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?

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        11·
        1 year ago

        I’m not correcting what you said, I’m correcting what you think I said.

        AI could add detail that isn’t there in the film, but it is unnecessary to recover detail that IS there because we absolutely have the tech to get the full detail that is available in the film. No need to make up for lost detail with AI.

        I though you meant we’d have to use AI to match film, because we can’t scan it at a superior-to-film level.

        Film is also so so insanely high detail, that the idea of enhancing it further never even occurred to me. It’d be utterly pointless.

        There is only a contradiction if you interpret my words in a way I didn’t intend.

        So don’t. If you still do after I’ve told you otherwise, yes, you’d be being disingenuous.

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          13·
          1 year ago

          So we have an electron scanner that scan higher resolution than limited resolution film… and we don’t need AI because the resolution is available if we were to scan it…? What…?

          Yeah that’s contradictory and exactly what you said…… sorry.

          You also said earlier something completely different about film not being insanely high quality….

          I can only interpret the words as you’ve stated them, and you’ve argued multiple conflating and contradictory points.

          So what is it? Limited quality? Higher quality than we could ever see? Can’t remaster forever? Can?

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            11·
            1 year ago

            So we have an electron scanner that scan higher resolution than limited resolution film… and we don’t need AI because the resolution is available if we were to scan it…? What…?

            No, we can scan things at a molecular level, I never said that’d produce a result beyond what’s there in the grain, why would you think I meant that?

            You also said earlier something completely different about film not being insanely high quality….

            I said it’s not infinite, film only carries detail down to its grain size. That detail is still insanely high, but not “infinite” and as such you won’t be able to just keep re-scanning it forever, at ever higher detail.

            I can only interpret the words as you’ve stated them, and you’ve argued multiple conflating and contradictory points.

            No I haven’t, you read meaning from my words that wasn’t there.

            Limited quality?

            Yes.

            Higher quality than we could ever see?

            Also yes. These things can be true at the same time.

            Can’t remaster forever?

            Still yes, eventually you’d be scanning at a higher level of detail than what is there. And by that point, you’d have achieved resolutions that exceed the human eye. Though this depends on what kind of film the master is on. Some works will be on grain and film sizes that didn’t have that high quality to begin with.