×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

269 comments

Your face! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902926)

fp.

What is the point of scanning at such a high res? (5, Insightful)

JessLeah (625838) | about 10 years ago | (#8902927)

It's not like these are crisp, sharp modern prints. Jesus, at 4000 dpi, the film grains will be dozens of pixels in diameter...

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (5, Insightful)

Repugnant_Shit (263651) | about 10 years ago | (#8902934)

I guess having a crazy high-res version will help when they scale it down for DVD/VHS/Broadcast.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903050)

It won't be crazy high res. 35mm prints are one inch tall. that's 4000 vertical resolution, which in the scheme of things isn't much different to scanning an A4 document landscape at about 450dpi.

High res for detail, but not as crazy as dozens of pixel sized film grains

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (4, Insightful)

Vampo (771827) | about 10 years ago | (#8902952)

once digitised, could they not be processed to remove those? I don't know much about image processing but I'm sure someone would be able to come up with a filter that would pick up such spots and remove them (based on previous and next clean frames maybe?).

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902993)

Film grain represents the physical resolution of the film, it's not dust or something which can be removed by duplicating adjacent pixels. Moreover film grain is aestethically much nicer than any rounding and blurring the kind of filter you are proposing would produce.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (4, Funny)

OglinTatas (710589) | about 10 years ago | (#8902999)

once digitized, they could be processed to replace the guns in the movie with walkie-talkies.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903220)

It's called a despeckle filter.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902953)

It makes it easier to work with when they are cleaning up and removing artifacts later on.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902966)

This post is supposed to be insightful? Read the fine article.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902975)

You retard. What TV set is able to show a resolution equivalent to 4000 dpi? NONE! When the films are rescaled for viewing you're not going to see pixels. What a dumb fuck. If you want to put your holiday pics online but want to edit them first do you scan at 72dpi or 300? 300, then you resize and optimize at 72 right? Or do you scan at 300 and then post the result? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (1)

beeglebug (767468) | about 10 years ago | (#8902981)

Surely it will be useful for those films that might need a bit of remastering? A nice high res digital version would be invaluable.

We just better hope that George Lucas hasn't already booked time on these to scan in Star Wars ready for some more changes...

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (4, Interesting)

enrico_suave (179651) | about 10 years ago | (#8903169)

on the 2nd page... they talk about that:
##
Since then, he has bought hundreds of computers, hired a staff of 30 and worked on 80 DVD's -- including the long-awaited DVD of "Star Wars" -- erasing wear, tears, dirt, scratches and other ravages of age. (In the early days, he sometimes erased too much. By his own admission, his restoration of "Citizen Kane" is too clean; the natural grain of film is gone; it looks like a video. He later figured out how to fix flaws while preserving grain.)
##
I'm guessing lucas considers "greedo shooting first" wear, tear, and scractches!

e.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (4, Informative)

Morgahastu (522162) | about 10 years ago | (#8902984)

the poster got it right wrong. The film isn't scanned 4000 times per square inch, the entire film is scanned at 4000 LINES of resolution.

Current HDTV displays 1080 lines interlaced.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (1)

cosmo7 (325616) | about 10 years ago | (#8903047)

4000 lines per frame is higher resolution than 4000 dpi. A standard academy 35mm frame is 0.825" x 0.6".

Ummm (1)

clifgriffin (676199) | about 10 years ago | (#8902985)

Your post wasn't insightful, it was a reasonably intelligent first post attempt.

That said, scanning at 4k is just the first step, all of the secondary processes will catch defects such as film grain.

Regards

Re:Ummm (4, Insightful)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | about 10 years ago | (#8903029)

> all of the secondary processes will catch defects such as film grain.

Saying that film grain is a defect is like saying pixels are a defect..

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (2, Informative)

saddino (183491) | about 10 years ago | (#8902989)

at 4000 dpi, the film grains will be dozens of pixels in diameter

Doubtful, given that a standard 35mm print is only 24 mm tall (barely an inch).

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (2, Insightful)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | about 10 years ago | (#8903024)

The point could be to get new theater prints from the scans. Or material for the new digital projectors.

DPI LPI (1)

way2trivial (601132) | about 10 years ago | (#8903027)

4000 lines per inch..
the grain is even mentioned for the post capture processing as an occasionally desired element.

