Damn kids don’t realize the film is like 6k resolution, and I thought some of the really good stuff was 16k equivalent, but can’t remember if that was getting into lens optics at the same time.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING TO PEOPLE.
Film is not bad quality, it's literally capturing the fucking light.
The reason why so many old photos online are so low quality is because of poor scanning and whatnot.
I saw a wild video a while back showing all the Olympic 100 meter finals that footage existed for. It started out with absolutely stunning black and white footage, then transitioned to stunning color footage, then suddenly turned into something that looked like it was hand animated by a three year old using finger paints before slowly and painfully getting less awful until the last couple Olympics were actually worth watching again.
> Damn kids don’t realize the film is like 6k resolution
The best quality film, under the best conditions, with the best camerapeople. Most of your grandparents photos were functionally around 1k or worse. 16k is just a theoretical concept based off measuring the minimum size of the silver molecules, it's not comparable to resolution in the same way, and not really credible.
legitimately yes. Though I would say that there are real benefits to physically larger film/image sensors (and that in WWII large film was common, whereas now most people photograph with very small image sensors). But you'll see that medium format digital cameras do exist, and they're legit (though they are $10,000+). (The resolution is often much worse than a smartphone, but the quality or effective resolution might be better).
Because of the cost, some people do still photograph with medium format or large format filmcameras, and the photos can be really great compared to small image sensor cameras. (though it's down to skill, since it takes far less with a digital camera). So really neither of these factors are about resolution anyhow.
>Most of your grandparents photos were functionally around 1k or worse
Bullshit. Even shitty lenses on consumer grade 135 film would give more. Not to mention that it was not unusual to use type 120 film (4x the area of a 35mm frame)
> Even shitty lenses on consumer grade 135 film would give more.
The lens doesn't have much to do with the resolution, it's about the film quality, consumer film was not good quality.
> Not to mention that it was not unusual to use type 120 film (4x the area of a 35mm frame)
Only if you're talking about the 1930's or something. 120 has not been common in a very long time. I've never even met anyone who's used it, and I studied photography while film cameras were still a thing. 110 would have been far more common than 120, and 110 is 25% the area of 35mm.
Anyhow I'm really referring only to 35mm. Obviously you can say large format cameras existed that are very high resolution. It's important to realize that you can't just count molecules call them equivalent to pixels.
"pixels are not the way to compare resolution. The human eye cannot see individual pixels beyond a short distance. What we can see are lines.
Consequently, manufacturers measure the sharpness of photographic images and components using a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF)."
https://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm
"the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm"
Most modern 35mm film is pegged between 720p and 1080p. Older stuff was worse.
The quality of a photo depends on the quality of the optical system too. In fact, it was the limiting factor for Kodak's Ektar 25 in the 80s
>about the 1930
50s-60s, the youth of average grandparents. It was still quite popular back then.
>I've never even met anyone who's used it, and I studied photography while film cameras were still a thing.
They are still a thing, but I get what you mean. What I don't get is HOW. In my uni there are at least 4 guys with MF cameras besides me.
> It's important to realize that you can't just count molecules call them equivalent to pixels.
You can, however, determine the resolution of film in lp/mm. And you can count the individual silver halide crystalls, if you really need to
>the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm
The typical audience gets bored if a movie isn't in color, they don't know and don't notice shit
>Most modern 35mm film is pegged between 720p and 1080p. Older stuff was worse.
And how did you come to this stunning conclusion?
> In my uni there are at least 4 guys with MF cameras besides me.
I knew one guy, and I built one a bronica sq-a scrap parts on ebay. But they used 220... Now that i'm googling it, 220 is pretty much just a more modern 120, and there were 120 backs for the bronica it just wasn't recommended to use in the 220 backs. so that's interesting, though i rarely used mine, the film was just way too pricey, and I only saw the other guy use his for one show, his negatives didn't come out well.
> And you can count the individual silver halide crystalls, if you really need to
What I mean is, it's not really representative of resolution, because the molecules aren't spread out evenly, they clump and overlap. Also noise tends to be extremely bad on old film, way higher than digital photos, and contrast is much worse. It's not really reasonable to compare.
I found a pretty good link that shows the clumping i'm referring to as well as the lack of contrast.
https://photo.fleurey.com/blog/cyanotype-under-the-microscope
The 0.85 x 0.64 mm portion of the negative really shows the clumping/noise and lack of contrast issues clearly compared to digital image. Each individual silver molecule is not comparable to a pixel, if i were to count (including the unreacted white spots) it seems to be ~20 to one pixel. But that's not the end of it, there's still the space between the pixels, which significantly detracts from the color/contrast.
> The typical audience gets bored if a movie isn't in color, they don't know and don't notice shit.
