[SwellJoe]

I compose music on a Gameboy and a Commodore 64. You don't have to tell me. But...well, this is just spending unnecessarily large amounts of money for mediocre output.

I feel like there's a difference between working with limited means as a tool for creativity, and something like this.

But, I guess, more importantly: I hate the delusion, under which so many people operate, that analog provides higher quality than digital. If your argument is that this is a great idea because it kinda sucks and working with kinda sucky equipment makes you feel more creative, then I can't argue (again, I enjoy writing music on a Gameboy, which is truly sucky), but the moment you make the argument that it looks/sounds better than modern digital equipment is the moment I dismiss the opinion as hopeless superstition.

[ddingus]

Some times it is.

Go look at great pixel art from the 80's and 90's era on an analog CRT.

Overall, modern displays do more and are better in every way. But, I find watching SD media is best on analog SD media.

Or I see a movie in ultra high resolution. Looks like a set. I can see it. But my copy of "How The West Was Won" reissued on Blu Ray is one of the very best I've seen.

This stuff has subtleties that people appreciate.

I find it much easier to go looking for and appreciate art where I see it, and largely ignore the more objective persist of perfection. It's a good thing, but I don't always care.

[bsder]

> Go look at great pixel art from the 80's and 90's era on an analog CRT.

> Overall, modern displays do more and are better in every way. But, I find watching SD media is best on analog SD media.

Well, this is because the pixel art was specifically designed (sometimes intentionally--sometimes just because that's what the artist used to make it) to the limitations of the CRT's is was going to be used on. Consequently, it looks worse when viewed on something that doesn't have the particular blurring, filtering, circularizing characteristics for which it was designed.

[ddingus]

TL;DR version = new tech is superior, not always better in the artistic sense and not always worth it in the trust and make, do, build sense.

[ddingus]

Indeed, though I do recommend watching that old western on BluRay. Someone who knows how to nail it with film actually does capture way more than they even expected back then.

There is a fine art there to be appreciated. This is why Spielberg still shoots film. He has a mastery that continues to have value. He may find all of that blunted in the digital realm. Can't blame him.

I think we will eventually find the art in high resolution digital comes down to things other than perfection. Sometimes too much of a good thing is too much.

On another thread, I mentioned Pink Floyd, "The Wall" and how it has been reissued on CD and a remastered gold version that is insane good.

Actually, it is too good. The average person may well appreciate the production values from the earlier work more, despite its considerable distance from perfection.

The trouble on all these discussions centers in on what people like as opposed to perfection. Those two are not always the same, and "better" has that subjective component to it always.

Many digital movie productions I see have subtle aspects to them one can find distracting or that break the immersion a movie is supposed to deliver. Not breaking that is Cinematography. I remain unconvinced everyone really understands that.

That's where the art is.

This is not to say advances in tech are bad or to be discouraged. Neither is true.

However, value perception of said tech may vary considerably from expectations.

On your last point, we actually lose the pixel art, and often the discussion goes to other things. Fine, but it's not always bad to see the pixels.

With gaming, extreme realism, or just extreme quality, can break some of the escape and fantasy, abstraction inherent in the entertainment form. There is definitely room for both and an active retro culture and indie scene taking liberally from retro in order to see that art continue.

The are also some economies with analog means. I'm on a chip project right now that can offer up great analog display. (Truth is, it will do a 4k on analog, no sweat, if one wants to do that)

Some of that is lost on digital devices. The thing is, generating the analog is at least an order more lean, while being able to offer comparable quality. Barrier to entry is low. That is also high value.

Raising that bar is good in many cases, but not all. So I find myself dealing with many subtle timing matters, artifacts of A to D conversion all a non issue on actual analog displays. I will end up with a lean device that can do HDTV signals nicely, while still maxing out an old TV, which does way more than most expect, and do so sans an awful lot of hassles.

As a "do it myself" kind of person, I do not always see the benefit of complex, resource intensive signals, compression, etc... as a good, or the better thing. And there are IP concerns too, all near completely absent from analog means and methods.

So then, "better" takes on some new depth when on is making or building from first principles. In the end, the system will deliver a great display for a fraction of the effort required to employ a fully digital path.

That's tech I know down to the core, can trust and control in any way desired. Does exactly what I want. High value as far as I am concerned. Timeless too. Works on anything ever made.

I just got a media player that refuses to interface with my other goodies. HDCP in play. It's hooked up via analog component, and delivers the great experience it is supposed to. Funny how that mess can all work.

[ddingus]

Me too, and I like to work with small and old computers too, and for similar reasons.

The thing is, if a tune is really good, that it was done on SID won't matter. It's good art.

Not better in an objective sense, just something we crave.