The point of all of this.... (5, Informative)

Sancho (17056) | about 10 years ago | (#8903074)

How you sample analog material plays a big part in the overal quality of the finished product. For music, you typically think of samples per second (CDs play at 44.1khz). But typically for the initial digitization of analog material, you oversample (perhaps sampling the analog music at 88.2khz, or even higher). This gives you something that's much closer to the original work than normal, and allows you to work with a higher quality, well, sample. Performing digital transformations, including cleaning up the video, removing scratches, etc. always works better if you have more samples to work from. So a higher resolution picture will make it easier to get rid of any scratches or imperfections in the original film.

Eventually, of course, you have to downsample to fit the format that you will be distributing. For CDs, you downsample to 44.1khz. For DVDs, you downsample (the resolution) to 720x480 NTSC or 720x576 PAL. Note that that's somewhere around 1/8th the resolution that they're scanning.
The idea is simple. With this one scan, they can be prepared for format changes. Once high definition DVDs come out, they can downsample to whatever that resolution will be. If they want to broadcast a movie on an HD television channel, they can downsample to 1080i or whatever HD format they wish.

This seems to be about making a high-resolution copy now for archival purposes, so that if the film itself degrades (as it is prone to do) there will still be something really close to the original to work from. Not a bad idea, I think.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903078)

4000 dpi isn't that weird if you look at the actual size of a frame on the various film sizes used.
Also, the more lines available, the easier it gets to downsize to various resolutions.

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (3, Funny)

arb (452787) | about 10 years ago | (#8903129)

Yeah - why don't they just use a $50 TV capture card and capture the film off a video? It'd work out a darn sight cheaper. Surely they'd have these movies on VHS somewhere? ;-)

Re:What is the point of scanning at such a high re (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903294)

this whole thread is rediculous...anyone that has spent any amount of time scanning FILM at 2k, 4k and 8k resolution KNOWS that he parent if completely wrong.

>> It's not like these are crisp, sharp modern prints

wow, you are absolutely right. They _aren't_ prints, it's film. Prints can't hold a candle to the level of detail that is captured by film. Even 100 year old film.

In general, if quality is a concern, you always scan film at 4k. 8k is even better.

2k was an option 10 years ago, when the process was much more expensive.

hmmm? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902928)

first post? can it be?

Re:hmmm? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902939)

YUO FAIL IT BAD YOU FUCKING LOSER!!!! hahahahahahahaahah ahahahahaa hahaha eheheheeheh ahahahaha

That's great! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902936)

I love my mac, osx is so good to use and is open source so it's the best of everything. Now that G5 is proving to be the best for all high-power apps I dont know why you want to use linux for anything. I can run apache and php, bash and then run office and then some xwindows, and all 64bits!

Re:That's great! (-1, Offtopic)

PhuckH34D (743521) | about 10 years ago | (#8902958)

" I dont know why you want to use linux for anything."

Becouse Linus has more humor,
And becouse tux is so cute...
And becouse the name sounds better
:-)

Re:That's great! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902988)

i like defining my own upgrade path would have sufficed.

Nothing puts me off Macs worse than how limited your hardware choices are.

Re:That's great! (1)

NickeB (763713) | about 10 years ago | (#8902992)

Gates has humor as well. Really sadistic humor.
We all love the office-assistants, so they can compete with tux.
And "windows" sounds... uhm... okay, point taken.

How much visual difference will there be... (4, Interesting)

SmackCrackandPot (641205) | about 10 years ago | (#8902946)

Given that DVD's perform lossy compression, to fit an entire movie into one disc, is there going to be much noticable difference between using the original final cut and a 3rd/4th generation copy?

Re:How much visual difference will there be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902964)

Not really. A compressed video suffers from different problems to old movies.

Re:How much visual difference will there be... (5, Informative)

Snuffub (173401) | about 10 years ago | (#8902979)

As the article clearly points out the big difference isnt on DVDs but rather the ability to archive a digital master in such a high quality format. So 500 years down the road when we're all watching movies at 4000p instead of 480i they dont have to go back to the original film which will undoubtedly be nearly destroyed.

great for the public domain! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903067)

So, in 500 years, the copyrights will be expired, right?

I can only wish.

Re:How much visual difference will there be... (3, Interesting)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | about 10 years ago | (#8903190)

There are a lot of old films that are slowly decaying away by just sitting around, this could really save those films for future generations.

