Clarity is antithetical to authenticity
Digital technology allows us to seamlessly share media with no degradation. Well, that's the theory - the reality is more complicated.
This low quality gif is doing the rounds again. The HD version is easily available - but there appears to be something more "real" about low quality.
It keeps being shared on social media - one Tweet currently has around 45 thousand likes.
Here's the original viral video. 6 million views!
But that is not the original video though - as we shall see!
Take a look at that YouTube video. The video is 1080p HD - and the motion is smooth. So what's with the horizontal scan lines? Looks like it has been recorded on cheap CCTV.
I suppose it could be a cheaper black and white camera. But behind the scan lines, the image looks crisp and detailed. Not cheap!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2e822/2e8220224b9820168fb5424ae75423e668592c32" alt="Screenshot of the video in grainy black and white"
Here's the same shot in colour.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ca721/ca7214b1366e6973502fffb34020f584d4bac4a5" alt="Screenshot of the video in colour"
Gorgeous! So why does it look more "authentic" in a low-res, monochrome, artificially distressed gif?
The original video was made by Russell Owen MacLaughlin in Greater Kruger national park, South Africa.
My questions to you:
- Does the grainy footage feel more real to you?
- Do the faked timestamps give an air of authenticity?
- Why do people share it if the original is easily available?
- Am I the only one who cares?
David Wilhelm says:
I thought the grainy footage was fake at first.. I wondered if the video had been reversed.