Brainlet here, i have a dumb qustion How come old movies from

Film is analog, so as long as they have the original it can be put onto any format in good quality. They were on VHS and DVD because those were the limitations of home copies.

Film is analog, so as long as they have the original it can be put onto any format in good quality. They were on VHS and DVD because those were the limitations of home copies.

File: Lucy76remake01.jpg (254KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 900x900px

>janhronsky
BANE?
Why does she wear the mask?

>>84396482
braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap

>>84396462
>>84396476
we get it nerd

>>84396329
sharpening filter on every frame

>>84396329
>Isnt the quality of the shot film dependent on the source that it was shot on?
It is, but there are film formats that were available decades ago that are equivalent to 4k

There were also film formats which were insanely low resolution and won't improve with higher quality transfers (like texas chainsaw massacre)

Going beyond that, the data structure of film isn't a grid of pixels, but a mesh of random fragments which inherently gets better the more pixels you use to view it

That said, 8k digital >>>> any film released at any point, in dynamic range and resolution

>>84396329
They just refilm the move. It's not hard with modern rechnologies.

Long story short is that movies were recorded on film, and then commercially released according to the limitations of consumer technology at the time. As consumer tech improves, new prints of the original film are made and sold that are better than the previous commercial releases.

>>84396462
>>84396476
/thread

>>84396329
Film is some high resolution shit motha fucka, digital has been trying to catch up since its inception, not sure if it actually has now though dynamic range might still need some more time. At some point our displays will be higher res than what film can offer but for now, they can still release old film shit so long as it was filmed on good film at the time. High light sensitive film that's all grainy and shit need not apply.
On a related note, formats/mediums for home viewing have grown too. Film may have been high res, but the VHS copies you buy weren't, so data storage mediums improving also give that OG film quality more room to breathe.

File: u_files_store_1_281751.jpg (910KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

910KB, 3840x2160px

The absolute state of kinography

>>84396604
what about old movies from the 10s-40s?
do they even benefit of those 4k and blu-ray re-releases?

Because the original film is incredibly high resolution because the tape is made of chemicals who react to light, so it's basically microscopic resolution. Those who currently film movies in digital will never be able to improve the image in the future.

>>84396329

Anolag film is infinite resolution.

File: IMG_2417.jpg (64KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 300x225px

>>84396511

>>84396604
>8k digital >>>> any film released at any point,
65/70mm film negs have about 9k of resolution to draw on.

what the fuck... i saw her feet before her butt

>>84396860
wrong

>>84396776
There's a very old Napoleon movie that got restored. However the resolution doesn't seem great because the film quality improved progressively
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6504eRh5h6M&feature=youtu.be

File: Spione (1).jpg (478KB, 1430x1080px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1430x1080px

>>84396776
>what about old movies from the 10s-40s?
>do they even benefit of those 4k and blu-ray re-releases?
Obviously, why wouldn't they? Silent films look amazing in bluray. The problem is, the older the film is, the harder it becomes for technicians to find pristine film negatives, as they degrade over time or copies get lost. It requires a lot of manual restoration work, clearing up the traces of time, etc.

File: aaaaaa.jpg (225KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1080x1080px

>>84396462
>>84396476
Followup question, how do they get music recorded 50 years ago to sound perfectly crisp?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bbCbBZVzjU
https://open.spotify.com/track/11lsAp77IGBuiBNiZXxG5K

>>84396329
That's a truly beautiful ass but I wish it was a full body shot.

>>84396867
I like how you ignore what he said after that

>>84396776
they can in that you can reproduce pretty much the original 1:1 compared to other limiting formats.

>>84396771
wich star wars is this?

>>84397024
digital enhancement.

It depends on what it was originally filmed on. 16mm film has about 2k of resolution, whereas 35mm has closer to 5k. It used to be the only way to show it at that quality was to show it on a projector. Now we have scanners that can take a 1080 or 4k scan of each frame, actually extracting all the data from it. This is only resolution though, as film has other characteristics like dyanamic range that are still superior to modern his res sensors.

>>84396883
You're one of us now lad

>>84396860
Nope

>>84396776
Anything shot on film will, silent movies were already shot on 35mm

>>84396511
learn how to brappost scrub

>>84396329
>the absolute state of /tv/ jannies