the tapes don't exist... Then I download a vinyl rip and listen to that instead.
>>108485282Juice? Been home for 2 yours now.
>>108485280Vinyls are the exact same digital masters as CDs but on an imperfect medium with distortions and noise. Listening to something on vinyl when it's available on CD is like adding an NTSC filter over digital video for nostalgia's sake.
>>108483748>while having much more data and resolution to work withAlmost no consumer-grade digital camera has a higher real resolution (as in, not just interpolating extra pixels) than a medium-format film camera. And on sheet film I don't think there's even a single digital camera you can buy that's going to have a higher resolution.Film has serious drawbacks, annoyances, etc. but one thing it really doesn't struggle with is resolution. In terms of cost, film scales much better than any digital sensor.
>>108483698true, real photographers shoot film
>>108485307Stupid, just stupid.Main difference in digital cameras and film cameras is the fact that digital camera has one sensor and in film camera you have many sensors.All film isn't made equal for mid-sized camera, bigger grain size worse the "resolution" of film camera is. It's not unusual to see high iso film that is just blurry where sharp edges turn into mush.Nature if film and digital camera is just too different to think of it as resolution
>>108485302Not always. Depends on what it is. Old cuts are obviously going to be all analog.
>>108483698Digital is always less soulful. And especially in the 00s digital cameras were absolute crap. Why the fuck did everyone just accept the mass adoption of dogshit? Because they suddenly could save money on film? Kodak and other retards with their monopoly should have never let it happen by adjusting to the new market, but instead they chose a slow and painful death like the mismanaged faggot shitholes they were.Cel anime is more soulful than digital anime.Movies shot with analog cameras are more soulful than movies shot with digital cameras.Photos look cooler and are more soulful when they're shot with film. And so on and so forth.
>>108485337it's all edited digitally in post production, retard
>>108485354>soulfulmeaningless buzzword
>>108485337What do you mean? RAW has data of full dynamic range and color. How can it destroy days when it's already there?
>>108484455>>108484422>>108484269>>108483740>This is like saying vinyl sounds better than CD >comparing film to vinylmost embarrassing shit i've ever read. it's broken anon how his extremely gay analogy is just laughed at. quick! keep spamming the thread and telling people they are poor! lmao
>>108485331>Nature if film and digital camera is just too different to think of it as resolutionYou can make a rough comparison by using film to take pictures of progressively finer and closer black-and-white bars next to each other, to the point that it gets so fine/close that it all blends into gray. Film producers have technical docs on this and is functionally equivalent to pixels in a digital sensor.
>>108485358>He doesn't get it
>he can't explain it
>>108483698you can't even able to get digital versions of movies shot on film without them having serious issues
>>108483698I personally prefer the look of film, as well as the fun in shooting analog with its restrictions pushing you to be more considerate and creative.However, digital can look just as good. Photography is about creativity, not weather you shoot with expensive/cheap gear, or film/digital, but for me, film helps me be more creative.
Not true at all lol
>>108485572>individual pixles can only pick up red, green or blueYour eyes also only have 3 types of detectors
>>108485565>film and cel sheets are expensive and inconvenientI get it, but is the convenience of digital cameras and digital art really worth sacrificing the quality/aesthetic over? Painters never went anywhere after photography was invented, even though painting is much much much harder than taking a picture.>they started introducing film stocks again because everyone has finally admitted digishit looks like assThat's good. I really hope some company comes out and makes instant analog photos affordable. We need a new Polaroid. Several of them, preferably.
>>108484189you're the retard, saar
>>108484593you immediately went to "i'll fuck you in the ass raw" without any provocation. you're the fag here. seek help.
>>108484234Honest question, what do I need to make photos like that? If anyone has recommendations for cameras or whatever else is needed, I'd love to hear it. I don't think I'm very good at photography but the way the photo looks in general is so nice
>>108483720>for about two decades nowUntrue, sensors with a dynamic range comparable to the best film emulsions were released less than 10 years ago. Not to mention that medium format sensors and lenses are still insanely expensive.If you have the means to develop at home it is still more economical to buy a medium format analogue camera. 10 years ago you could find a fucking hasselblad for less than $1000. And obviously there's still no large format digital sensors.
>>108483698>digitally drawn and colored anime, western animation and comicstbf early digital anime upto 2005 or so didn't look too badLook at FwPC, Chobits, Monster, Digimon etc.Not as good as cel animation which was with real paints of course but it looked decentBut since 2006, and especially nowadays it turned into a completely different monstrositySo much CG and CG pretending to be 2D, layouts being replaced by literal 3D engines, stupid shaky camera, particle effects out the ass, photoshop effects out the ass etc.It's just disgusting to look atEven for western cartoons, the final season of Ed, Edd n Eddy looked great even though it was colored in computersBut nu-Calarts bullshit took over with Adveture Time Wouldn't blame digital in that case
>>108484330Grain is an artifact you mouthbreatherThere's a digital equivalent of that, it's called digital noise(see Inland Empire)For objective photography artifacts like grain and noise are unwanted
>>108484444>so no sourceNigger kill yourselfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb32bj0XmW8
>>108484512>analog stores data betterDemonstrably false, analog degrades by its very natureAny film you've seen you've seen through a digital mediumDigital coloring can look good(late 90s/early 2000s digital anime had decent color), it won't look the same as a photograph of real paints or real ink but that's another thingIf you photographed real animation cels with a very high end HDR digital camera or scanner it would look way better than the way we used to do it with film Too bad they phased out cel animation, with modern digital cameras we could have had the best of both worlds
>>108485031That's not subjectiveAkira mogs whatever trash anime you enjoy
>>108483698>>Digital Cameras>>look like ass compared to film photosDepends on the two used. Film beats out digital on the ultra-high end and the low end, but for everything else, digital is best. Especially if you're actually processing your own sensor data instead of being a retard and exporting pngs from the camera directly.
