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
    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…?

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

                  See so after insulting me and badgering me that I was incorrect, you missed my point because you couldn’t comprehend the situation where it’s possible. Yet it already is… home videos being scanned and upscaled it’s already a market dude lmfao.

                  And you still try and pass it off as you being superior, holy lord lmfao.

              • 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.

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

                  So we have an electron scanner that scan higher resolution than limited resolution film… and we don’t need AI because the resolution is available if we were to scan it…? What…?

                  Yeah that’s contradictory and exactly what you said…… sorry.

                  You also said earlier something completely different about film not being insanely high quality….

                  I can only interpret the words as you’ve stated them, and you’ve argued multiple conflating and contradictory points.

                  So what is it? Limited quality? Higher quality than we could ever see? Can’t remaster forever? Can?