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?
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?
What? Not at all.
I’m saying we can already scan stuff at way beyond the resolution film is able to record, how is that mutually exclusive with there only being useful detail in the film up to a certain scale?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod