This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It doesn't work -- the grain density of 35mm film might be more or less than that depending on the film, but the grain is randomly distributed in both space and size rather than on an even grid like a monitor. You'd still see pixels -- probably quite casually if you used an 8k screen, and forensically to quite a high resolution I'd think.
The Lightjet machines work because they are sort of like a laser printer without the toner -- the 'pixels' are obtained by shooting the paper/film with a laser, so they bleed into each other nicely, don't staircase diagonals, etc. TBH I'm not sure that you couldn't tell the difference between even a negative made that way and an optical one under a microscope or something -- Lightjet was/is mostly used for prints (very not demanding resolution-wise) or copy-negatives (much more demanding depending on neg-size, but the intended final output is usually still a print, so there's some wiggle room there)
You can definitely take pictures of a screen to do digital to film transfer. The service I've used (quite a while ago) used a CRT screen, which might help prevent obvious moire artifacts. I suspect it would be easily forensically detectable, thouh.
Certainly it is literally a possible thing to do -- it also was possible in the 90s, and people used the $200k film recorders instead to even get to magazine-imagesetting standards of quality. Even a copy-negative (film-to-film) is potentially distinguishable from a true one; making pixels look like film under magnification is a harder problem. Nation-state actors/TLAs might figure something out if the incentives were large enough, but for most normal situations "let me examine the negatives" would be good enough proof of authenticity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link