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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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?