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.
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.
Surely even a lossless compression is incredibly smaller. (But you can’t truly losslessly convert from film to digital, only commenting on uncompressed 1080p.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
All of this could fit on a micro SD card.
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.
Needs a 600 lbs SD card.
Yeah, nah. The equivalent digital copy would be terabytes, and the read speed of a micro SD likely wouldn’t be fast enough.
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.
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.
Surely even a lossless compression is incredibly smaller. (But you can’t truly losslessly convert from film to digital, only commenting on uncompressed 1080p.)
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.
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.
Fair point, I hadn’t looked up the specific movie / director
Christopher Nolan is famously one of the few big Hollywood directors who still shoots much of his footage on actual film, specifically in IMAX.
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.
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.