"35mm has 4k quality"

A difference that is mostly negated by bumping up to 1080p. The trick is the 1080p image is sourced from the 4k 4:2:2 source, and you can create a synthetic 1080p 4:4:4 source to get the very maximum out of a 1080p display.

A 50" 1080p plasma TV that can be had for $100 or less on the used market looks awfully good considering the above information, does it not? The excellent black levels and contrast would make up for the difference in resolution. If one did not have the money for OLED.

I'll just get the yify rip

Note that this assumes an non-letterboxed image. Unless you can live with the butchery of cropping.,

>plasma
no thanks I'll be fine with my LG OLED.

Actually my tingles are too spicy. Alpha beta cappa magma cum louder.
Ergo esnay on what wesay. If you catch the tokyo drift. Mine. Check out my specs.
Its a spec-r.
Rrrrr for pirate.
I rape the booty.
Snooty pooty wooty bitches beware. For I hippity hoppity like a big dirty hare. With an elongated penis, retractable foreskin. I come in at 12 inches. Redacted.
Register sign. Register sign. Register sign.

Holy fuck you have no idea what you're talking about.

Idgaf about sharpness, I like how film perceives the light that is bounced onto it. And I like grain because it livens up static shots. Go jack off to an 8k video of you getting fucked by a katana.

>And I like grain because it livens up static shots

> noise livens up the signal

this is your brain on contrarianism

Attached: 1534744944350.png (225x225, 15K)

Noise and grain are not the same at all. Read up on the chemistry of film, tranny. I shoot 35mm photography and have done 16mm films. It's an subjective subject so stop trying to make it objective.

See
Pls

I have no idea what he's talking about, but can you tell me why he's wrong?

>35mm has 4k quality
There is so much wrong with your post that it doesn't seem that you really understand any of this. What people really say is that 35mm film resolves to a resolution of 4K, not that it /is/ 4K in quality. Film is not made up of pixels so has no resolution. You could blow up a 35mm image to 12K. Sharpness isn't a problem either since all 35mm cameras use professional cine lenses which are tack-sharp and made specifically to shoot on the 35mm format (both now and back then). "Soft focus" is something entirely different, it's the deliberate practice of shooting something slightly out of focus for effect. The biggest factor in question is how a 35mm print (or negative) is scanned and transferred digitally. Some distributors will take original negatives and do a proper job of transferring them to HD formats (Criterion and Masters of Cinema do this very well), others not so much. This Greece transfer looks particularly good in that it has no noticeable grain.

Also it's worth mentioning that if you take a screen shot of anything in motion it's obviously not going to be tack-sharp because of motion-blur (most things being shot in 24 frames). I really hope for your sake that you at least know that.

This is a dumb experiment, not sure exactly what you are trying to prove (dude if I reduce this digital image in height/width and scale it up again it proves that 35mm is shit!) Besides, there is no loss that I can see in your example, the only thing I can immediately notice is the change in saturation. Perhaps your "test" isn't as scientific as you'd like to believe. I'm starting to think you're just trolling here.

> Noise and grain are not the same at all
Yes they are in that they both shit up the picture.
> It's subjective to shit up the image
Go dilate with your camera tranny.

You said what I was thinking OP
People forget that when touting 4+K scans of films like Lawrence of Arabia or 2001 they're talking about rare films that were shot on 65/70mm with state of the art cameras and lenses and film stock
Most movies shot on film look like ass in UHQ

Fucking retards

kys filmfag

Fuck you bitch dick suck.
I know what I'm talking about. I shoot FILM.
You shoot yourself.
Post body. Gurantee the men I photograph look better than you.
Ugly fat tranny. Cumskin. Eat my dick bitch.

>35mm films have the sharpness of 480p
>ignore all the 1080p and 4K transfers that look much better than DVD like the example I just posted
Are you retarded?

It's amazing to see retards responding so intelligently

Kodak Vision2 50D and 250D shot properly have over 10 megapixels of detail, more than 4K. There are plenty of films where they shot higher ISO films with tons of noise or they fucked up the exposure and did push processing, and those shots will have way less detail than 4K. But, low and medium ISO Kodak 35mm films shot properly from EXR era on (after 1989), and probably Fujifilm too, definitely have over 10 megapixels of detail.

It's well past your bedtime, boomer

Who are you quoting?

