artifacts / fog of war

[line b]

its also impossible to make good rock music now because of the digital

 

[maxi]

its also impossible to make good rock music now because of the digital

beg to differ

 

[sufi]

a danish film for @mvuent

The Spider’s Prey

FRAGMENT | The titular villain is an infamous international criminal, Mrs Valentin Kempel, known as “The Predator Spider” due to her habit of ensnaring innocent victims in her web. Men are enchanted by her, and she uses this to coerce them into taking part in her criminal activities. When one of...

www.stumfilm.dk

 

[sufi]

a danish film for @mvuent

The Spider’s Prey

FRAGMENT | The titular villain is an infamous international criminal, Mrs Valentin Kempel, known as “The Predator Spider” due to her habit of ensnaring innocent victims in her web. Men are enchanted by her, and she uses this to coerce them into taking part in her criminal activities. When one of...

www.stumfilm.dk

& for @version

I run into this with film more than I do music, but the digital look is driving me mad again. That crap 70s film I mentioned in the Eurocult thread looked miles better than all the trailers and bits of newer films I've seen recently purely because it was shot on film.

It's the same with photography. I saw some stuff people had shot on old cameras recently and it just looks so much better.

View attachment 12892

 

[line b]

beg to differ

First impression is this mixes elements like a Lisa frank drawing

 

[sus]

I run into this with film more than I do music, but the digital look is driving me mad again. That crap 70s film I mentioned in the Eurocult thread looked miles better than all the trailers and bits of newer films I've seen recently purely because it was shot on film.

It's the same with photography. I saw some stuff people had shot on old cameras recently and it just looks so much better.

What films are we talking about? I haven't really noticed this tbh. Two of the more recent films I remember seeing, Waiting for the Barbarians and Green Knight, were ridiculously gorgeous, like Lawrence of Arabia and Tarkovsky-level cinematography, respectively

 

[sus]

I think it's really hard to differentiate between what looks good because of cultural associations and what "intrinsically" "looks good" "formally"

I think human perception is not wired up to make this distinction, between social meaning and "pure aesthetics"

I think this should make us wary of privileging film

 

[sus]

A common argument is survivorship bias, e.g. of historic architecture or good-looking film photos.

It's a common argument but probably at least part of the truth

 

[sus]

I think my Pixel takes startlingly good pictures if I put effort towards that

But also I think putting effort towards composition just isn't a priority with most photos

And also that we live in an era of very mixed quality technology, so $50 Walmart smartphones with literal $1 Chinese cameras are interwoven with everything else. Then you throw in all the compression social platforms use to keep hosting costs low

 

[sus]

 

[sus]

 

[line b]

What films are we talking about? I haven't really noticed this tbh. Two of the more recent films I remember seeing, Waiting for the Barbarians and Green Knight, were ridiculously gorgeous, like Lawrence of Arabia and Tarkovsky-level cinematography, respectively

90% of most things released on streaming platforms. Its not that films can no longer look good but films that dont desire to look good dont have to, where as the bad films and the good all used to have the same process, and I think at the least the floor of something shot on film is generally better than the depths of how awful something can look on digital.

 

[line b]

We get the same effect with all media/consumption. In broad strokes things are much worse but you have more opportunity to find different types of things you enjoy.

 

[line b]

I think about this with music alot and how its effectively a weapon of pychological warfare in public space. just play the fucking folk music of whatever region your in dammit.

 

[line b]

when I'm trying to delude myself into having a nice meal at a fancy restaurant one of the 3 times a year I do that and theyre playing piano covers of top 40 hits Id rather be a medieval peasant dying of dysentery slowly nodding off to miscellaneous lute music.

 

[version]

. . . the floor of something shot on film is generally better than the depths of how awful something can look on digital.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. I wasn't talking about individual artistry or claiming there aren't decent looking contemporary films. I was talking about film itself looking good in a way that digital doesn't. That's why I mentioned that crappy 70s thing. It was the equivalent of some forgettable Netflix horror but it looked better purely because of the gear.

That being said, the argument's muddied somewhat by the best looking stuff, imo, being a product of old and new tech, stuff shot on film that's been upgraded for modern formats, e.g. the Sorcerer restoration. The new gear highlights the imperfections of the old in a complementary way, emphasising the grit and grain.

 

[sus]

What can I watch that's especially egregious

I'm curious but do not have a Netflix

 

[line b]

its hard to list things off because we dont watch them because they look like shit. but you absorb these things via clips/trailers online. just peruse for 5 minutes.

 

[line b]

 

[line b]