>>108485572Pretty sure digital sensors only pick monochrome/luma and add the colors afterwards
>>108487811>Film beats out digital on the ultra-high endNo
kek typical stemcels who are unable to understand art and appreciate aesthetics and think digital is better. "just slap a filter on it lmap"
>>108483720The problem is that Kodak and Fujifilm did all the colour grading for them when they used film, now with digital cameras they have to do it themselves and the vast majority of filmmakers clearly suck at it. Some movies legitimately still look like ungraded RAW footage.https://youtu.be/_V6n9i83wqkhttps://youtu.be/0PE6-Vx7KHk
>>108488207>artColor film is the least artistic photographic medium there is. The developing process is completely set in stone so all color grading decisions have already been made by Kodak in the factory. You just set the exposure right and that's it. It has less freedom than either digital raw or monochrome film, it's objectively the most corporate form of photography around.
>>108488313>and the vast majority of filmmakers clearly suck at it.
>>108484357>hollywood blockbusters look like ass nowThat's because they are only 2K.
>>108483698It doesn't make things worse, cheap productions do.Cannes doesn't accept Netflix produced "films" because they are not classified as cinema.It's a matter of priorities. Most companies are happy to produce shit what looks like cheap soap operas.
>>108488207>just slap a filter on itthat's what you're doing by deliberately choosing an inferior format. you want your pictures to look "like film", which is no different to someone using a film effect filter
>>108490031cope
>>108484348>>108483698maybe.. maybe not..this is literally the only difference that matters but also kinda a big differenceno amount of color correction matrix can fix thisespecially under light sources with wide or dirty spectrum like daylight or fluorescent
>>108490168(me)the solution would be x-prism based 3 sensor system where you can swap designed filters or the prism itself out but iirc no company makes such stuffand also the different does not specifically mean film is superiorit is more likely people will associate the specific feel with better films with greater traditional value and craft went in, let alone good directors who die for film because of personal reasons, not purely technical where it creates a biasunironically with the current digital camera hardware the best way to replicate the film color feel is machine learning based methods
reminds me of the people repulsed by high frame rate video as they subconciously associate it with low quality tv shows (like soap operas).makes me sad we might never advance beyong 24fps. 8k, hdr, 3d... 24fps. it makes me want to honk my nose
have you set irfanview photo-cd resolution
If you can't take a good picture on a $200 digital camera that is very much a you problem
>>108487801Who Made Me a PrincessHas better story, better animation and overall better anime. Prove me wrong you can't.
>>108491465Objectively better than Akira. So if you have something to complain about know Akira is worse in that aspect.
>>108491483Objectively better, no room for debate.
>>108491636I'm objectively correct. I have objective truth on my side. Sucks to suck.
>entire argument is >muh chinese cartoons
The nice thing about vinyl is the massive album art. I've noticed some recent releases cheap out though and don't have the insets with all the lyrics and credits like CDs used to have though.Also the only reason CDs aren't cool to collect is that they're functionally identical to the stuff you listen to on Apple Music or streaming services. CDs obviously sound great and loudness war artifacts aside have aged extremely well. Its sad that digital music is still being crippled by mp3s, low streaming quality and Bluetooth.
akira is GOAT, specially made for cinema, I've seen it in the cinema, and it doesn't stand out as a I thought it wouldthere are certain directors that make film shine through impressive photography, those are rarebut one thing is certain, OP is a faggot and doesn't have half a clue of what he is talking about
>>108491465I have the perfect excuse. I'm hospitalized and I don't have anything but my phone at hand, so I can't upload my pictures
>>108484634"look better" is not an objective argument, it's a subjective preference. I'd say you should quote some numbers but considering your opinion on "digital", they clearly scare you.>implying any version of these movies you could watch in the past 20 years was actual analog film and not digitized lunacy
>>108489812>but it's more feature rich than older used cameras and in theory should last longerWhat, in your opinion, makes it overpriced?
with film and other analog arts you had to get it right then and there which required real professionals. digital exists because it's faster and cheaper and while it finally can look as good it's not really any cheaper if you want it to actually look good because you still need to hire expensive professionals.
>>108491896You can edit negatives just as well as you manipulate raw. This idea that analogue people have more talent will always be funny to me.
>>108485229>>108485271nah, that's you, thirdie >>108487722>>108484750>>108484883retarded tranny