>It's amazing to see retards responding so intelligently

zoomers have no concept of image quality. they didn't grow up with vhs or dvd, and only began watching movies online through things like netflix. ironically though, netflix has such shit bitrates that zoomers who do watch blu-rays should have a greater appreciation for them, but that doesn't seem to ever be the case

The boomer is now stuck repeating his stock phrases
Wait until he gets to "Film is has more soul" and "I must die for Israel"

>>It's amazing to see retards responding so intelligently

Boomer go boom boom

> Noisefags will die on the hill defending this blue sky

Attached: 1563381423513.jpg (1920x816, 339K)

>>>It's amazing to see retards responding so intelligently

it has soul you dumb soi redditcuck disneyshill dilate tranny discord

> t-t-he grain raping the detail is S O U L
guess i'm off to dilate with my shaker then

Attached: 1557303091164.jpg (1440x1080, 364K)

> the face being covered by black grain pimples is s0uL!1!

Attached: 1547952940900.jpg (1920x1080, 314K)

So I'm looking into getting a new TV in a year or so, is 4k a meme or is it worth getting? Does every old movie look like it was shot on video still?

I've used 4k LG OLED monitors for years now and fucking love them.

Showing random films doesn't help your retarded argument. The vast majority of 35mm films would look better than a 4k picture "if" it's probably transferred from the negative or another extensive scanning process. Most of these films will also look beyond 4k quality when projected

Both examples are just cheap early digital transfers no one cared do do correctly

> iTs sOuLdAd yOu wOuLdNt uNdErStAnD

Attached: 1558854452482.jpg (1296x1080, 345K)

i fell for the 4k meme. it's okay??? i guess. there's not enough media that is in 4k format for one thing. i think /g/ and Yea Forums are both split pretty equally on it.
both boards almost unanimously agree that hdr is good though. haven't seen too many contrarians on that

So are you just bumping to start arguments or what? Are you this straved for attention?

> tHe wHiTe bEiNg cOvErEd iN GrAy nOiSe iS DeEp cOmMeNtArY Of tHe fOlLiEs oF ScOtTiSh eNlIgThMeNt aNd eMpIrIcMsM DaD I dOnT ExPeCt YoU To UnDeRsTaNd

Attached: 1546143464410.jpg (1920x872, 342K)

film: based
digital: unbased

I'm laughing at fucking brainiacs trying to justify literal noise as some deep artistic insight into psyche of man and human action

Attached: 1552634886701.png (237x213, 81K)

>So are you just bumping to start arguments or what? Are you this straved for attention?

yeah, BUT IT COULD BE ULTRAMATIC

> dAd tHe jApAnEsE NeVeR DeVeLoPeD ThE CoNcEpT Of fReE WiLl, So yOu sEe tHe nOiSe iS ReFlEcTiVe oF ThE EnTrOpIc nAtUrE oF ThE UnIvErSe

Attached: 1555631360536.jpg (1920x816, 245K)

>the virgin floyd
>the chad whoever that other space guy is

You're not wrong, but I hate most of these transfers because of the grain. Here I made an example of what I mean, left is a screencap of the 2011 release, right is from a HDTV recording I grabbed sometime in 2008 I think. It is of course noticeably sharper but the grain just kills it for me

Attached: jp.jpg (3220x1626, 1.77M)

HYDROMATIC

What about the ones which were shot in well focus with good film and low grain?

the noise in 'best years of our lives' is critical insight into the meta commentary of the entropic nature of the universe we cannot by entropic nature of physics and second law of thermodynamics observe the true origins of the information and as such the origin of the universe because the light cones have by entropic teleology distanced themselves from each other so they don't overlap; we are unable to access the information and the universe has most likely split in half and our idea of it is false; and so are the faces in the 'best years of our lives' covered in entropic cum; we can no longer even observe the best years of their lives which are hopelessly lost in the ever receding past; the film is an ironic dabbling on history, sentiments and nostalghia.

Attached: 1557023966572.jpg (1488x1080, 316K)

the only true digital, virtual film that will be secured against entropy, or secured most against entropy, will be a bit-by-bit film occurring in blockchain as it will be only thing able to make the information robust and anti-fragile (to an extent) against entropy.

Attached: 1553914537908.png (1200x800, 565K)

>trying to judge images on a website with a 4mb size cap

Attached: F8965955-40DB-45C1-A2A7-B1A0B82D548A.jpg (1050x1134, 84K)

It's amazing to see retards responding so intelligently

A film without grain doesn't look like film, it looks like a video game or a TV soap opera, you plebeian zoomer.

Yes, I agree quite amazing

Conditioned little duckling.

