And frankly youre not painting a much different picture of yourself in your continued pursuits to push the very opinions you wish to stress. But I digress. My argument is not strictly of artists who wish to be revisionist. Let them be. Its when its at the costs of the work to those who helped bring those visions to light and when visions of different points in time will become misleading to future generations. You are allowed to disagree with me on that as much as I am allowed to disagree with you. Cheerio.
I think Ruined respects your opinion on this, but the biggest difference between the pro-grain people and him, is he/she doesn't call you guys names, such as troll.
This forum has become a cruel, hostile place, in the last couple of years. It's such a shame! It used to be a fun place to be discussing the anticipation of new movies and physical media news.
I think Ruined respects your opinion on this, but the biggest difference between the pro-grain people and him, is he/she doesn't call you guys names, such as troll.
This forum has become a cruel, hostile place, in the last couple of years. It's such a shame! It used to be a fun place to be discussing the anticipation of new movies and physical media news.
I joined this site in 2013 but didn’t start regularly posting on it til around 2016 and even then I was running into some snobbish people. After a while I just got used to it. I don’t like it and wish discussions were more civil but hey that’s the Internet, or even the world for that matter, in a nutshell.
I will say in others defense I’ve made some prickish comments over the years I’m not proud of so don’t think I’m painting myself as an innocent.
Last edited by crissrudd4554; 06-16-2024 at 12:12 PM.
Vimeo does though and I don't have an account on Vimeo.
Put it on Youtube instead?
If I do I’ll probably get copyright stricken. My first video on my Vimeo is a Frankenstein audio comparison vid and I tried uploading that to YouTube back in 2012 and even then I got a copyright block. Also I don’t have the OG vid anymore to upload anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D
Yeah, it says log in to watch and I'm like nahhhhhh.
That’s strange. I’m not logged in and yet I can play it. Vimeo’s weird.
[Show spoiler]
Last edited by crissrudd4554; 06-16-2024 at 12:15 PM.
I just changed the rating for the video since Vimeo said without one some can’t watch it. Don’t know if that’ll fix the problem on everyone’s end but I guess you could try it. I checked the privacy settings and it’s set to Anyone.
[Show spoiler]I think Ruined respects your opinion on this, but the biggest difference between the pro-grain people and him, is he/she doesn't call you guys names, such as troll.
Its not about pro-grain, its about fact vs a persons inability to understand the science behind film looking like it does.
If someone intentionally antagonises (by bleating on like a stuck record at any given opportunity when their stance is well known, especially when there is nothing new added to the conversation) what else could it be called?
It’s not about pro-grain, it’s about fact vs a persons inability to understand the science behind film looking like it does.
If someone intentionally antagonises (by bleating on like a stuck record at any given opportunity when their stance is well known, especially when there is nothing new added to the conversation) what else could it be called?
Maybe tiresome is more apt
The science is extremely simple. Recording mediums are just that, mediums to record on. If they add things that are not part of what was originally being fed to be recorded, whether audio or video, those things added are artifacts as they are not found in the original capture. If there is no way for the recording medium to function without adding artifacts, that is a shortcoming of the recording medium.
The funny thing is, I am not even anti grain. I am simply pointing out that grain is clearly an analog noise artifact, thus if Cameron, Lucas, etc wants to remove noise artifacts from his art they should not be belittled for doing so. The argument for keeping noise artifacts in is just as valid as the argument to remove them.
I think Ruined respects your opinion on this, but the biggest difference between the pro-grain people and him, is he/she doesn't call you guys names, such as troll.
[Show spoiler]
This forum has become a cruel, hostile place, in the last couple of years. It's such a shame! It used to be a fun place to be discussing the anticipation of new movies and physical media news.
They've literally said a while back that they enjoy being contrarian simply to stir things up. Ignoring logic, simple comprehension, and moving goalposts, they argue just to argue. That is a different kind of fun and, ahem, respect than what you're describing. What else is it but trollish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crissrudd4554
[Show spoiler]I joined this site in 2013 but didn’t start regularly posting on it til around 2016 and even then I was running into some snobbish people. After a while I just got used to it.
I don’t like it and wish discussions were more civil but hey that’s the Internet, or even the world for that matter, in a nutshell.
[Show spoiler]
I will say in others defense I’ve made some prickish comments over the years I’m not proud of so don’t think I’m painting myself as an innocent.
I lurked long before I joined, but have enjoyed the site in all its quirks for many years. I still see the majority as civil, even if prickishness slips through now and again. There are a few spanners in the works, though, keeping things... interesting.
They've literally said a while back that they enjoy being contrarian simply to stir things up. That is a different kind of fun and, ahem, respect than what you're describing. What else is it but trollish?
