Re:Vintage digicams aren't just a fad. They're an artistic s...
by jhbadger on Tuesday December 03, 2024 @06:59AM
(#42305230)
Absolutely. Like those terrible filters that are supposed to make video look like it was recorded on VHS. They always make the results far worse than VHS actually was in practice.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Vintage digicams aren't just a fad. They're an artistic s...
by ahartmetz on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @03:20AM
(#42315493)
VHS didn't always look noisy and distorted, but it always looked blurry and had horrible color bleeding. I disliked it even though it was the "only" technology at the time and we didn't have it at home.
Re:Vintage digicams aren't just a fad. They're an artistic s...
by naoru on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @08:27AM
(#42317222)
Nope, color bleeding was virtually non-issue with SECAM color encoding. I've grown up in a SECAM country, but we had a lot of PAL content. PAL always looked bad and smudgy in comparison. NTSC was just plain awful and intolerable even by my pre-teen standards.
Re:Vintage digicams aren't just a fad. They're an artistic s...
by ahartmetz on Saturday December 07, 2024 @08:04PM
(#42354162)
Are you sure that PAL reception/tapes and possibly "yeah we also do that" PAL implementations were good in your region? I'm from a PAL region and broadcast PAL looked just fine to me. Only VHS PAL looked blurry. VHS's very low horizontal color resolution was a VHS limitation, AFAIK not much to do with how color phase errors were averaged out across lines in PAL vs SECAM.