30/8=3.75 mb

no u

I'm sorry you can't enjoy cinema because you think actual film is a flaw. You are insane. Have you ever watched a film with a lot of DNR and see how shitty it looks compared to a film with original film grain? The problem is your autism.

>Idgaf about sharpness, I like how film perceives the light that is bounced onto it.
That is only applicable to filming and recording.
This thread is about displaying the video afterwards. If something was shot on film and you can't see the grain then you're not seeing the proper image. However, in most cases 1080p is more than enough to see film grain.

If you want 4k grain then... okay. I do too actually.

>I'm sorry you can't enjoy cinema because you think actual film is a flaw
Never said that.

DNR is a post-production mistake, and grain is just noise, a error in capturing light. Both suck, since they shit up the image.

blah blah blah blah the same old "you don't know what you're talking about" post from the resident dunning-krugerist

>the only thing I can see is saturation
The fact you could not wait to make your reply before reading one(1!) more post in the thread to see where I corrected that says everything we need to know about you.

>something around 480p to 720p
>480p TO 720p
read nigger, READ

The whole "shot properly" is the rub. In a level still perfectly focused and the processed perfectly can you get 4k detail? Yes.

In 99% of frames from 35mm motion pictures? No way. Best examples come close, good examples hovering around a little better than 1080p.

There's also the way "detail" is measured can be how clearly grain is discerned. You can zoom in and in and in on a blob of color and make out variations in tone and texture within it up to some stupidly huge resolution but at that point you're just putting the film under a microscope.

I love the seething 60fps causes among pseudo-intellectuals.

>muh zoomers
Listen bud. We're ALL lonely loser millennials or older in this thread. Zoomers are not on Yea Forums arguing about the capabilities of film stock on a Tuesday at 3:18 AM DST. If they're online on this board they're making posts in a youtube kino thread or the witcher hype thread, or some other actual zoomer-core content. Not this borefest. No this is the realm of the old fucks.

If some zoomer here is reading this good lord get out while you can still can.

Attached: 23434 (2).jpg (343x357, 12K)

>DNR is a post-production mistake, and grain is just noise, a error in capturing light. Both suck, since they shit up the image.
But film without film grain, doesn't have the aesthetic of film, you artless caveman. Aesthetic is important in art. It's subjective, you dunce. You may as well be saying black and white is bad too since color is more accurate to real life. That's how fucking dumb you are. Your brain is a hamster wheel.

> Mona Lisa and Rembrandt's getting shittier by the day is achtually A E S T H E T I C
This is how fucking dumb you are.

With a good transfer they can look incredible. Watch any 4k transfer of a good 35mm 2000s movie like Gladiator and you'll see. And that film is only 1600p.

All the high budget 35mm from the late 80s to now most likely does surpass 4k if you want to eek out every last bit of detail possible.

>Aesthetic is important in art.
That's why I only watch black and white silent movies and The Man with a Movie Camera is the peak kino. Talkies and color ruined the medium.

35mm by principle has 4k quality.

The loss in quality from the original lossless screencap was negligible.

>35mm by principle has 4k quality.

Attached: npc.jpg (636x773, 32K)

Nice strawman argument that isn't even a direct comparison, you double digit IQ fraud.

Noir is one of the most important film genres in history, and it's all about black and white aesthetic. Zoomers should be gassed honestly. Go watch Captain Marvel and clap like a seal when the credits start rolling.

And some day HBO may do a rescan of Rome and have a 4k release. That should look magnificent.

Attached: rome-hbo[1].jpg (612x458, 77K)

>and it's all about black and white aesthetic
You do know that there are color classic noirs, right?

I love film noirs but I am not going to defend the grain as integral part of the films, lol.

Attached: 1548287321850.jpg (1808x1080, 268K)

Not that guy, but they're generally worse.

Attached: 1547771458858.jpg (1440x1080, 270K)

most of those were made after the classic era of Noir ended, Chinatown is not a pure-Noir movie for example

But the grain in that shot looks amazing.

I'm not talking about neo-noir which Chinatown is. I'm talking about classic noir specifically.

>but they're generally worse.
That's true, there's only like one or two color film noir titles that can be named good but the main point is that the user willfully discards everything that does not fit his worldview.

the photography of 'sweet smell of success' looks amazing *despite the grain.

Attached: 1547230390596.jpg (1920x816, 272K)

Here's your cinematic grain bro!

Attached: 1555051531670.png (1497x897, 1.47M)

>there's only like one or two color film noir titles that can be named good
That's honestly more than I can name. I am drawing a complete blank myself.

