• Bucket_of_Truth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 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.)

        • hughperman@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • TheOptimalGPU@lemmy.rentadrunk.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 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.

              • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                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.

          • Retro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            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.

        • Bucket_of_Truth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.

        • willis936@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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.

      • Obi@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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.

    • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.