Above sounds like an ad hominem logical fallacy to me...
I do enjoy debating, primarily when people make illogical arguments.
The texture we call film grain is an artifact added by the film recording medium. The fact that film cannot function properly without adding noticable artifacts is a shortcoming of film.
Trying to claim that film grain is something more than an artifact is where the illogical argument comes in, moored by peoples nostalgia and emotion attached to the look of said artifact. That doesn't make it any less of an artifact, this Cameron is well within his right as an artist to remove it from Terminator, just like you are within your right to like the look of analog artifacts - much like some people who like vinyl like the sound of the click and pop artifacts.
Above sounds like an ad hominem logical fallacy to me...
I do enjoy debating, primarily when people make illogical arguments.
The texture we call film grain is an artifact added by the film recording medium. The fact that film cannot function properly without adding noticable artifacts is a shortcoming of film.
Trying to claim that film grain is something more than an artifact is where the illogical argument comes in, moored by peoples nostalgia and emotion attached to the look of said artifact. That doesn't make it any less of an artifact, this Cameron is well within his right as an artist to remove it from Terminator, just like you are within your right to like the look of analog artifacts - much like some people who like vinyl like the sound of the click and pop artifacts.
Click and pop artifacts are physical damage like scratches, not artifacts. Who the heck actually LIKES the sound of clicks and pops from a dirty or worn record?
Click and pop artifacts are physical damage like scratches, not artifacts. Who the heck actually LIKES the sound of clicks and pops from a dirty or worn record?
I was largely just observing this whole conversation as an entertained spectator -- but I did want to add: pops and clicks on an analog record should NOT be equated with grain on 35mm film capture. One involves the wear 'n' tear of the PLAYBACK vessel, whereas the other is actually baked into the art VERY MUCH like the brush-strokes of a painting. The more accurate comparison would be between pops and clicks on a record and scratches or missing frames on a film print. But every artist worth their salt knows the medium in which they work, and all the foibles of that initial lightning-in-a-bottle capture are part of the magic. In my opinion.
Sigh... I've had this discussion with you before, and yes, you ignored logic, basic reading comprehension, and moved goals when cornered then even as you're doing now.
It's already been pointed out many times, by many on many threads, that all art is captured on a medium. Whether alone or on combination, stone, canvas, celluloid, ink, paint, flesh, steel, and yes, even digital 1s and 0s, (and so many more) all have attributes that add elements to art. Selecting that medium and techniques used with it to enhance or minimize certain attributes is part of the process. (Note: the fact that an artist didn't have access to or didn't think of a particular medium at that time is irrelevant) The art reflects so many things from the artist, or team of artists, plus the environment, period, emotions, etc. that create the result. No nostalgia at all, it's simply produced in that moment, in all that entails, and is of the time.
Once the art is presented, making copies of it is another process that either makes a cheap copy for roadside hucksters, or a faithful copy to preserve as much of the original as possible for a museum or collector... How far to either end of that scale you go determines whether you are revisionist or not, and removing tool marks, brush strokes, pores, fiber, grain, texture, gloss, pocks, grit, etc. is just that: revising the art. (media used for the copy itself further introduces attributes, like paper or compression, and those are not what is wanted and is additional revision) Yes, you can get a print of a painting that is a flat, smooth, stroke-free presentation to hang in a truck stop bathroom, or you can source one with (or similar to) actual paint on canvas that at least tries to look like the painting for you to have in your home. One had a utilitarian purpose and may be enough for many, the other is wanting to appreciate the art in greater depth, which is what that enthusiast/collector/patron is after.
You continue to posit that "eh, then stick with the sufficient older format," and go on to mention a 2k Blu or even VHS in different threads as solution to that more faithful version. This is further proof of your provocative intent rather than civil argument.
I digress, however. This has all been done already. It also doesn't address the teams working on a movie that can have their work removed, the commoditization of art, or so many other issues, which have also been discussed with you ad nauseum... and you'll continue to tilt on this no matter what is said anyway. You do you.
I think Ruined respects your opinion on this, but the biggest difference between the pro-grain people and him, is he/she doesn't call you guys names, such as troll.
This forum has become a cruel, hostile place, in the last couple of years. It's such a shame! It used to be a fun place to be discussing the anticipation of new movies and physical media news.
For the record, Ruined has said, multiple times, he intentionally stirs the pot.
Film IS the medium it was recorded on, and film has grain, it isnt an artifact in any way. Nonsensical argument. Pops and clicks are the same as damage on a film print, dust and wear and aging.
Meanwhile, there's Ruined, sitting in his/her shitty lawnchair in a dark room filled with empty Mountain Dew bottles and Top Ramen wrappers, proud of the attention being paid...
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
