I always hear people/actors/directors say, this tape or film is x meters long, it is this size, etc. do they really still use physical film? If so why aren’t they using terabytes of storage in a way more compact form?

  • bestusername@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    What is quality to you? The image size/resolution, the audio sample rate, the noise?

    There’s a point where the difference is imperceptible.

    I think it’s largely nostalgia behind replies like yours, analogue and digital are different, not a blanket better or worse.

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are correct.

            The figure I was given at art college was that a well exposed and developed 35mm negative had a minimum resolution of 90 million pixels, which is higher than 8K at ~75 million.

              • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                We have electron microscopes. As long as you have time (which when you’re recording actors doing a scene, you don’t) we have the tech to look at things at any scale we want.

                We wouldn’t even need AI, just a way to illuminate the film and some optics to project it at whatever scale we need onto a sensor, and we could scan every frame on a film down to the molecular level if we wanted.

                Compositing the resulting scan data into digital video would be trivial, and the resulting file would have a level of quality higher than what any digital sensor could have recorded directly.

                • schmidtster@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Is it just me, or does that not contradict the statement you said of “film doesn’t have infinite resolution”?

                  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What? Not at all.

                    I’m saying we can already scan stuff at way beyond the resolution film is able to record, how is that mutually exclusive with there only being useful detail in the film up to a certain scale?

        • bestusername@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well you’re definitely right about remastering/digitising old film…

          But if Star Wars was done on old DV, Lucas wouldn’t have been able to digitally butcher it, so there’s that.

        • crandlecan@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ergo, analogue for now still beats digital at the highest ends of the market. There’s no digital camera outperforming the analogue ones. I want some of them upvotes back!! 😤

    • crandlecan@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure… Nostalgia is what drives the movie studios… That’s why they still use analogue despite the superior results of digital, at lower total costs… 🤡!