[qingcharles]

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. What you're hinting at is that a lot of original 35mms are now getting scanned and uploaded privately, especially where all the commercial releases on Blu-ray and streaming are based on modified versions of the original movies, or over-restored versions.

These can be especially hard to find as the files are typically enormous, with low compression to keep things like grain. I see them mostly traded on short-lived gdrives and Telegram.

[squigz]

> I see them mostly traded on short-lived gdrives and Telegram.

Someone tell this community to share over BT. Aint nobody got time to keep up with which platform/server everyone is on and which links are expired and yuck.

[sersi]

The main reason they are not shared as widely is that there's a bit of conflict within the community between those that really want to stay under the radar and not risk being targeted by copyright owners (and so try to keep things very much private between the donors who funded the 600-900 usd cost of the scans) and those who want to open up a bit more and so use telegram, reddit and upload to private trackers.

[piperswe]

I would be surprised if they didn't end up on the prestigious private trackers

[eviks]

> with low compression to keep things like grain.

But you have algorithmic grain in modern codecs, so no need to waste so much space for noise?

[behringer]

This grain looks extremely fake.

[wiseowise]

Because one is genuine physics and another is a fake crap?

[eviks]

the calculations and the photons sent to your eyes are all genuine physics

[phantasmish]

One’s an accurate recording of how a real thing looked.

The other’s fake noise.

One’s a real photo from 1890. The other’s an old-timey instagram filter.

It makes sense that some folks might care about the difference. Like, I love my old family Polaroids. I would not want a scanned version of those to have the “noise” removed for compression’s sake. If that had been done, I’d have limited interest in adding fake noise back to them. By far my favorite version to have would be the originals, without the “noise” smoothed out at all.

Lots of folks have similar feelings about film. Faked grain isn’t what they’re after, at all. It’s practically unrelated to what they’re looking for.

[eviks]

> One’s an accurate recording of how a real thing looked.

> The other’s fake noise

But since there is no such thing as the real thing, it could just as well match one of the many real noise patterns in one of the many real things floating around, or a real thing at a different point in time with more/less degradation. And you wouldn't even know the difference, thus...

> It makes sense that some folks might care about the difference

Not really, it doesn't make sense to care about identical noise you can't tell apart. Of course, plenty people care about all kind of nonsense, so that won't stop those folks, but let's not pretentd there is some 'real physics' involved

[phantasmish]

But… of course there is? A record of a real thing is different from a statistical simulation of it.

[wiseowise]

> Akshually

One is the real deal and another one is a simulation. End of story.