Attached: 1558151339167.jpg (1808x1080, 272K)

>Most movies shot on film look like ass in UHQ
Fucking nonsense

>That's true, there's only like one or two color film noir titles that can be named good but the main point is that the user willfully discards everything that does not fit his worldview.
Black and white is indelibly tied to Noir, the fact there are some exceptions, that you concede that aren't that great, does not disprove that as a fact. Also posting single frames as the representative of moving pictures is autistic and stupid. It's like posting a note and then using that to judge the entire piece of music.

looks great

Indeed. All UHD is ever going to do is just give you a clearer picture of whatever potential is there to be scanned.

>Black and white is indelibly tied to Noir
>and it's all about black and white aesthetic
You're contradicting yourself at this point (all about/tied). Black and white is not integral to noir, neither is grain to movies.

>I am drawing a complete blank myself.
Leave Her to Heaven is generally considered to be good.

Well, as an old bastard in his early 50s, grain isn't an issue for me. In fact, if anything, on some things, it's something that goes hand-in-hand with what I'm watching and is part of the experience. I love Close Encounters and the grain on that is definitely part of it.

Someone's age might definitely be a factor in this. I grew up with black and white televisions, fuzzy film stock, and analogue projectors - for me, in a sense, that's kind of how things are 'supposed' to be. That's not to say I don't appreciate far more 'technologically advanced' media but I think it's largely an issue of what you're used to creating parameters of tolerance to what you watch. Also, the general idea as to how much technology does/should play a part in film/music/architecture etc.

I enjoyed 'Leave Her to Heaven' but I doubt it had anything to do with the quality of the film in itself.

Attached: 1555234166743.jpg (1200x675, 126K)

>outta my way star baby pieces of shit

>Black and white is not integral to noir,
It is, you low IQ numbskull. Just because very few examples of Noir lack all the defining traits does not mean it isn't a defining trait.

>neither is grain to movies.

It makes film look like film. Why do you want to watch films that don't look like film, you artless zoomer contrarian?

>itt armchair engineers and philosophical pseuds duke it out to determine who is right and who is wrong!

A noise shitting up the image is not integral or necessary to film at all. Do you also insert noise into lossless audio tracks? I don't deny that noise can't be used for artistic purposes (like Godard as an extreme example) but this grain fanaticism is just absurd.

Attached: 1558262313285.jpg (1920x1080, 276K)

damn that picture has great aesthetics

>A noise shitting up the image is not integral or necessary to film at all.
Do you have autism, yes or no? I guarantee you that you do. Only an autist would screech about film grain being noise.

>It is, you low IQ numbskull.
It's clearly not, do you know what the word integral means? You can't just hop between "it's all about" and "defining trait" you disingenuous twat.

>It makes film look like film.
That's because you're an NPC who had been preconditioned to think that way about a physical limitation, there's no way around it.

It's noise to the signal (captured light) unless it's artistic purpose, and for majority of the films it doesn't serve that purpose and is just limitation of the production.

Attached: 1562374363452.jpg (800x1031, 220K)

Grain isn't really an issue for anyone who goes deeper than surface level into the AV hobby or who has an appreciation for older movies. Whether they are 50 or 25.

The whole "grrrrr GRAIN BAD" thing is ironically (in context of this thread) something that popped up in the first wave of HD releases of films when boomers spent a lot of money on at the time new HDTVs and blu-ray/HD-DVD players and were confronted with it for the first time in their lives at home. They wanted everything to be "crystal clear" and had to be calmly and slowly explained to via forum posts that this is the way the movie actually looks. That's why that one version of Predator exists to appease the boomer outcry.

>It's clearly not, do you know what the word integral means? You can't just hop between "it's all about" and "defining trait" you disingenuous twat.
You even admitted the majority of true noir films are black and white the few that aren't aren't that great. You already made my point, but you are an autist that can't conceptualize exceptions to the rule because it triggers your mental disease. This entire thread a monument to autism, and you should be ashamed of it. The fact you collected screen shots when the camera was out of focus to argue about what motion pictures look like in motion is also extra pathetic. You're probably the kind of retard who can't go to work if something on a table somewhere is positioned askew.

Decent chance a real, paid engineer of some type is posting in this thread. I've never worked in motion pictures but I have been paid for a few photography gigs.

You're delusional up to the point where you think that you're arguing with one person.

>exceptions to the rule
There's no rule.