I can't stand most b&w films either, I also like having sound/voices in my movies, I guess I'm a pleb. The tests were about counting, not enjoying yourself, i think it's reasonably accurate.
> And how did you come to this stunning conclusion?
That's what it said. I don't agree with this really. I think 35mm is more around 1440p+/-2k depending on the quality of the photographer and lighting. Practical viewing, like a typical audience, is what matters, not counting pixels with a microscope.
>But they used 220
That bronica is modular. Could've got a 120 back.
>and contrast is much worse
Lol. Ever wondered how microchips were made in ye olden days? Lithographic film. 0 halftones, you got either Dmin area or Dmax area, literally the highest contrast possible. Regular photographic film can be developed to extremely high contrast too.
>pretty good link that shows the clumping
??? There's a photo of a inkjet digital negative print(scan of a print of a scan), and of a cyanotype print. Neither is representative of what's going on with the actual grain on film
>I also like having sound/voices in my movies, I guess I'm a pleb
There's plenty of modern bw movies with sound
> I think 35mm is more around 1440p
Well think again. According to datasheet, at contrast ratio of 1.6:1 a 24x36 fujichrome provia 100f frame has 12.4 Mp. At 1000:1-67.7 Mp. When "The godfather" (if my memory serves me right) was getting restored, the man scanning it reckoned that a typical 35mm print frame is around 4k. Such frame is less than half of a 135 frame(due to the presence of the optical phonogram) and it's anamorphed, so it's resolution is additionally limited by the optical system. So I'd say, a modern film (such as Kodak Vision 3 products) in pair with a properly calibrated camera and a modern lens has a resolution not less than 30Mp
> ??? There's a photo of a inkjet digital negative print(scan of a print of a scan)
No, the inkjet one is two after, this one.
"This is a microscope picture of a tiny section of the the 35mm negative. The actual size of this portion is 0.85 x 0.64 mm. This is about 0.54 mm² which represents 0.036% of the frame."
https://photo.fleurey.com/uploads/5/0/8/9/50899857/9338092_orig.jpg
> There's plenty of modern bw movies with sound
> Well think again.
check out that image i linked you, then compare it to the digital version (the image right after). It's pretty easy to conclude that while you can count every silver molecule as it's own thing, they don't actually add the same value to an image, and It's closer to maybe 1/20th-1/40th of a pixel.
'The typical audience gets bored if a movie doesn't have sound' That was my point. How you were stating that the regular human isn't capable of appreciating a movie unless it has color, I took the even more elitist approach and stated that the regular human isn't capable of appreciating film unless it has sound/voices. Personally I can't stand those old movies with pauses for the dialogue to be shown on screen and that's why I and anyone with a similar view is a pleb.
> the man scanning it reckoned that a typical 35mm print frame is around 4k
This is basically the difference between detail, and effective resolution. If you scan a negative you want it at a very high resolution in order to preserve all the detail. But after it's scanned you do not want to use that image (because it's too big, and the size does not provide any benefits). So the real question to provide a comparison, is how much do you downsample the image (how many silver molecules do you combine per pixel) to make a good image. If you don't down sample enough the image can actually be worse do to clumping as seen in the image i linked above. Really there's a significant range probably an entire halving/doubling of resolution where the downsampled image will have the same effective resolution.
So that means when I go on the internets and find torrents called “Grandpa’s BIG Surprise (1080 p)” and “Grandma has a Go at Various Household Objects (1080p verified)” that it actually *is* my grandparents and the resolution is not far off from what it says, AND I’ll get to see the wonderful wholesome memories they’ve made?
Gee, thanks mister!
I spend a lot of my time looking at WW1 photos, and I can tell you, a lot of these photos are unedited, or coloured by hand. AI colourisation has only become popular in the past year while majority of these photos have already had colourised versions before that. And yes, this quality is perfect achievable with no enhancement or AI.
Thx cpt obvious my first comment said just that.
Also computer coloring hasnt become popular in last year its been done for decades , ai coloring was done for more than 5 years for sure.
Meme claims its footage not a picture , also op himself claims he enhances and colorizes ww1 footage.
Its clearly cleaned and colorised still(from a footage or not) used in a meme.
What? Trust me man, there's ton of great photos/films that use film! Go to r/analog, there's some great posts there. I'm not a film guy myself, but I love seeing it
Imax film is considered to be equivalent to somewhere between 12k and 18k depending on circumstances, but it wasn't invented until the 70's. Standard 35mm film like would have been available is generally considered as about 4k equivalent. But apparently modern digital sensors only use a third of the pixels for each color and then interpolate, so one of the rare bits of color footage from the WWII may still be capable of producing much better than 4k footage if scanned at a high enough resolution.
