@@octilli the opposite. The photos of modern things on such an old camera would be confusing af Edit: y'all need to read at least more than two comments down, I'm tired of this "🤓Uuummmm, actually it would no-" just stfu, I'm saying that it CAN be confusing at some point, not that it will be 100% and I already wrote why
Perspective, youve been led to believe the world looks like a photo lens when history looked exactly like today.... Look at restored colored film from the 1800s
I love how the cameramen in the background are stunned by such a jewel of ancient engineering, They look like two surprised children witnessing something truly unique
@@justacloud2534he's referring to the idea that the world was still full of life and colour back when this camera was released even though our best representations of it are all black and white due to limited camera technology. He's not referring to the photos it creates being a representation of "liveliness" 😅
@@justacloud2534That is not what he means. He means that early 19th century settings were bright and colourful, just as they are today. Which can sometimes be something people skip past, because all pictures taken back then, were black and white.
Salvador Dali was on TV a lot, he was a guest on Whats My Line in the 50s I wonder if theres any tv interviews with picasso? I never thought to look him up here 🤔
And yet at the same time , how new photography and many modern inventions really are compared to human history.....we all are lucky to be within its development
@@georgeh5075 My cellphone didn't even have a camera in high school (It was a Nokia, so I could beat someone to death with it if I needed to.) I always took those crappy little disposable cameras on trips and was dismayed at having my thumb in half the pictures.
Brother, I am always looking for people who pay attention to details like that man. Most of the time it goes over people's heads and they miss it. Thanks man
I am astounded by how crisp the image details actually look. I guess it makes sense with alder style photography since it is not digital, and it is literally just the reflection of the light onto a plate. So crisp!
Fun fact: The song used here is by Al Bowlly. He created his cover, "Heartaches," and you need to hear it out to understand what I'm trying to tell you.
That's the great thing about film that you can't get from digital - film has practically infinite resolution. Every particle on the film is being excited by light coming from the objects the camera is taking a picture of. Everything is captured, even the smallest detail. That's why film and TV that was shot on film is easier to transfer to formats such as 4K as the quality can be upscaled further and further. The biggest limiting factor is really the focus of the lens and the quality of the film.
After rewatching it approximately ten times, I am overcome with a sensation I have never before experienced. The picture and the structure of the camera are so wonderful every time I see them. I just saw something that I had never seen before in my life. This camera is unlike any other, and I am glad I discovered it. And the fact that it is from 1897 just shocks me.
The odd parallel of using modern cameras to film old cameras taking new photos on vintage film... is bizarre. But I love it. Having this tech at the turn of the 20th century, you would be the talk of the town. That silly debutante throwing money away on the fancy picture ... camera, I think they are calling it. But even then, people wanted the same things. Love. A nice home. Snacks at a good sporting event. We've come so far but not fundamentally. Thanks for sharing. 😄
You get what you pay for as was the same back then. Your average joe isn't buying that. Some of the more expensive cameras today are more comparable to what this was back in its time.