Yes, uhh, aesthetics cinematography yes indeed that's what I was watching too.

Attached: 1547939673219.jpg (1488x1080, 293K)

there was a captain disillusion about this recently

You realize many directors add grain to digitally shot films now in post-production to achieve the film-like aesthetic. Explain that one, autist. It can be a limitation of the tools used and an aesthetic quality simultaneously. What is hard to understand about this? How can you be this fucking stupid? Do you think video games that still use 8-bit pixel graphics are not an aesthetic either. Yes or no? Is that an artistic choice?

Ask anyone to describe what a noir movie looks like. Black and white will be mentioned first if not in t e first few descriptions listed. You have all or nothing tunnel vision due to autism.

>is the way the movie actually looks
No, that's how a transcode of the film (in most likely then-VHS watched through 720/1080 capable digital telly) looked like on a monitor it was never intended to watch with.

Old films like the which I've been posting screenshots from, were intended not for home consumption but made for silver screen. Even their restorations can't be fully faithful for what they were intended for.

Something like Netflix production takes into account, say, a someone watching through smartphone or tablet.

Attached: 1538539754634.jpg (1296x1080, 86K)

Grain has so much effect on the artistic direction of any noir film that it cannot be separated from it. Every shot was made with the idea that it would be seen through medium of film grain.

Music does not work this way. Analog recordings, even fairly old ones, could achieve virtually silent noise levels and shape of the audio signal wave was not terribly affected by background electrical noise (unless something was being done incorrectly in the recording process).

you're retraded dude

Yeah well you know what buddy I take their word for it over yours.

Goddamn i knew Yea Forums is full of retards but it always surprises me how stupid people here are.
Film>digital
In terms of texture, color, resolution etc.

>retraded
Embarrassing. Why am I wasting my time in a thread with this post quality?

Attached: 456.png (501x445, 192K)

>You realize many directors add grain to digitally shot films now in post-production to achieve the film-like aesthetic
Yes, and that's hilarious to me, because it's just soothing the preconditioning tooth. And when someone like Jean Luc does it for artistic effect it's denigrated

> It can be a limitation of the tools used and an aesthetic quality simultaneously
Usually it's ad hoc cope attempt.

> How can you be this fucking stupid?
How can you, defending a literal random distribution of small metal particles as some sort of artistic achievement in films where it obviously plays no artistic effect?

Attached: 1561524671470.png (1920x1080, 1.99M)

>Film>digital In terms of texture, color, resolution etc.

Attached: parrot.jpg (850x568, 84K)

its filled with a bunch of tranny zoomers that have only ever known digital what do you expect

> Grain has so much effect on the artistic direction of any noir film that it cannot be separated from it.
Elaborate to me the artistic direction in the grain of Akira Kurosawa's "High and Low"; how it helps to communicate us the main narratives of the film; what it adds to scenes and characters, and what would've been lost from the film had it not been there.

> Every shot was made with the idea that it would be seen through medium of film grain.
Of course, like black and white films when it was a production limitation were done similarly; or when silent films originally arrived.

Attached: 1545208051601.jpg (1920x816, 264K)

What word over which.
It matters which quality of lossy transcode you are watching over which monitor. I have LG OLED and Dell monitor for PC and same film (say a DON rip or a REMUX) looks different on both; and you have to account here the fact for which medium the film was originally made (nobody watched films outside theaters in the 20s, and NETFLIX productions are made to take account of smartphone watchers).

Yes film stocks be upscaled to quite a big resolutions. I would also like to see a digitally shot film which looks like The Searchers or Vertigo.
At this point i don't know whether the one retard is trolling or is really just so fucking stupid.

Attached: vertigo6.png (1280x720, 1.04M)

>lol I troll u
You can't be this stupid. The fact it's added in as an artistic choice, means it's an aesthetic quality.

>preconditioned
By the entire history of film.

> cope attempt.
You are a fucking idiot. It's like arguing that drawing with pencils is a coping mechanism versus using Adobe Photoshop.

His shirt takes on a look like a stone sculpture rather than fabric in this shot. Because of the grain.

>The fact it's added in as an artistic choice, means it's an aesthetic quality.
Yes; in Godard films for sure.
In Roaring Twenties? That's an ad hoc cope.

Attached: 1537693506783.jpg (1920x1080, 156K)

>Of course, like black and white films when it was a production limitation were done similarly
The use of shadow in black and white is a defining noir trait. Like I said, AUTISM, you cant' accept something can be two things simultaneously. It must only be one. Like the tools used can't define the aesthetic because other tools were available later. Might as well paint over Michelangelo's works with high resolution photos then, you'd think that would be an improvement obviously.