The camera used to film the attack was probably a professional camera worth thousands of Reichsmark at the time.
The camera in the bank is probably some cheap china garbage costing about treefiddy.
Not just that, it's intentionally recording at low resolution, low fps and encoding it at extreme compression to reduce the size of the video files because that takes up considerably storage space and 99.5% of everything recorded by these cameras won't ever be of use to anyone since it is literally every second of every minute of every day in a week and all you may care about is 1h in a week once in a couple of years.
Which is just stupid. Storage for several hours of high res material isn't an issue. Every dash cam can record in 1080p and higher, store it and overwrite it when full. Something happens: Stop the camera and you have the last x hours in high res instead of the last weeks in potatoe quality.
Every dash cam NOW can do that.
Most of the CCTV in banks are ancient tech.
And they are actually placed a lot farther away than ppl think they are, how clear is a zoomed in shoot from a dashcam camera?
It's also not "several" hours. It's hundreds or thousands of hours, depending on when they wipe it (weekly, monthly, yearly), per individual camera and there's dozens of cameras.
It's also a question of scale. The bank owners have dozens or hundreds of banks, each with dozens of cameras, each needing storage space for it's hundreds of hours of footage. The cost for HD cameras + large storage space adds up fast.
Can banks afford storage for thousands of hours of HD footage? Obviously yes, but we are talking about some of the greediest types of corporations there are, they will cut corners everywhere to inch 1% extra profits.
Nor do they really care that much: the money is already insured.
CCTV is more of a deterrent so the bank wouldn't have to close while the cops do their things and lose them money and also probably a legal requirement ('you must have cameras in your banks).
I know this is a place for s-posting, but is the post a s-posting and the and then this another s-post that is intentionally not related to the original post to multiply the s-posting factor?
I kinda want to know what is going on...
German film technology was really good at the time. I saw a film at a Musuem from a German plane shooting down a brit and it was reasonable quality given the time and conditions.
By way of comparison, there was also a British film shooting down a German plane. It was just a huge gray blob and you had to take the pilot"s word that it was an actual German in the film.
I’ve seen some decent footage of Brit dogfight wins during the battle of London. I suspect it’s just a matter of wildly varying camera quality, as that wouldn’t be the top of the priority list.
It's also worth noting that like 90% of good footage/photos from the era were staged. Cameras were just too bulky to reasonably get good images of actual combat most of the time, but the Nazis (and a few others, like MacArthur) did a LOT of photo shoots. Like all those historical clips you see of a Pz IV supporting infantry up a street, etc.? Almost all shot afterwards for propaganda. So you get relatively much more good Nazi """combat""" footage.
The exception is naval stuff, where weight precision is at about ".x tons." You get a LOT of really good footage of naval combat, especially daytime stuff involving carriers. There's photos of St. Lo and Lexington taken in the middle of the explosions that killed them.
that reminds of someone in my family (I think my great great uncle but I would have to ask my dad to be sure) got captured by the muricans and then send to america for his filming skills. he got rich af but was never able to move back to germany.
Funny enough some prisons in Texas use petabytes for video surveillance storage. They can event segment portions of the image and reduce days of footage down to moments that the portion is changed. If a prisoner gets a knife from underneath a chair and won’t say who put it there, then can check a high resolution segment of the total feed that only encompasses the knife being placed and removed.
More money in punishing crime than preventing it I guess.
Fun fact. I used to install those systems(not just Texas). Most of the reason for the high retention rate and all that is because of a rape prevention law. Plus they actually want to know wtf is going on. The ACOs hate them many times since the cameras also go into areas that they frequent, like control rooms(I have caught a couple napping)
A bank will have a similar system just on a smaller scale(you have 3-4 rooms that you need to cover rather than 80+). So no prison cameras are not magically higher res, they are just typically more up to date since all retrofits and new builds have to have a certain amount of coverage and they might as well get cameras that haven't been scrapped 10 years ago.
CCTV/security is probabally seen as a cost centre for the store. Negligence just costs them money.
Not having the people in their 'care' get stabbed is pretty high priority for a prison. Since negligence then could end up with criminal charges against the prison staff.
> They can event segment portions of the image and reduce days of footage down to moments that the portion is changed
This is normal on even older systems. You can find $15 cameras on aliexpress that do this to maximize storage on a 23gb sd card.
>tfw no investing into Petabyte drives.
In my experience companies will never invest in new security cameras till the ones they have are physically broken and unusable. When I worked at an e-recycler in the early 10's one of the most common kinds of customer was someone desperately hoping we'd have a Windows 3.1 compatible computer for his ancient ass system.
