These can be especially hard to find as the files are typically enormous, with low compression to keep things like grain. I see them mostly traded on short-lived gdrives and Telegram.
Someone tell this community to share over BT. Aint nobody got time to keep up with which platform/server everyone is on and which links are expired and yuck.
But you have algorithmic grain in modern codecs, so no need to waste so much space for noise?
The other’s fake noise.
One’s a real photo from 1890. The other’s an old-timey instagram filter.
It makes sense that some folks might care about the difference. Like, I love my old family Polaroids. I would not want a scanned version of those to have the “noise” removed for compression’s sake. If that had been done, I’d have limited interest in adding fake noise back to them. By far my favorite version to have would be the originals, without the “noise” smoothed out at all.
Lots of folks have similar feelings about film. Faked grain isn’t what they’re after, at all. It’s practically unrelated to what they’re looking for.
> The other’s fake noise
But since there is no such thing as the real thing, it could just as well match one of the many real noise patterns in one of the many real things floating around, or a real thing at a different point in time with more/less degradation. And you wouldn't even know the difference, thus...
> It makes sense that some folks might care about the difference
Not really, it doesn't make sense to care about identical noise you can't tell apart. Of course, plenty people care about all kind of nonsense, so that won't stop those folks, but let's not pretentd there is some 'real physics' involved
But also a simulation called compression of a real thing is different from that real thing, so that purity test had already been failed
[EDIT] My point is "film grain's not more-real than algo noise" is simply not true, at all. An attempt to represent something with fidelity is not the same thing as giving up and faking it entirely based on a guess with zero connection to the real thing—its being a representation and not the actual-real-thing doesn't render it equally as "impure" as a noise-adding filter.
It may as well be stimulated because you won't see the difference! So now you've imagined some purity test which was never true, so you have nothing and start hallucinating some hyperbolic AI thing
Quoted: the introduction of “purity test” to the conversation, from not one of my posts.
One is the real deal and another one is a simulation. End of story.