• JackbyDev
    link
    121 year ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

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

      • Retro
        link
        fedilink
        31 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]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        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]
            link
            fedilink
            71 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]
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      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]
      link
      fedilink
      11 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.