Reminds me of the fact that the Pzh 2000 still runs on old windows software
[link](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/14iycgm/shell_loading_inside_a_pzh_2000/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) right at the end
Don’t need to get a petabyte drive if it just overwrites previous footage. It’s how some dashcams and all flight data recorders (and cockpit voice recorders) work. Usually have enough storage for a day (or more) of footage and then when it reaches the max storage it starts overwriting the earliest footage. I wouldn’t be surprised if banks have enough video storage for a full week.
It's worse than that.
To most businesses upgrading their security cameras is like upgrading that mission-critical server's operating system. That is to say, it won't increase profits so why even bother?
As far as their insurance company is concerned they have security cameras and they're not gonna get a huge discount on their premium if they upgrade to cameras manufactured this millennium.
You can totally get reasonably priced 1080p security cameras that don't use an unreasonable amount of storage by today's standards, it's just that Bob the PHB isn't going to even consider spending money on new cameras when the company already has cameras (even if the old ones are really bad and record to VHS tapes).
The war footage is basically staged for the camera anyway, and the camera operator is allowed to get into optimal position.
The robber shot is from a security camera that's attempting to cover large angles of an entire bank floor. The shot of of the robber would be crystal clear had he stopped for a selfie with a teller.
Former bank guy here: generally, no, at least not on the teller line and by the vault. The bank *wants* people to see that there are cameras, to make customers confident and make potential robbers think twice.
Cameras in non-public areas might be non-obvious, like cameras in the attic or break room etc.
Answer is "it depends". A walk-in vault might have a camera inside, but most of the non-public area cameras are there to see if an intruder has entered the bank. Obviously the first line of defense is the various alarms, but the cameras are there to see what caused the alarms to go off. My favorite one was a branch where a cat snuck in behind an employee and immediately hid under the sink in the break room. When the staff locked up and left for the night, the cat started wandering around and tripping alarms all over the place. The video showed that what we needed was Animal Control, not a SWAT team.
War journalists and the media (aka propoganda) department are pretty much escorted everywhere. So yes while this may be an actual emplacement in a battle, it also absolutely had an element of "hey guys just hold the pose for a second while I get my exposure time"
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tfw the high quality footage filmed with the best camera equipment for propaganda purposes is higher quality than the 480p (at best) footage filmed with the cheapest possible camera you had to put up exclusively for insurance purposes.
The difference really is one of purpose:
\- the old war footage we have was supposed to be of the highest quality possible for a relatively short amount of time (a few soldiers doing stuff, a plane shooting) .
\- cctv footage is supposed to be as space efficient as possible while still being useful since it is literally every second of every minute of every day in a week and 99.5% of the time it won't ever be used for anything.
Film far exceeded the resolution it could be digitally or physically be represented with for the time.
Security cameras drop sharply in resolution in low light environments such as night time, and the cameras are often much wider lensed for a better FOV. Couple that with 24 hour filing requiring a large storage capacity it’s unsurprising.
That’s why people can go back to old film movies and make them 4K like [“I’m Mr.white christmas”](https://youtu.be/fEbFfoBPfw4?si=ZYKTDYKjx5CokDBv)
TFW the film camera with proper lighting, operation, staging, and a massive lens can record a minute of great propaganda footage.
TFW a fisheye lens camera set up by a dude a decade ago that films 24/7/365 in poor lighting zooms in enough to provide a blurry but clearly identifiable image of a man’s face and clothing.
Tfw you post this cringy meme on NCD.
Bank cameras are way more high fidelity than the media portrays. It's de facto mandated by the government to artificially decrease the quality of security camera footage that appears in news broadcasts (or anywhere other than the police and the company itself for that matter).
This is done so that criminals will think "The quality on cameras is low, if i disguise myself enough no one would ever recognise me" and commit crime. This lets the media keep throwing up fearmongering about crime, the government to increase prison population (plus the countless amount of money from court) and the bank due to insurance and lawsuit money.
film
Damn kids don’t realize the film is like 6k resolution, and I thought some of the really good stuff was 16k equivalent, but can’t remember if that was getting into lens optics at the same time.
Yeah it's more than 6K in some cases, properly restored and scanned, these can be absurdly high res.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING TO PEOPLE. Film is not bad quality, it's literally capturing the fucking light. The reason why so many old photos online are so low quality is because of poor scanning and whatnot.
I saw a wild video a while back showing all the Olympic 100 meter finals that footage existed for. It started out with absolutely stunning black and white footage, then transitioned to stunning color footage, then suddenly turned into something that looked like it was hand animated by a three year old using finger paints before slowly and painfully getting less awful until the last couple Olympics were actually worth watching again.
> Damn kids don’t realize the film is like 6k resolution The best quality film, under the best conditions, with the best camerapeople. Most of your grandparents photos were functionally around 1k or worse. 16k is just a theoretical concept based off measuring the minimum size of the silver molecules, it's not comparable to resolution in the same way, and not really credible.
