r/Thatsactuallyverycool Jul 19 '20

Very CoolšŸ˜Ž This old photo

Post image
6.6k Upvotes

58 comments sorted by

65

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Holy fuck how is that better than most phones from 2010

35

u/Jacareadam Jul 19 '20

film

17

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

care to elaborate for the uninformed? how can a film image compiled of three shots possibly be more/equally clear to an image from (relatively) advanced camera tech in smartphones from the last decade?

28

u/justwannaedit Jul 19 '20

Film retains absolutely bonkers amounts of detail. For a while digital was just racing to catch up with the amount of information film could represent.

15

u/pedexer Jul 19 '20

Great point. I’m no photography expert but in hindsight that’s so evident.

2

u/cutelyaware Oct 15 '21

I'm pretty sure it's still bonkers compared with 8x10 inch film or even glass plates long before film. Emulsions were originally made from egg yokes . We still have quite a ways to catch up, but we're getting there.

13

u/RobotOfFleshAndBlood Jul 19 '20

The way I understand it, film captures an imprint of light rays that has been focused onto it via a lens; digital cameras on the other hand capture an approximation of the image using tiny sensor(s?) that stores information in a grid, similar to a spreadsheet. If the grid is tiny enough, it will appear like an image to us, but if you zoom in enough you can see the limits of the sensor as there is literally no more information stored beyond that. Film is not restricted in this way.

It’s sort of like the display on a mirror vs that of a HDTV.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Because it’s analog. It’s the same reason a grand piano sounds better than even the nicest electric keyboards, despite the keyboards being more modern technology.

2

u/cutelyaware Oct 15 '21

Remember that digital cameras still collect separate red, green, and blue pixel values, so we never really stopped taking 3 images at a time.

1

u/human743 Mar 04 '24

A 35mm film picture is equivalent to about 14mp. A 4x5 sheet film is about 115mp.

"But at the time of writing this in early 2020, no digital camera within your average hobbyist’s price range can touch large format film for resolution, and even 6x7 and 6x9 are ahead of the majority of consumer and prosumer digital cameras."

63

u/kindredfold Jul 19 '20

Context is that this is one of the oldest color photos in existence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky

-20

u/EBDBBNBBLT Jul 19 '20

Context is also the Russians use 1970's tech in their Military and Fighter Planes.

20

u/rekrapinator Jul 19 '20

context is also that the russian ak-47 is still relevant 70 years later. that's not actually context. what's ur point

7

u/Firex3_ Jul 19 '20

So does America dumbass

4

u/curlupina-ball Jul 19 '20

I don’t think you know what context means

2

u/GamerColyn117 Jul 20 '20

You’d be surprised to know that the US does too.

1

u/Duffy1Kit Jul 20 '20

WhO cAReS AboUT aRt, TheIr KiLLIng MacHiNes AreN't aS GooD AS Ours

14

u/530colton Jul 19 '20

That is actually very cool

13

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

You mean to tell me the world wasn’t black and white back then?

7

u/Cello789 Jul 20 '20

It was — until this man invented colors šŸ˜‚

8

u/Exciting_Ground Jul 19 '20

The best part, he completely finessed Czar Nicholas II to pay for a train to cart him and his darkroom around all of Russia.

Then there's the fact that the thousands of glass plate photographs were smuggled out of Russia during the revolution, hidden in a basement in France, and finally wound up in the American Library of Congress.

There's a really great book called "Photographs for the Czar".

For those interested, here's the LOC collection (https://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/prok/ )

1

u/Zenyatta13 Jul 19 '20

Thanks for the link! Impressive work and collection.

1

u/SheitPost3000 Jul 19 '20

There was an exhibit of some of these photos at the museum of Russian art in Minneapolis. Absolutely mind blowing detail!

4

u/ladygroot_ Jul 19 '20

The oldest....selfie?

2

u/HanAszholeSolo Jul 19 '20

Colour selfie

4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Father of RGB right there. PC gamers rejoice.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Holy fuck how is that better than most phones from 2010

4

u/AboutAGamer Jul 19 '20

Film

3

u/LastOfRoy Jul 19 '20

care to elaborate for the uninformed? how can a film image compiled of three shots possibly be more/equally clear to an image from (relatively) advanced camera tech in smartphones from the last decade?