>Ask anyone
Why would I ask "anyone"? Most people don't have a deeper understanding of the subject and, hint-hint, film noir isn't well defined by film experts either. So your "anyone" would probably say "black and white" just because it's a common perception, not some rule you made up in your head.
Ask anyone to name the first noir ever. Is it The Maltese Falcon? Is it The Stranger on the Third Floor? Is it the fucking Underworld? Well, "anyone" probably does not know that the last two even exist.

>descriptions
Yeah, let's go with some common ones.
Voice over narration? Bye-bye The Maltese Falcon! Same with expressive use of light in cinematography, The Maltese Falcon is very mild in that regard.
City setting? I guess The Hitch-Hiker isn't film noir either, oops.

Your "defining trait" is only hindsight, not some unspoken rule between filmmakers of 40s and 50s.

>you cant' accept something can be two things simultaneously
wew lad, how can someone come so close to self-awareness yet still be oblivious.

Indeed. Every viewing situation is different.

Just like every cinema's projector set-up in the past was different. Bulbs were different. Screens were different. There were different kinds of dyes used in different transfers of films.

Chasing the "true" image is an endless rabbit hole.

i too think sometimes how can anons be so dumb or if they troll just to be annoying

So how is 'looking like stone sculpture' helping us to understand the direction of his character in High and Low, and what might have Akira Kurosawa meant by this?

That the Japanese are negentropic nation, formed as sculpted stones, to last the ravages of time as entropy marches on?

>The use of shadow in black and white is a defining noir trait.
Yes, but that doesn't require boatload of grain.

> tools used can't define the aesthetic because other tools were available later
No, the tools used are limited and result in grain; but to argue this was a conscious choice as if they had any alternative in that time is pure cope, and crediting artistic merit and artistic *necessity* to it is just stupid. Working around limitations is creative endeavor, the limitation itself is not creative endeavor.

Attached: 1543194623421.jpg (1280x528, 109K)

>Yeah, let's go with some common ones.
>Voice over narration? Bye-bye The Maltese Falcon! Same with expressive use of light in cinematography, The Maltese Falcon is very mild in that regard.
>City setting? I guess The Hitch-Hiker isn't film noir either, oops.
Again AUTISM, the lack of one defining noir trait does not disqualify a film as noir if it includes other defining noir traits. But you think everything must be all or nothing due to how you broken brain works.

>Indeed. Every viewing situation is different.
>
>Just like every cinema's projector set-up in the past was different. Bulbs were different. Screens were different. There were different kinds of dyes used in different transfers of films.
>
>Chasing the "true" image is an endless rabbit hole.

All true statements with which I agree with.

Attached: 1533245146621.jpg (1440x1080, 256K)

flim is a meme worse than vinyl
current digital technology is superior in every single aspect. even early digital was much more sharper than film ever was

Except I never mad an all or nothing argument. You are literally defending someone who believes film grain can't be an artistic quality.

>even early digital was much more sharper than film ever was
If you believe this, you are very stupid.

>the lack of one defining noir trait does not disqualify a film as noir if it includes other defining noir traits
>strawmanning this hard
Buddy, you're the one who went and I quote:
>it's all about black and white aesthetic
>film without film grain, doesn't have the aesthetic of film
Now you can start going the "that's not what I mean route".
Unless it weren't you then what the fuck are doing, son.

>So how is 'looking like stone sculpture' helping us to understand the direction of his character in High and Low, and what might have Akira Kurosawa meant by this?
That's up to you. You only asked how the grain affects the artistic direction of the image.

digital just looks flat to me
watch any recent movie then go watch any movie from the 80's and tell me the 80's one doesnt look better

The flat look is a fad and/or a result of lazy processing where the RAW file is basically untouched.

define "flat", retard
you just want to see shit that doesn't exist, that's why you can't use objective, measurable qualities

Retard

also I would remind you that any 80s movie you like the look of will have been captured by a digital camera unless you are actually going and watching prints cinema

>You only asked how the grain affects the artistic direction of the image.
I asked what Akira wanted to tell us with it.

I'm not here to discuss that.

It's because they don't color correct properly and shoot were badly. When you used film you had to know how to light a scene. Nowadays they just do everything in post and it looks like shit. The images in digital are very sharp because of no grain. Some filmmakers add grain in post because grain looks better and has some texture. There are handful of people who know how to work with digital and even their work will never ever reach the top quality that film can provide.