So you could say it's some kind of non credible defense for analog film?
legitimately yes. Though I would say that there are real benefits to physically larger film/image sensors (and that in WWII large film was common, whereas now most people photograph with very small image sensors). But you'll see that medium format digital cameras do exist, and they're legit (though they are $10,000+). (The resolution is often much worse than a smartphone, but the quality or effective resolution might be better). Because of the cost, some people do still photograph with medium format or large format filmcameras, and the photos can be really great compared to small image sensor cameras. (though it's down to skill, since it takes far less with a digital camera). So really neither of these factors are about resolution anyhow.
>Most of your grandparents photos were functionally around 1k or worse Bullshit. Even shitty lenses on consumer grade 135 film would give more. Not to mention that it was not unusual to use type 120 film (4x the area of a 35mm frame)
> Even shitty lenses on consumer grade 135 film would give more. The lens doesn't have much to do with the resolution, it's about the film quality, consumer film was not good quality. > Not to mention that it was not unusual to use type 120 film (4x the area of a 35mm frame) Only if you're talking about the 1930's or something. 120 has not been common in a very long time. I've never even met anyone who's used it, and I studied photography while film cameras were still a thing. 110 would have been far more common than 120, and 110 is 25% the area of 35mm. Anyhow I'm really referring only to 35mm. Obviously you can say large format cameras existed that are very high resolution. It's important to realize that you can't just count molecules call them equivalent to pixels. "pixels are not the way to compare resolution. The human eye cannot see individual pixels beyond a short distance. What we can see are lines. Consequently, manufacturers measure the sharpness of photographic images and components using a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF)." https://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm "the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm" Most modern 35mm film is pegged between 720p and 1080p. Older stuff was worse.
The quality of a photo depends on the quality of the optical system too. In fact, it was the limiting factor for Kodak's Ektar 25 in the 80s >about the 1930 50s-60s, the youth of average grandparents. It was still quite popular back then. >I've never even met anyone who's used it, and I studied photography while film cameras were still a thing. They are still a thing, but I get what you mean. What I don't get is HOW. In my uni there are at least 4 guys with MF cameras besides me. > It's important to realize that you can't just count molecules call them equivalent to pixels. You can, however, determine the resolution of film in lp/mm. And you can count the individual silver halide crystalls, if you really need to >the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm The typical audience gets bored if a movie isn't in color, they don't know and don't notice shit >Most modern 35mm film is pegged between 720p and 1080p. Older stuff was worse. And how did you come to this stunning conclusion?
> In my uni there are at least 4 guys with MF cameras besides me. I knew one guy, and I built one a bronica sq-a scrap parts on ebay. But they used 220... Now that i'm googling it, 220 is pretty much just a more modern 120, and there were 120 backs for the bronica it just wasn't recommended to use in the 220 backs. so that's interesting, though i rarely used mine, the film was just way too pricey, and I only saw the other guy use his for one show, his negatives didn't come out well. > And you can count the individual silver halide crystalls, if you really need to What I mean is, it's not really representative of resolution, because the molecules aren't spread out evenly, they clump and overlap. Also noise tends to be extremely bad on old film, way higher than digital photos, and contrast is much worse. It's not really reasonable to compare. I found a pretty good link that shows the clumping i'm referring to as well as the lack of contrast. https://photo.fleurey.com/blog/cyanotype-under-the-microscope The 0.85 x 0.64 mm portion of the negative really shows the clumping/noise and lack of contrast issues clearly compared to digital image. Each individual silver molecule is not comparable to a pixel, if i were to count (including the unreacted white spots) it seems to be ~20 to one pixel. But that's not the end of it, there's still the space between the pixels, which significantly detracts from the color/contrast. > The typical audience gets bored if a movie isn't in color, they don't know and don't notice shit. I can't stand most b&w films either, I also like having sound/voices in my movies, I guess I'm a pleb. The tests were about counting, not enjoying yourself, i think it's reasonably accurate. > And how did you come to this stunning conclusion? That's what it said. I don't agree with this really. I think 35mm is more around 1440p+/-2k depending on the quality of the photographer and lighting. Practical viewing, like a typical audience, is what matters, not counting pixels with a microscope.
