does image quality actually matter for enjoying a film? Is this nostalgia or is grain/imperfection part of the aesthetic?
blair witch had really good bad quality and it did really good so id say no it doesnt matter
>>219098440That analog cinema. Video tape quality was abysmal.We were just happy to be able to watch and control movies. Pause. No commercials.
VHS usually has better audio than bluray.
>>219098395VHS is magnetically stored media like audio tape and has nothing to do with film. 35mm film in climate controlled storage will last longer than a hard drive. At worst, you need minor color correction. High dollar film scanners can remove those tiny imperfections so a 50 year old film can look excellent at 4k today. Film grain is completely optional.
>>219098395Yes it does matter. No, grain does not deter from the quality, quite the opposite in fact.
>>219098512>Video tape quality was abysmal.since people enjoyed watching letterboxed movies on awful VHS with 240x240 resolution this proves image quality does not matter much. Today even a 720p rip of a movie or TV show is far better than anything you could rent from blockbuster.
no country for old men: 720pgianna michaels slopping up her slutty face with a popsicle: 2160p
>>219098395Video quality can be low but I can not abide poor audio.
>>219098395The image quality was good for the time. No one sat around bitching that the picture quality sucked in comparison to tech that didn't exist yet.
VHS degradation is not part of the filmmakers' intended experience no.
It might be bad rescans or something but a bunch of early 2000s shows I've seen have some horrible film grain, to the point of being distracting.
>>219099634Intentional. When the tech came out for you to record what's on TV on your PC as well as DVRs, networks tried to fight "piracy" with grainy shit to mess with the recording quality.
>>219098395Yes. Aside from film VHS is the best quality. I'd rather watch a VHS tape or VHSrip than any other format aside from being in a cinema.
