Movies from 50 years ago shot in analog film still able to be converted to todays 4k resolutions

>movies from 50 years ago shot in analog film still able to be converted to todays 4k resolutions
>movies shot in the past 18 years in 1080p/4k shot in digital, locked to that resolution for all eternity
was digital a mistake?

Attached: jag_cz_movie_theater_retro_shutterstock_594132752-1529438777-6045.jpg (800x600, 76K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html
kodak.com/motion/customers/productions/default.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes

>movies shot over 50 years ago and counting on film are deteriorating for all eternity due to entropy

was film a mistake?

>>movies from 50 years ago shot in analog film still able to be converted to todays 4k resolutions

>television shows from the same period look like grainy shit because they didn't use expensive large format cameras

>i'm an idiot who doesn't know what entropy is
was your birth a mistake?

Those "conversions" look like shit.

no one gives a fuck about i love lucy or mork and mindy and other TV garbage pre-80s

Upscaling algorithms are getting good enough to the point where it won't matter anymore, so long as the source is clean.

and we have waifu2x for images. there's no reason that can't be used for video.

There’s a torrent of Avatar: TLA upscaled with Waifu2x. Looks pretty good compared to the shit source.

Tla got a bluray release

Hey. I care about mork and mindy

It's actually got a pretty active fan base

where is my anime in 4k 60fps?

Color deteriorate on film, that information can't be brought back in a good way with current post processing tech. 90-95% of all good movies were shot on film though very few good movies are shot on digital.

Whenever someone decides to shell out 4x the budget of current anime for some hi-res source material.

Anime is already barely making profit with the current 720/1080 res art. Asking them to increase the resolution by 4-8x is a bit much without a budget increase

Absolute fucking retard

How does that even make any sense?
You don't need more expensive cameras for anime like you do for films. It's just a cartoon, just draw it with more detail and save it as a 4k file. So money isn't an requirement

>draw it with more detail
Nigger... Animators don't draw for free

More detail means more time, more time means more money.

What TLA source was used? The new best buy exclusive blurays look better than any up conversion I've seen out there.

Assuming 65 or 70mm film stock even 8k scans wouldn't be out of the question

No, just get drawers who are better at detail it still takes them the same time to draw dumbass. Then it's just a case of using software to make the cartoon 4k - which you can torrent for free. So no need for extra spend

>locked to that resolution for all eternity
nope. science always finds a way. even the crappest low resolution garbage TV quality will eventually be re-rendered once technology catches up.

Attached: time for some glasses..jpg (1000x667, 154K)

(you)

Just saw Scarface on tv recently. It still looks good.

Can't wait for 2001 in 8k. Have to plan a vacation around going to see a 70mm projection.

Attached: 1539459623609.jpg (706x703, 219K)

No you fucking retard.
You can make copies of digital without degrade.
Also the films in digital will not become brittle and fall apart in 600 years.

Even though there was a reduction in resolution it was for the better.

F u


Give one reason why anime needs more money to be in 8k

Protip, you can't

Put down the vape pen, and kys.

A single 35mm film frame has upwards of 50 megapixels worth of usable information.

Not really.

>These films, with good lenses, are capable of resolving as much as 7000 pixels (3500 "line pairs") over the width of a 35mm frame -- about 5000 dots per inch. However, before that point, while they can resolve "line pairs," the image is pretty noisy. The lines are not resolved as straight, sharp-edged entities, but you can tell there is a white line next to a black line.

>There is more information to be extracted even at this fine resolution, but the deeper you go, the more noise you also extract.

>To make the image not look "grainy" and otherwise poor, you need to pull back. Subjective tests suggest this is to about 4000 DPI, or around 5600 pixels. For a 3:2 frame, that means around 20 million pixels. (Of course some people don't mind grain as much as others, so your mileage may vary. Also, if you can get a scan that good, digital techniques can reduce the visibility of grain and extend the resolution of film.)

>Down at this level, however, you're reaching the limits of most lenses. They may be able to resolve high-contrast items at this level but most pixels are a little blurry. A crop at this level does not look nearly as good as a scaled down full shot.

>What this means is that a 5300 x 4000 digital camera can produce a shot equivalent to a scan from a quality 35mm camera -- provided you could get more than 8 bits per pixel. You could blow up the 35mm shot a little bit more and see a little bit more, but only at the cost of producing a grainy image. Chances are a 3000 x 2000 digital camera would match the 35mm for a good percentage of shots.


If you care to read it all
pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html

Attached: 1471473330305.jpg (3840x2160, 1.46M)

>A single 35mm film frame has upwards of 50 megapixels
what crack are you smoking?

>tfw trying to watch 28 days later

Attached: 1534511434273.png (1000x700, 101K)

Sauce?

If they were shot on film. Tape sources are rare but definitely better quality and seem to handle upscaling well.

> I don't understand analog vs digital but I read this number somewhere : the post™

Yeah it's a shame it is stuck to 480p

if you make a digital animation with vector art can't almost keep making it (or the art and stuff) bigger?

this is interesting, so a 5k camera is equivalent to what can be extracted from a tape?
I think movies are shot in 8k now

i hope this is bait. They already hire the best in Japan and work them into the hospital, literally. After each production cycle it's not uncommon for all the animators check themselves into the hospital.

>soul
>soulless

You are litterally missing information. Anything generated may look decent, but will never be the original

>movies

Attached: 1535122019350.jpg (600x876, 85K)

>implying Kubrick would let that happen
He didn't even want to convert the movie from 4:3 to 16:9 aspect ratio after the boom of flat screens.

Changing the aspect ratio of the movie is a whole other issue than just scanning it at a higher resolution. When you change the aspect ratio, you ruin the framing.

>where is my anime in 4k 60fps?

Most anime was shot on 8mm or 16mm film up until they switched to digital.

Digital can restore and improve the quality somewhat, but you're limited by the original negatives.

If kept in a room temperature controlled environment, even cheap film from the 70's should be salvageable. It's not like the colors begin to blotch like with VHS. Color degradation is uniform so it's usually very simple to fix.

That's my favorite doujinshi, surprisingly.

>deteriorating due to entropy

get out of a tech board and learn physics

This. Them shows were all rated PG... pure garbage.

The Coneheads? Cmon, people.

>tfw watching inland empire

Attached: sad dog.jpg (313x286, 16K)

Plenty of films today are shot on real film stock.

kodak.com/motion/customers/productions/default.htm

Most movies do not gain anything being watched in 4K.