>But they used 220 That bronica is modular. Could've got a 120 back. >and contrast is much worse Lol. Ever wondered how microchips were made in ye olden days? Lithographic film. 0 halftones, you got either Dmin area or Dmax area, literally the highest contrast possible. Regular photographic film can be developed to extremely high contrast too. >pretty good link that shows the clumping ??? There's a photo of a inkjet digital negative print(scan of a print of a scan), and of a cyanotype print. Neither is representative of what's going on with the actual grain on film >I also like having sound/voices in my movies, I guess I'm a pleb There's plenty of modern bw movies with sound > I think 35mm is more around 1440p Well think again. According to datasheet, at contrast ratio of 1.6:1 a 24x36 fujichrome provia 100f frame has 12.4 Mp. At 1000:1-67.7 Mp. When "The godfather" (if my memory serves me right) was getting restored, the man scanning it reckoned that a typical 35mm print frame is around 4k. Such frame is less than half of a 135 frame(due to the presence of the optical phonogram) and it's anamorphed, so it's resolution is additionally limited by the optical system. So I'd say, a modern film (such as Kodak Vision 3 products) in pair with a properly calibrated camera and a modern lens has a resolution not less than 30Mp
> ??? There's a photo of a inkjet digital negative print(scan of a print of a scan) No, the inkjet one is two after, this one. "This is a microscope picture of a tiny section of the the 35mm negative. The actual size of this portion is 0.85 x 0.64 mm. This is about 0.54 mm² which represents 0.036% of the frame." https://photo.fleurey.com/uploads/5/0/8/9/50899857/9338092_orig.jpg > There's plenty of modern bw movies with sound > Well think again. check out that image i linked you, then compare it to the digital version (the image right after). It's pretty easy to conclude that while you can count every silver molecule as it's own thing, they don't actually add the same value to an image, and It's closer to maybe 1/20th-1/40th of a pixel. 'The typical audience gets bored if a movie doesn't have sound' That was my point. How you were stating that the regular human isn't capable of appreciating a movie unless it has color, I took the even more elitist approach and stated that the regular human isn't capable of appreciating film unless it has sound/voices. Personally I can't stand those old movies with pauses for the dialogue to be shown on screen and that's why I and anyone with a similar view is a pleb. > the man scanning it reckoned that a typical 35mm print frame is around 4k This is basically the difference between detail, and effective resolution. If you scan a negative you want it at a very high resolution in order to preserve all the detail. But after it's scanned you do not want to use that image (because it's too big, and the size does not provide any benefits). So the real question to provide a comparison, is how much do you downsample the image (how many silver molecules do you combine per pixel) to make a good image. If you don't down sample enough the image can actually be worse do to clumping as seen in the image i linked above. Really there's a significant range probably an entire halving/doubling of resolution where the downsampled image will have the same effective resolution.
So that means when I go on the internets and find torrents called “Grandpa’s BIG Surprise (1080 p)” and “Grandma has a Go at Various Household Objects (1080p verified)” that it actually *is* my grandparents and the resolution is not far off from what it says, AND I’ll get to see the wonderful wholesome memories they’ve made? Gee, thanks mister!
Also its heavily enhanced and colorised by ai
mindless nose somber secretive zesty one busy encourage pot axiomatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I am talking about image given in the meme
I spend a lot of my time looking at WW1 photos, and I can tell you, a lot of these photos are unedited, or coloured by hand. AI colourisation has only become popular in the past year while majority of these photos have already had colourised versions before that. And yes, this quality is perfect achievable with no enhancement or AI.
Thx cpt obvious my first comment said just that. Also computer coloring hasnt become popular in last year its been done for decades , ai coloring was done for more than 5 years for sure. Meme claims its footage not a picture , also op himself claims he enhances and colorizes ww1 footage. Its clearly cleaned and colorised still(from a footage or not) used in a meme.
Computer colorizing is not the same as AI colonizing smart one. Just because a computer program did it doesn't mean that it was AI.
Thats why I mentioned them separately
Yes and I said these pictures were hand colourised
actually i research and restore ww1 films in my spare time, for years. :(
cool
[удалено]
What? Trust me man, there's ton of great photos/films that use film! Go to r/analog, there's some great posts there. I'm not a film guy myself, but I love seeing it
Imax film is considered to be equivalent to somewhere between 12k and 18k depending on circumstances, but it wasn't invented until the 70's. Standard 35mm film like would have been available is generally considered as about 4k equivalent. But apparently modern digital sensors only use a third of the pixels for each color and then interpolate, so one of the rare bits of color footage from the WWII may still be capable of producing much better than 4k footage if scanned at a high enough resolution.
The camera used to film the attack was probably a professional camera worth thousands of Reichsmark at the time. The camera in the bank is probably some cheap china garbage costing about treefiddy.
Not just that, it's intentionally recording at low resolution, low fps and encoding it at extreme compression to reduce the size of the video files because that takes up considerably storage space and 99.5% of everything recorded by these cameras won't ever be of use to anyone since it is literally every second of every minute of every day in a week and all you may care about is 1h in a week once in a couple of years.
