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 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] hughperman@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair point, I hadn't looked up the specific movie / director

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 6 points 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.

[–] RetroEvolute@lemmy.world 3 points 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 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 1 points 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.