Why are you dodging it? Did not Akira Kurosawa, instead of taking random distribution of metal, organize them with intent to open us 'High and Low'?

Surely it was not a random distribution of metal clouds that he had to just deal with. We have established there is intention and artistry at work in the organization of the 'noise' for 150 posts now when we defend this position.

yeah ive watched a few 80s/90s 35mm prints here in my state
videodrome and fire walk with me were the most recent ones

i think you might be right
youtube.com/watch?v=xVAv0Xx6Un8

This is what happens to the quality of discourse when you let your website be overrun with underage redditors who think using fotm buzzwords makes them fit in more.

You're just trolling now. Your questions have been answered, deal with it.

Reminder that film grain was not a choice.

>watching a digital video to compare film vs video

Attached: retarded.png (500x499, 333K)

>digital just looks flat to me
Watch Twin Peaks the Return

You were unable to open up the artistic merit behind the grain as used intentionally by Akira Kurosawa in 'High and Low' though.

I was here before LOST threads though.

This, and everyone dealing with it as a choice in older films is hopelessly deluded.

Attached: 1541246732545.webm (704x360, 2.24M)

i have
and david is a 80's director so his style even with digital is amazing

>I was here before LOST threads though.
Stop posting stuff that makes you look like a braindead retard then. If you've really been here since LOST threads you'll know yourself how bad Yea Forums has gotten lately

You can't seem to understand the idea that grain was both mandatory AND an artistic direction in the past.

>Watch Twin Peaks the Return
In the bluray there are extra 'behind the scenes' scenes that have exterior shots and landscape shots that look amazing and were shot on Arri Alexa mini.

Attached: 1539258041541.jpg (1920x1080, 1.49M)

Your .webm isn't exactly the best example since it's CGI.

Blade Runner 2049 is the best looking digital film ever made

And it still pales - PALES - utterly, in comparison to the original Blade Runner which was shot on film

Maybe digital will eventually start looking better in a decade or something, but right now, it's still pathetic.

Attached: Blade_Runner.jpg (750x1111, 187K)

>AND an artistic direction
Can you prove that?

The Return doesn't look that good and when Lynch worked with film his films looked much better.

I asked user to tell me what was the artistic intent of grain in Kurosawa's "High and Low" and he was unable to open it up for me.

I am not disputing the use of (actual) noise and grain in films like Jean Luc's "Goodbye to Language" or "Le Livre d'Image". I am disputing it in Morocco, in Sunset Blvd, in Best Years of Our Lives etc. and in most film noir. I've already stated that workaround of limitation is artistic endeavor, but the imposed limitation which was not a contingent factor is not artistic in anyway whatsoever itself.

>i have
Have you watched the BTS scenes in bluray?

Attached: 1559560814610.png (1920x1080, 1.55M)

>Blade Runner 2049 is the best looking digital film ever made
wtf

To be honest, I find the whole thing a bit baffling. When CDs first became a thing (and I don't mean when audiophiles got their hands on them, but when they filtered through to actual people (in the UK probably around 1983 or 1984) it was the same argument clearer vs warmer; prefection vs familar wear and tear; technology vs some elusive something or other.

I didn't care as in my bedroom I was still playing my records on an old single speaker dansette and I played tapes on a overly large 'radio cassette player'. Now I listen to things through flat response studio speakers or through earphones on my phone.

I'm not sure this a boomer thing to be honest, or a Generation X thing or even a millenial or zoomer thing. I think it's more of a wanker thing. There's no right or wrong to this.

Attached: facepalm.jpg (1440x1080, 97K)

Can you bring up any quote by any classic noir era director where they discuss how to utilize grain artistically?

>. I've already stated that workaround of limitation is artistic endeavor, but the imposed limitation which was not a contingent factor is not artistic in anyway whatsoever itself.
Semantic bullshit of a man who will not admit he misspoke.

Wtf stop posting pictures of me.

It is - otherwise, they're meme movies that should have been done on film like The VVitch (which is also another good looking digital movie)

>The Return doesn't look that good and
It looked great, we may then disagree and end argument.

I didn't misspoke, I have held this position consistently in this thread, and the distinction is meaningful (and for example Arvo Pärt agrees with it)

Attached: 1558581138413.webm (1280x720, 2.95M)

Can you bring up any quote by a classic noir era director where they discuss how to utilize paint on set correctly? No? Well I guess they didn't care about it then.