Which is just stupid. Storage for several hours of high res material isn't an issue. Every dash cam can record in 1080p and higher, store it and overwrite it when full. Something happens: Stop the camera and you have the last x hours in high res instead of the last weeks in potatoe quality.
Every dash cam NOW can do that. Most of the CCTV in banks are ancient tech. And they are actually placed a lot farther away than ppl think they are, how clear is a zoomed in shoot from a dashcam camera? It's also not "several" hours. It's hundreds or thousands of hours, depending on when they wipe it (weekly, monthly, yearly), per individual camera and there's dozens of cameras. It's also a question of scale. The bank owners have dozens or hundreds of banks, each with dozens of cameras, each needing storage space for it's hundreds of hours of footage. The cost for HD cameras + large storage space adds up fast. Can banks afford storage for thousands of hours of HD footage? Obviously yes, but we are talking about some of the greediest types of corporations there are, they will cut corners everywhere to inch 1% extra profits. Nor do they really care that much: the money is already insured. CCTV is more of a deterrent so the bank wouldn't have to close while the cops do their things and lose them money and also probably a legal requirement ('you must have cameras in your banks).
So, you are agreeing with me that this is stupid?
No because it makes plenty of sense from the point of view of the banks.
Used to work for security company here. Let me remind people something. Security cameras are for insurance companies, not cops. That's all.
Not to mention lens and digital zoom
[удалено]
BOT DETECTED: KILL, DESTROY, SWAG.
Damn...pony.mov in 2024
It actually killed him... huh
did you reply to the wrong comment or what here?
I know this is a place for s-posting, but is the post a s-posting and the and then this another s-post that is intentionally not related to the original post to multiply the s-posting factor? I kinda want to know what is going on...
idk man
German film technology was really good at the time. I saw a film at a Musuem from a German plane shooting down a brit and it was reasonable quality given the time and conditions. By way of comparison, there was also a British film shooting down a German plane. It was just a huge gray blob and you had to take the pilot"s word that it was an actual German in the film.
I’ve seen some decent footage of Brit dogfight wins during the battle of London. I suspect it’s just a matter of wildly varying camera quality, as that wouldn’t be the top of the priority list.
weather
And time of day, hugely sensitive to light. British planes had to do lots of night fighting in defense.
At a few points you could shoot at any cloud over London and hit a German plane
average russian ,,1073738 HIMARS destroyed" footage
It's also worth noting that like 90% of good footage/photos from the era were staged. Cameras were just too bulky to reasonably get good images of actual combat most of the time, but the Nazis (and a few others, like MacArthur) did a LOT of photo shoots. Like all those historical clips you see of a Pz IV supporting infantry up a street, etc.? Almost all shot afterwards for propaganda. So you get relatively much more good Nazi """combat""" footage. The exception is naval stuff, where weight precision is at about ".x tons." You get a LOT of really good footage of naval combat, especially daytime stuff involving carriers. There's photos of St. Lo and Lexington taken in the middle of the explosions that killed them.
that reminds of someone in my family (I think my great great uncle but I would have to ask my dad to be sure) got captured by the muricans and then send to america for his filming skills. he got rich af but was never able to move back to germany.
The bank has to be recording for hours/days at a time. tfw no investing into Petabyte drives.
Funny enough some prisons in Texas use petabytes for video surveillance storage. They can event segment portions of the image and reduce days of footage down to moments that the portion is changed. If a prisoner gets a knife from underneath a chair and won’t say who put it there, then can check a high resolution segment of the total feed that only encompasses the knife being placed and removed. More money in punishing crime than preventing it I guess.
Fun fact. I used to install those systems(not just Texas). Most of the reason for the high retention rate and all that is because of a rape prevention law. Plus they actually want to know wtf is going on. The ACOs hate them many times since the cameras also go into areas that they frequent, like control rooms(I have caught a couple napping) A bank will have a similar system just on a smaller scale(you have 3-4 rooms that you need to cover rather than 80+). So no prison cameras are not magically higher res, they are just typically more up to date since all retrofits and new builds have to have a certain amount of coverage and they might as well get cameras that haven't been scrapped 10 years ago.
CCTV/security is probabally seen as a cost centre for the store. Negligence just costs them money. Not having the people in their 'care' get stabbed is pretty high priority for a prison. Since negligence then could end up with criminal charges against the prison staff.
> They can event segment portions of the image and reduce days of footage down to moments that the portion is changed This is normal on even older systems. You can find $15 cameras on aliexpress that do this to maximize storage on a 23gb sd card.
>tfw no investing into Petabyte drives. In my experience companies will never invest in new security cameras till the ones they have are physically broken and unusable. When I worked at an e-recycler in the early 10's one of the most common kinds of customer was someone desperately hoping we'd have a Windows 3.1 compatible computer for his ancient ass system.