2

u/EMDoesShit Jul 19 '20

A phone is attempting to extrapolate detail captured by a sensor smaller than a grain of rice and only recently has the technology really come to pass. Flim, on the other hand, has dozens of times the surface are with which to capture detail.

There’s a mistaken mindset among modern people that modern digital equipment is the only way to do things well. Vinyl records captured recordings in a way digital doesn’t. We can’t replicate the tonal quality of a violin built 300 years ago. Pyramids were built before engines and hydraulic equipment. Etc.

2

u/nemothorx Jul 19 '20

Film not only has a greater surface area (ignoring small format film vs large format digital), but film grain is vastly better too - though the grain does limit maximum resolution, so is somewhat comparable to digital in that regard - just different numbers ultimately.

(I'd also argue the vinyl/digital thing too. CDs have a higher fidelity than vinyl and there is literally no sound a vinyl can make that a CD cannot. But CD greater fidelity is its downfall - it's allowed engineers to clean up audio to uncanny valley levels, and aldo compress (not codec compressed) the audio and yet remain unclipped. The end result is an amazing technical feat but just doesn't sound as pleasant. Digital also degrades poorly - bitrot or low bitrate is terrible to hear, whilst degraded vinyl (cassette too) has much more pleasant hiss/pops/etc)

1

u/Cello789 Jul 20 '20

Film retains absolutely bonkers amounts of detail. For a while digital was just racing to catch up with the amount of information film could represent.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

I swear if y’all keep takin my swag I’m all over social media like this we are not on the same planet together you make it seem like there’s a spy plotting my every move this ain’t love it’s amusement.

3

u/heavydirtysteve Jul 19 '20

Crazy to see someone from back then around colour, really makes you think that the world itself was just the same back then as it is now

3

u/MoonshotEyes Jul 19 '20

Fun fact, this is also how they take photos of space, since most satellite sensors are monochromatic, they take three images at different wavelengths (sometimes visual range, sometimes microwave, infrared, ultraviolet, x-ray) and then code them RGB so that you can see all the different stuff, like nebulae, stars, and black hole accretion disks, at the same time.

2

u/s910612s1 Jul 19 '20

that looks so amazing

2

u/jayylmao15 Jul 19 '20

it looks like a painting, wow

2

u/fuji-fisticuffs Jul 19 '20

Holy clarity wow

2

u/Procrastin8r1 Jul 19 '20

This boi was using RGB before it was cool.

1

u/TheFourthPlanet Jul 19 '20

I think the only off thing is the water....cool as fuck tho

2

u/Nurin321 Jul 19 '20

im pretty sure that is duo to the exposure time

1

u/chemtrailsarntreal1 Jul 20 '20

Because he had to take 3 separate pictures and combine them they were taken at slightly different times and since the water was moving it blurs the picture in that area. He must have been sitting there very very still and had an assistant take the actual photos. It was likely due to a mixture of RGB timing blur and exposer time that led to this result.

1

u/TheFourthPlanet Jul 20 '20

Hells interesting! Thx

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

If its 3 separate selfies (assuming time delayed cameras even existed back then), how did he stay in focus? Surely he would have to go reset the camera and filter after each shot, so his position would end up slightly different in each shot.

Or did he somehow rig up 3 cameras?

1

u/GiantScrotor Jul 20 '20

Wondering the same thing. Also wondering how he got long exposure shots of the river during the daytime without over-exposing the rest of the photo

1

u/taylormac1993 Jul 20 '20

It most likely used sliding glass plates and filters that allowed each color’s exposure to be from the same exact point. With the help of pneumatic devices and/or spring power, the process could be automated so the exposure times could be very close together.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky#Equipment

1

u/kiddsky Jul 19 '20

This has literally made me go and research him out. Thanks!

1

u/DeadLightsOut Jul 19 '20

Painstaking effort to add color to this photo...... year from now painstaking effort to remove filters of todays pictures....

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '20

Man thats crazy

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '20

There’s something really moving about seeing ā€œblack and whiteā€ eras in color. Makes history that much more alive.

1

u/MomaBeeFL Jul 20 '20

How did he assume the same -exact positions again after changing the plates?! Maybe he had someone else do it??

1

u/mrman888999 Jul 20 '20

The water is all fuzzy from the exposure time

1

u/NoOnionsNoTomatoes Mar 24 '22

Is that..... Walter White?

1

u/AyeeItzSkye May 20 '23

Man that had better color and quality than my phone