I was watching an old hd tv program from the 90s and it just looks gorgeous. What's the secret? Can we even replicate it now?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
I don't think it's filmit looks weird[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
but it's kind of soft and the colors have this nice rainbow effect[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
sometimes it gives me a 'digicam' vibe too[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
i mean just look at thisI couldn't just take a pic with an iphone and crank up the saturation[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
it obviously has bad dynamic range but it handles things elegantly
last one
>>4301842>What's the secret?Shooting with an HDVS camera.>Can we even replicate it now?To some extent. At least it should be easier than emulating a film look on digital. Most of the image characteristics on display here are doable in post. Shitty dynamic range, tons of chromatic aberration, a blurry image. Matching the colors and contrast is what you need to be the most careful with.
>>4301860I tried to do it with my crap photoshop skills that but it just doesn't look right[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Width1920Image Height1080
>>4301865needs more compression artefacts and raised shadows
>>4301844>colors have this nice rainbow effectthat's called chromatic aberration and it's generally associated with cheap, old, and/or bad lenses.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
>>4301865The yellow CA doesn't look right. Stick to purple and green CA like in the example pics, and be careful not to make the effect too strong.Just like the other anon said, you need to raise your shadows. They don't go to pure black in the example pics.Your pic might also be just a tiny bit too saturated.
>>4301865Had a quick go at your pic[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.32Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:04:07 05:53:57Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4301842>hd tv program>90sThat’s called….filmYou watched a FILM idiotHD was only invented in like 2006. Gen Z doesn’t know anything
>>4301920>he doesn't know what an HDVS camera isYou're the zoomer retard here.https://youtu.be/YW26YMe8iUQ?si=jElHzoRCChJ8Pf3g
>>4301920>HD was only invented in like 2006.LMAOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIHhawxymOE
HDVS is like shit CCD right? Couldn't we get close with lenses that have lots of CA and a cheap old CCD body? I know people say CCD vs CMOS isn't actually a huge difference but OP's pics do kind of remind me of my old CCD body. I don't know about the "glow" though, is that a filter?
>>4301932>HDVS is like shit CCD right?No, they're tube cameras, they record on videotape.
>>4301933>tube camerasmaximum soul
guys i don't think it's chromatic abberation from opticsold tv cameras have three sensor or three tubes (no bayer filter)so if the colors handle highlights/shadows slightly differently it would show up
>>4301938It's chromatic aberration caused by the tube camera's beam-splitter prism. In other words it's caused by an optical element which is inside the camera, right behind the lens.
>>4301842back then, the dynamic range of these cameras was so shit people tried to squeeze some softness out of them by using diffusion filters, things like pro mist but like 2 of a max strength ones stacked in front of one another, that's almost certainly whats going on in >>4301844tying into that is gamut, or rather the lack of it. add global contrast and then remove it with negative tonal contrast, the result is that the gamma remains the same but the colour information is shot to shit.finally use a lens that's from the same era, https://youtu.be/SB35WTlq1Sk?t=20 is what you get with an old broadcast style lens on a modern camera with modern colorimetry, shit up the colors and it's going to be fairly convincing, THEN add all the post effects like halation, interlacing, bleed, etc.
>>4301842Looks like VHS blur
i feel like ntscqt is your best bet to get this effect easily. it wont get you the rainbow "bokeh" you can see in >>4301844 but the rest of the artefacts are there[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 23.5 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:04:07 10:55:20Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3784Image Height1200
>>4301961>Russian flags everywhereI'd rather my computer doesn't become a bot.
>>4301963schizo
>>4301966>bro just trust this program by a Russian dev that puts flags fucking everywhere and cooms about Russia
This whole thread is retarded.OP is a dumb zoomer who thinks intentionally shitty shots made in the digital era intended to be a parody of old film effects is good when it's just something neither he nor those who made what he is trying to replicate ever experienced.I hate it.
>>4301972Have some fun
>>4301906op herethank you, that looks a lot better
>>4301961wow fancy
finding some more examples
this one comes from a 1993 hd demonstration tapeI think maybe the saturation is goes higher in darker areas than lighter ones
>>4301972yes I ambut I don't care because I enjoy it
>>4302056thats jyst ccd colors, get a ccd
>>4301842>I was watching an old hd tv program from the 90sWhat program is that?>>4302056>>4302057Post the videos.
