this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1845 points (98.2% liked)

pics

19775 readers
577 users here now

Rules:

1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer

2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.

4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.

5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.

Photo of the Week Rule(s):

1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.

2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.

Weeks 2023

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

All of this could fit on a micro SD card.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Probably not. 3 hours of uncompressed 1080p video is around 2tb. The film is closer to 16k which is 64 times more pixels than 1080p. This ain't your web rip off pirate bay.

[–] JackbyDev 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Surely even a lossless compression is incredibly smaller. (But you can't truly losslessly convert from film to digital, only commenting on uncompressed 1080p.)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

However, let's not forget the whole thing was created digitally then "printed" to film, so there was never a "film original".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Well, kind of. Nolan does shoot on film, including all of Oppenheimer, but they almost definitely brought it into some digital format for editing before pressing it back onto film in this case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He uses the camera negative as much as possible and avoids CGI as much as possible so a lot of film hasn’t been digitised and reprinted it’s from the actual source.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair point, I hadn't looked up the specific movie / director

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Christopher Nolan is famously one of the few big Hollywood directors who still shoots much of his footage on actual film, specifically in IMAX.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure but that's not the point, film is wholly uncompressed. When theaters get 4k digital releases they get mailed a hard drive with the movie on it. "This" wouldn't fit on any card.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's hard to say, but film grain is noisy and noise does not compress well. In my experiments with lossless video compression without film grain you'd get a ~3:1 compression ratio. With film I'd guess closer to 2:1.

So 16k (15360 x 11520) x 12 bit per channel (36) x 24 fps x 3 hours (10800) is 206 TiB. Even with very generous estimates of compression ratios you're not fitting this on anything less than a 2U server filled with storage.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Still works if you replace the SD card with an SSD, only slightly larger in comparison to the reel. Of course this ignores any losses when you digitise the film.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Needs a 600 lbs SD card.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Not quite, as the other dude said. IMAX is on a whole other level, which is probably why there are so few of them around.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, nah. The equivalent digital copy would be terabytes, and the read speed of a micro SD likely wouldn't be fast enough.