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?

  • 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?

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We wouldn’t need Ai just a way….

          Yeah you contradicted yourself, that’s why I mentioned you would need Ai and infilling…

            • schmidtster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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…?

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

                    I’m not correcting what you said, I’m correcting what you think I said.

                    AI could add detail that isn’t there in the film, but it is unnecessary to recover detail that IS there because we absolutely have the tech to get the full detail that is available in the film. No need to make up for lost detail with AI.

                    I though you meant we’d have to use AI to match film, because we can’t scan it at a superior-to-film level.

                    Film is also so so insanely high detail, that the idea of enhancing it further never even occurred to me. It’d be utterly pointless.

                    There is only a contradiction if you interpret my words in a way I didn’t intend.

                    So don’t. If you still do after I’ve told you otherwise, yes, you’d be being disingenuous.