>>4302175https://archive.org/details/ournationscapital1994https://archive.org/details/1993-standard-test-sequences-for-subjective-assessment-of-hdtv-picture-quality
>>4302222Thanks. Love the vibe in these
>>4301967i hate russians as much as the other guy but this is absolutely schizz
>>4301950that whole spread probably cost less than 5 dollars. I hate this country.
>>4301844what is this jewelry? what does it say?
>>4302259"ЗA TPУДЫ И OTEЧECTBO"some commie BS
>>4301844why did u not crop out the black bar on the left?
>>4301842'eepy photos
>>4301933Are you sure they were still using vidicon tubes for the HDVS cameras? This was in like 1993 at least, seems like they would already be using CCDs. >>4301933You can record a CCD signal onto tape... You don't think Hi8 camcorders used tubes, do you? Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think so.
>>4302481Most of /p/ doesn't know "digital" cameras are actually analog imaging devices at the front, and the digital part starts with a gay little chip and then a bunch of even gayer chips and software that chews up what was once a smooth analog signal, shits it onto a memory card, and calls it a "raw" to superficially hide how over processed it is.
>>4302508yeah chips are pretty fuckin gay honestly I have to agreet. Ultramax 400 enjoyer
>>4301950thank you very much, I really like that -op>>4302262sorry it was just like that in the video and I just did "capture frame" in vlc -op
>>4301842I got it accidentally. Friend inherited an old camera with some old ass fucking nikkor lenses from the 50s or 60s.quality lenses, low distortion & thats great, but the resolving poweris just not what we expect today, bc they were more matched to what they thought 35mm was capable of resolving itself. Theres a character to those old lenses that has been engineered out of all the new stuff for clarity, but i suck it on an ftz adapterino anyway and just like that my z7 pics looked like olde photography. Theres a beauty to it.
Partially this image quality comes from the original source being some sort of video tape (most likely professional grade production stuff, not home VHS).
>>4302481>Are you sure they were still using vidicon tubes for the HDVS cameras?NTA, but it depends. Some early HDVS cameras were tube cameras (HDC-100 and HDC-300), but later ones used CCD (for example the HDC-500, which was the first CCD HD video camera)
Should be pretty easy to recreate. Unsaturated colors, brighten up the black point, drop the white point and add some chromatic aberration increasing from the center to the edges.
Last era of analog tape before digital tape
>>4302255Unironically true though. Some stuff has been getting found in Minecraft mods, Linux apps and other open source shit from github lately.
>>4302860man why do all these commie cucks ruin everything lol
kind of looks like a black mist filter was used
>>4303194Zoomers everybody
>>43018421. Go to any thrift store2. Buy the cheapest digicam you can find3. ???4. PROFIT!
>>4303210Alternatively:1. Buy the shittest toy lens you can find and put it on an APS-C body2. Stop down to like f/11 and never properly focus on any one thing3. Shoot interlaced video at 24 fps / 1/40 shutter speed4. Compress the video and take a screenshot
>>4301842Try to find a CCD camera with a small sensor or a tube camera. They'll be using some obscure and hard to find storage format so have fun spending a fortune on that. If you're broke and don't want to spend time rummaging through your towns thrift shop, your best bet would be to look for filters that do the chromatic aberration and the soft edges. However, the shallow dynamic range and color style is hard to replicate with modern cameras because the sensors are just too good, so you'll be doing that part in post.
>>4303307tube camera? like extension tube?
>>4303835vacuum tubehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
>>4301842it has unusual depth of field and subject separation. it's probably a large sensor. the colors look kind of funky because it has weird vibrance, saturation, and looks like there is a low bit depth. as someone else said, it does kind of look like a CCD sensor. Idk anything about tube sensors. it's a strange effect. the grass and sky seem to have a good dynamic range, but the building and bushes seem like they have a low color depth.
>>4304637i'ts definitely a big ass sensor with a non-zoom lens.
>>4301842try a diffusion filter if you want to shoot digital
>>4305356why nonzoom
>>4301842could be MUSE, its means of encoding creates that motion and background blur
