Oh absolutely. In terms of detail, photosensitive chemistry still has digital sensors utterly beat.
I’m just saying the resolution isn’t endless. There’s a limit, digital tech just hasn’t caught up, is all.
Comment on How are films recorded
schmidtster@lemmy.world 7 months agoRight but even basic 35mm is above 4k in “resolution” though, or am I misremembering?
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
schmidtster@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Interesting. Things could get really interesting with AI and the sensor tech, a more sensitive sensor could get more information out of film than is currently possible I would imagine?. And then you could also use AI to fill in and enhance more from there.
Now if only we had some screens to make it worthwhile hahah
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
We have electron microscopes. As long as you have time (which when you’re recording actors doing a scene, you don’t) we have the tech to look at things at any scale we want.
We wouldn’t even need AI, just a way to illuminate the film and some optics to project it at wherever scale we need onto a sensor, and we could scan every frame on a film down to the molecular level if we wanted.
Composited the resulting scan data into digital video would be trivial, and the resulting file would have a level of quality higher than what any digital sensor could have recorded directly.
schmidtster@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Is it just me, or does that not contradict the statement you said of “film doesn’t have infinite resolution”?
Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 7 months ago
You are correct.
The figure I was given at art college was that a well exposed and developed 35mm negative had a minimum resolution of 90 million pixels, which is higher than 8K at ~75 million.