Slimebeast said:
akuma587 said:
This technology would be great if an exact copy of the master source of a film would actually be this large. But even for a larger movie it would only be around 150-200 Gigs. |
How do you know?
And master source, what does that usually mean for Hollywood movies... the film is uncompressed and in higher resolution (than Bluray)?
|
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.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
