akuma587 said:
I mean its not a hard and fast rule about the ultimate size of a movie (and it can vary if you are using something like IMAX cameras), but I do know people who are pretty knowledgeable in this area and those are the kinds of numbers I have heard. The master source means where you source any "inferior" release from. Its easier to describe with digital (and to make copies of) than it is with film technology, but it is what things like Blu-Ray's, DVD's, and the film canisters/digital copies of the films they show at the theater are sourced from. With actual film it is the original negative. With digital film I guess you would call it the source material. And really, you don't even need something to be the same size as the original to get the full quality (assuming you could even take advantage of the full quality). You would need a screen that was around 100" to really tell the difference between a Blu-Ray at its full potential versus something better. The human eye just can't tell the difference unless you blow up the picture big enough to see the difference in resolution. Obviously, there is more to it than just resolution, like the level of detail with respect to the original source, but that is just the situation in a nutshell. And that totally takes compression out of the equation as well. You can make a lossless copy of a CD that will sound as good as the original using FLAC and it will only be half the size. Something doesn't even really need to be COMPLETELY uncompressed as long as it is still "lossless." With video it is certainly more complicated than audio though.
|
Also, a 500Gig 2 hour movie, would be 73 Meg a second you would have to pull off the disk. Good luck with that.
