• JackbyDev
    link
    fedilink
    122 years 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
      132 years ago

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

      • 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.

      • Retro
        link
        fedilink
        32 years 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
      10
      edit-2
      2 years 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
      12 years 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.