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?

  • bestusername
    94·
    2年前

    What is quality to you? The image size/resolution, the audio sample rate, the noise?

    There’s a point where the difference is imperceptible.

    I think it’s largely nostalgia behind replies like yours, analogue and digital are different, not a blanket better or worse.

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            5·
            2年前

            You are correct.

            The figure I was given at art college was that a well exposed and developed 35mm negative had a minimum resolution of 90 million pixels, which is higher than 8K at ~75 million.

        • bestusername
          1·
          2年前

          Well you’re definitely right about remastering/digitising old film…

          But if Star Wars was done on old DV, Lucas wouldn’t have been able to digitally butcher it, so there’s that.

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            11·
            2年前

            I dunno. I feel like he would have tried if there had been the same amount of public dissatisfaction with the originals as there was with the prequels.

        • crandlecan@mander.xyz
          11·
          2年前

          Ergo, analogue for now still beats digital at the highest ends of the market. There’s no digital camera outperforming the analogue ones. I want some of them upvotes back!! 😤

    • crandlecan@mander.xyz
      24·
      2年前

      Sure… Nostalgia is what drives the movie studios… That’s why they still use analogue despite the superior results of digital, at lower total costs… 🤡!