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?
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?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
Is it just me, or does that not contradict the statement you said of “film doesn’t have infinite resolution”?
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?
We wouldn’t need Ai just a way….
Yeah you contradicted yourself, that’s why I mentioned you would need Ai and infilling…
Removed by mod
I think you completely misunderstood the conversation here, I don’t need stuff mansplained lmfao. I thought we were having a thought experiment on what things could potentially be.
And yeah you’ve made multiple contradictory statements regardless of that. I even brought up we don’t have screens to make any of this useful, was that not a big enough hint that it’s not a possibility currently…?
Removed by mod