It’s the backswing from society forcing computers unto everyone just to live.
Also, film has a unique look, fun work-flow, and a dynamic range only expensive digital cameras can match.
…on film that easily costs a buck per frame nowadays, Kodak actually raised prices last year because they can’t keep up with demand. And that’s not including developing it and making prints.
Don’t get me wrong, analogue film is a great medium and the SRGB conversion you posted doesn’t even begin to do it justice. But “it’s cheaper” is in no way an argument for it.
Movies on analogue film are also a nice idea, a nice print of a nice movie for a reel-to-reel projector which are easy to build (use a white LED, please, no need even for electronics but power electronics but make it a LED) can have great quality and definitely do cinema history justice, but… VHS? Utterly atrocious quality. VHS had shoddy quality when it was new (much lower than broadcast) and it didn’t get a single bit better.
It’s the backswing from society forcing computers unto everyone just to live.
Also, film has a unique look, fun work-flow, and a dynamic range only expensive digital cameras can match.
Here’s a photo from a $1 camera:
…on film that easily costs a buck per frame nowadays, Kodak actually raised prices last year because they can’t keep up with demand. And that’s not including developing it and making prints.
Don’t get me wrong, analogue film is a great medium and the SRGB conversion you posted doesn’t even begin to do it justice. But “it’s cheaper” is in no way an argument for it.
Movies on analogue film are also a nice idea, a nice print of a nice movie for a reel-to-reel projector which are easy to build (use a white LED, please, no need even for electronics but power electronics but make it a LED) can have great quality and definitely do cinema history justice, but… VHS? Utterly atrocious quality. VHS had shoddy quality when it was new (much lower than broadcast) and it didn’t get a single bit better.
I pay 12€ for 36, including development.