Or maybe you can't think of one off the top of your head? huh. I guess I win this argument then.

yeah i have watched the BTS

tbui

I don't give a shit what you wrote earlier in the thread I'm not keeping track of who is who because it is impossible.

I didn't claim anything about paint.
You said that it's an artistic direction but what did you base that statement on?

I got the most 3D vibes from the exterior photography, especially around the Golden Shit Shoveler's cabin where they filmed him doing laundry, and from the BTS material.

> I don't give a shit
> except in the fact I gave shit enough to reply twice

I told you in the very first post I addressed to you. Go back and read the thread again. I've already said everything I want to say. Either agree with it or not. I will not reply to you again.

>except in the fact I gave shit enough to reply twice
brainlet

You didn't tell me shit. You're unable to prove your own words and now you're running away. Good riddance.

Fuck niggers lmao

Finally! A good post!

* three times.

Attached: 1553449890545.webm (1280x720, 869K)

...

reminder that there's no technical reason to cling to 24fps anymore
16fps is the REAL framerate and ALWAYS will be

Whatever happened to plasma screens

It's either hand cranking or nothing.

Correct post.

LCDs got too competitive.
OLED replaced them.

Dunno if its still possible to weigh in but I spent a few years as a technician drum scanning film. Essentially as imaging continues to improve they can scan the film at a far higher resolution than needed, reprocess it and interpolate while downscaling to the desired resolution and end up with a far more smooth representation

theoretically you could multi-pass scan so you'd be hitting each grain with slightly different exposure each time and once again interpolate and downscale this to further reduce the amount of grain that would actually be visible

obviously some of the older larger grain film will probably not benefit but there's definitely smaller grain cine film that has been properly resolved that could easily hit 4k levels of quality especially when properly scanned and processed

Attached: filmgrain.jpg (736x268, 32K)

it was a meme

>You are literally defending someone who believes film grain can't be an artistic quality.
I've said it can, as explained by my early mention of Jean Luc. I don't maintain film grain (the limitation of the production) as artistic in itself by default, and I have yet to see justification for it in this thread for

> Morocco
> Sunset Blvd
> High and Low
> Best Years of Our Lives
> Gilda
> Laura
> Sweet Smell of Success
> Big Combo
> Kiss Me Deadly
... wherein it is argued that it is a necessary part of the film from the point of view of the artistic intention of the director, and not merely a contingent factor and limitation of the production process itself through which the directors had to workaround.

Attached: 1546381486500.jpg (1472x1080, 141K)

Denoising is a bad idea because it removes actual detail along with everything else. Suck every last grain from my dick and fucking deal with it, you pathetic whining zoomers.

As long as the shot is sharp to begin with. Otherwise you've got 4k of blur.

Denoising, or degraining, is bad because it doesn't work at all.

Attached: 1534254437115.jpg (1440x1080, 221K)

It was not. Plasma televisions look amazing.

>Denoising is a bad idea because it removes actual detail along with everything else.
That's true and perhaps that's the reason most grainfags think that the grain is superior while in fact it was just shitty filtering ruining the experience.

Sounds like you are onto something

Attached: 1562256751980.jpg (1440x1080, 223K)

Black and white parts were great. The rest of the show was not great. Lynch shoots digital only because it's easier.

hence the 'properly resolved' bit

I disagree but I am not near the drive with my Twin Peaks repository so I have to concede humiliating defeat as I cannot counter your claim by posting gorgeous colored pictures.

Attached: 1534541762247.jpg (1440x1080, 170K)

>Greece

Attached: 1313343243.png (657x539, 110K)

I can't wait to see how Yea Forums butchers this.
>film has a decent amount of variables
>film stock used
>lens used
>camera used
>developer/processing
>how it was scanned
A lot of what's out there doesn't hold up and won't.

That being said: I don't mind grain and noise and I'm able to live with it even if it's intrusive. Though that's because I've seen so many awful denoise jobs and transfers over the years. I'll always take a noisy transfer that's had a decent scan over a smeary mess. It doesn't matter if it takes more data to encode, storage is cheap.

fuck off nerd Yea Forums is for jocks

>hating grain
zoomers, everyone

haha xir said zoomer zoomers btfo am i right fellow boomers haha?

>50"

Seething

>these guys are apparently high school students
immersion ruined

you would be immersed if you watched a film projection instead of a computer screen

you never watched an hd source through a good plasma screen. it's astounding.

I Actually add artificial noise to the music i make for artistic purposes.