When I come upon old pictures of historic moments, like Buzz Aldrin’s space selfie, they look so clear and high quality. But I can’t say the same about things I come across from like the late 90s and 2000s.
Honestly, that selfie, if I hadn’t known from the caption/history, I would have assumed it was more recent or from a movie lol.
In: 7
It’s a matter of money. They have had the ability to get high quality film for ages now, but it’s really expensive. What’s funny is if you look at movies like Ben Hur made in the 50’s, it was recorded in super high definition. The issue was we didn’t have the technology to show it in that definition. So the same thing works in the form of pictures. They had the ability to make great quality pictures back then and that’s how we get some of those classic pictures. Then in the 90’s and 00’s we saw the prices fall on cameras and film. They came out with more budget oriented stuff which made it affordable as well as much smaller, but at the sacrifice of quality. It was also visible with digital cameras. I remember when they came out a nice digital camera would be like 1-2 megapixels, which didn’t look great at all. As time went on and technology advanced we now have phones that have a 48 mega camera shooting amazing quality.
Basically we’ve always been able to shoot “quality photos” but it’s been a matter of price and size. By increasing technology we’ve made it possible to make high quality cameras much smaller and more affordable without having to sacrifice quality like they did in the 90’s and 00’s.
Latest Answers