Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russia in color, a century ago

archive.boston.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 196 posts

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#81

Post by derleth »

delinka wrote: post #10
derleth wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course they look better. Why?

Because film captures details in molecules while a CCD sensor in your digital camera uses picture elements much, much, much larger than molecules. Or, because it's analog. It's very similar to sound recordings. Whether magnetic or not (say, in vinyl) the resolution of the captured signal can approach the molecular. Digital has a discreet resolution limited by the capturing equipment; for example, CDs reproduce the vo…

> CDs reproduce the volume in a sound recording only 44,100 times per second.

Because humans can't hear sounds higher than 22 kHz, so with a 44.1 kHz sampling rate you're guaranteed to capture everything humans can hear.

Besides, tape has wow and flutter and records invariably have scratches and dust, not to mention limits in dynamic range.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Audio_woo

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#82

Post by kwekly »

derleth wrote: post #81
delinka wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because film captures details in molecules while a CCD sensor in your digital camera uses picture elements much, much, much larger than molecules. Or, because it's analog. It's very similar to sound recordings. Whether magnetic or not (say, in vinyl) the resolution of the captured signal can approach the molecular. Digital has a discreet resolution limited by the capturing equipment; for example, CDs reproduce the vo…

> CDs reproduce the volume in a sound recording only 44,100 times per second. Because humans can't hear sounds higher than 22 kHz, so with a 44.1 kHz sampling rate you're guaranteed to capture everything humans can hear. Besides, tape has wow and flutter and records invariably have scratches and dust, not to mention limits in dynamic range. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Audio_woo

The analogous concept here is the product of sampling rate and bit-depth, the number of bits per sample i.e the precision of the recording

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#83

Post by photorized »

derekp7 wrote: post #44
photorized wrote: post #30

Looking at these feels like time travel.

It's funny, I got the exact same impression. Normally when you think of the past, you think of black & white, or faded color. But if you took a ride in a time machine, of course the past would look as vibrant as anything you currently see. As a side note, I've noticed that when TV programs show a film clip from 30 years ago (say the early 80's), such as old sporting event clips, they add a false color fade to make th…

Exactly. These don't look "old", there is no retro feel to them, especially with the landscapes. Messes with your head.

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#84

Post by lisnake »

I come from the place where majority of these photos were taken (Ural mountains). Here is comparisons of landscapes on these old photos with current view — http://ufa.livejournal.com/2259613.html http://ufa.livejournal.com/2248707.html http://ufa.livejournal.com/2248073.html Actually, in my opinion, not much have changed

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#85

Post by malsme »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #24
mgkimsal wrote: post #8

No one is smiling. Not even the kids. Maybe the woman in #20 is, who knows? I know in general 'old time' photos didn't have people smiling much - very posed pictures and stoic expressions. I wonder if they had any idea how much this would color our impression of them 100+ years later?

I think smiling for a photograph must be some sort of social training that humans either take to or don't. I, for example, still find it very difficult and unnatural to smile for photographs unless I am already smiling about something else and the picture is just a candid moment caught at that time. I would imagine that this old picture taking process (3 separate pictures with different filters each time) took quite…

It is probably a strange thing to say (i.e. common knowledge for others), but it only recently occurred to me that people develop a standard pose for photos. If you look at a family album or say Facebook or Flickr, and scroll through historic photos, the most "photogenic" people look almost identical. Those people will face in a certain direction with the same shape of smile and posture, it's almost freaky how identical they are! So it's obviously a practised/fake thing, that some learn to do while others remain oblivious. Back then, this concept would not have existed.

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#87

Post by URSpider94 »

derleth wrote: post #5
artursapek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure he was able to view them well using a projector. Displays like that were the initial purpose of photography like this. Positives of these would have overlapped to make up the same images you see here. By the way, I think it's sort of a shame to even compare smartphone digital photos to film photography. Of course they look better.

> Of course they look better. Why?

Three reasons that I can think of:

1. These images are likely captured on large-format glass plates, not tiny sensors. Therefore, the amount of magnification required is much less (these may be nearly 1:1 on a standard laptop display).

2. Chemical emulsions typically have much more dynamic range than digital sensors, allowing for more highlight and shadow detail.

3. Capturing colors in three separate exposures gets rid of the need for de-mosaicing.

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#88

Post by jdabney »

derrida wrote: post #77

I notice they have a picture of Tblisi ( http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bi... ) , which is now in Georgia (not Russia). Tblisi is a rather beautiful looking place, here is a recent picture from almost the same place http://www.experience.hk/wp-content/uploads/Tbilisi-4.jpg

It is amazing how many trees have grown back.

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#89

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

shawnc wrote: post #78

These are so amazing. The world wasn't sepia toned a hundred years ago! As silly as that statement is, my brain is actually having a hard time really believing these photos are from 100 years ago. I'm in awe.

So goes the joke:

  "Dad, why are there only black-and-white photos from before the early 1900s?"

  "Because you see, son, the world actually was black-and-white back then."

  "Then why were there colour portraits?"

  "Because you see, son, artists were insane."

Re: Russia in color, a century ago

#90

Post by olavk »

cek wrote: post #64
alecperkins wrote: post #23

I was first amazed at the quality, then surprised that these were taken more recently than I expected, in 1910. Then, I realized that, duh, that was 102 years ago. It's strange how even 100+ years ago is getting more and more recent. (Obviously, that's how it works. But perception lags quite a bit.)

> It's strange how even 100+ years ago is getting more and more recent. I think you are absolutely right with this. As the rate of change increases (and it has been rapidly increasing for the last 150 years) it makes sense that history would compress too. Fascinating!

I don't think the rate of change increases. In just a few years after these pictures Russia will be involved in WWI, then revolution and civil war. After than Stalin, then WWII. Millions and millions of people will have their lives changed and shattered by these enormous changes.

Sure, today we get a new cell phone model each year, but I don't think this kind of change is as bag as e.g. revolution and world war.

Post reply on HN