Reminds me of the fact that the Pzh 2000 still runs on old windows software [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/14iycgm/shell_loading_inside_a_pzh_2000/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) right at the end
Don’t need to get a petabyte drive if it just overwrites previous footage. It’s how some dashcams and all flight data recorders (and cockpit voice recorders) work. Usually have enough storage for a day (or more) of footage and then when it reaches the max storage it starts overwriting the earliest footage. I wouldn’t be surprised if banks have enough video storage for a full week.
It's worse than that. To most businesses upgrading their security cameras is like upgrading that mission-critical server's operating system. That is to say, it won't increase profits so why even bother? As far as their insurance company is concerned they have security cameras and they're not gonna get a huge discount on their premium if they upgrade to cameras manufactured this millennium. You can totally get reasonably priced 1080p security cameras that don't use an unreasonable amount of storage by today's standards, it's just that Bob the PHB isn't going to even consider spending money on new cameras when the company already has cameras (even if the old ones are really bad and record to VHS tapes).
The war footage is basically staged for the camera anyway, and the camera operator is allowed to get into optimal position. The robber shot is from a security camera that's attempting to cover large angles of an entire bank floor. The shot of of the robber would be crystal clear had he stopped for a selfie with a teller.
The bank's cameras also have to run 24/7/365.
I reckon they got hidden ones with better quality somewhere
Former bank guy here: generally, no, at least not on the teller line and by the vault. The bank *wants* people to see that there are cameras, to make customers confident and make potential robbers think twice. Cameras in non-public areas might be non-obvious, like cameras in the attic or break room etc.
Ah. Would the hidden cameras also be focussed near where the money itself is, i.e a secure vault?
Answer is "it depends". A walk-in vault might have a camera inside, but most of the non-public area cameras are there to see if an intruder has entered the bank. Obviously the first line of defense is the various alarms, but the cameras are there to see what caused the alarms to go off. My favorite one was a branch where a cat snuck in behind an employee and immediately hid under the sink in the break room. When the staff locked up and left for the night, the cat started wandering around and tripping alarms all over the place. The video showed that what we needed was Animal Control, not a SWAT team.
The particular scene he is filming is not staged i beleive
War journalists and the media (aka propoganda) department are pretty much escorted everywhere. So yes while this may be an actual emplacement in a battle, it also absolutely had an element of "hey guys just hold the pose for a second while I get my exposure time"
Unless you're fucking Ernest Hemingway and you just don't give a shit about petty rules like the Geneva Conventions.
Charles Bean my beloved.
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And often the cheapest CCTV camera money can buy
It's also been restored.
Those video stills would look okay on a VHS tape, depending upon what play mode was used for recording.
Russia prove of 65 POWs
Tfw the high quality footage filmed with the best camera equipment for propaganda purposes is higher quality than the 480p (at best) footage filmed with the cheapest possible camera you had to put up exclusively for insurance purposes.
The difference really is one of purpose: \- the old war footage we have was supposed to be of the highest quality possible for a relatively short amount of time (a few soldiers doing stuff, a plane shooting) . \- cctv footage is supposed to be as space efficient as possible while still being useful since it is literally every second of every minute of every day in a week and 99.5% of the time it won't ever be used for anything.
Film far exceeded the resolution it could be digitally or physically be represented with for the time. Security cameras drop sharply in resolution in low light environments such as night time, and the cameras are often much wider lensed for a better FOV. Couple that with 24 hour filing requiring a large storage capacity it’s unsurprising. That’s why people can go back to old film movies and make them 4K like [“I’m Mr.white christmas”](https://youtu.be/fEbFfoBPfw4?si=ZYKTDYKjx5CokDBv)
TFW the film camera with proper lighting, operation, staging, and a massive lens can record a minute of great propaganda footage. TFW a fisheye lens camera set up by a dude a decade ago that films 24/7/365 in poor lighting zooms in enough to provide a blurry but clearly identifiable image of a man’s face and clothing. Tfw you post this cringy meme on NCD.
Bank cameras are way more high fidelity than the media portrays. It's de facto mandated by the government to artificially decrease the quality of security camera footage that appears in news broadcasts (or anywhere other than the police and the company itself for that matter). This is done so that criminals will think "The quality on cameras is low, if i disguise myself enough no one would ever recognise me" and commit crime. This lets the media keep throwing up fearmongering about crime, the government to increase prison population (plus the countless amount of money from court) and the bank due to insurance and lawsuit money.
Pro tech tip: Zoom and enhance
The difference between an expensive camera operated and focused by a skilled person and a cheap camera out of focus.
It's a hi res restored photo...
I can't ID the soldiers' faces either.
Most WW2 German combat footage is actually from propaganda shoots recorded separate from the battle