Once they got it cleaned up though, I hope they make film backups of the restored digital films. Incase of something that hits and wipes out all digital data. Be a shame if they all got restored and suddenly deleted by some weird natural phenomina or a stupid mistake.

Re:How much visual difference will there be... (1)

huchida (764848) | about 10 years ago | (#8903001)

DVD's may be the norm, but don't you think in 15 or 20 years there will be a format that can handle it?

Obviously this project is an experiment, but I understand why they're doing it. Film has a shelf life, and the original prints won't be with us much longer. We should be doing what we can to preserve the classics digitally for the ages.

Re:How much visual difference will there be... (1)

vasqzr (619165) | about 10 years ago | (#8903091)


You'll be making an exact copy of the data on the DVD. It's like making an Mp3 an copying it, you get the exact same file.

There is no decompression/compression, you're just copying the data on the disc.

Macs (5, Insightful)

basil montreal (714771) | about 10 years ago | (#8902949)

Macs are great for stuff like this, sometimes I wish they had had the marketing smarts to get the market share PCs have now. They have alot going for them...

Ah well, "Macs for productivity, Linux for stability, Windows for solitaire"

cool (2, Funny)

iLEZ (594245) | about 10 years ago | (#8902950)

Pretty cool. =)
Commence pc/mac flamewar!

Re:cool (5, Interesting)

eclectro (227083) | about 10 years ago | (#8903187)

Actually the workstation that controls the scanner runs linux.

You can see an overview here [imagica.co.jp] of the machine.

If you look at the press releases they came out with an add-on that allows the machine to scan at 10k lines in 12 seconds.

As an aside, the smaller film scanners that capture 35mm slides have Digital Ice [nikon-image.com] to remove surface blemishes. Part of it works by shining an infrared light through the film [rick.free.fr]. The infrared light is unaffected by the different shades of color, but the dust "stops" it and therefore is detected. Quite ingenious.

I imagine as expensive as this machine is, it uses this and other techniques to remove surface and film imperfections. If you use an original to scan that has been well cared for, the results should be impressive.

I toyed around with the idea of homebrewing such a machine to convert some old family super8 movies.

The two problems that you are going to have is the film transport, and the amount of time it takes to scan the film. As it stands, it would be time intensive to build such a machine and technically challenging. That and not having a workspace, it will have to wait for another day.

Great... (4, Funny)

beeglebug (767468) | about 10 years ago | (#8902954)

So now I'm going to have to go out and buy a whole new set of DVD's when they release the '4K Edition' of all my favourite films. And I thought I was safe until Blu-Ray came out...

The Ultimate Geek Purchase: (4, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | about 10 years ago | (#8902961)

The Ultimate Extended Special Director's Edition Complete 4K Restored/Remastered Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers AND Return of the King.

I've already pre-ordered mine. Hurry now, while supplies last!

Re:The Ultimate Geek Purchase: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903009)

meh, I'm gonna get the George Lucas Special Deluxe SW Trilogy set. Won't have to rush for that. Supplies will be unlimited!

Re:The Ultimate Geek Purchase: (5, Funny)

Odin's Raven (145278) | about 10 years ago | (#8903155)

The Ultimate Extended Special Director's Edition Complete 4K Restored/Remastered Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers AND Return of the King.

Oh dude, you should've waited another month for the release of The Ultimate Extended Special Director's Edition Complete 4K Restored/Remastered Lord of the Rings, Collector's Edition.

There's going to be four versions available, each packaged with a different collectible playset -- Helm's Deep, Isengard, Minas Tirith, and Mount Doom. And they're all lovingly handcrafted out of genuine styrofoam, just like in the movies!

Let me see if I have this right... (0, Interesting)

clifgriffin (676199) | about 10 years ago | (#8902965)

James Bond is now in the "classic" realm?

I'd much rather see true cinematic accomplishments (like the ones the article mentioned: Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, etc) restored in this way, not cheesy predictable spy flicks.

Clif

Re:Let me see if I have this right... (5, Insightful)

dcsmith (137996) | about 10 years ago | (#8903053)

I'd much rather see true cinematic accomplishments (like the ones the article mentioned: Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, etc) restored in this way, not cheesy predictable spy flicks.

I would imagine that, as with anything else that has components that can be categorized as either "good" or "popular", sales of the "popular" stuff will subsidize the production of the "good" stuff.

Face it - they're going to sell more copies of "Dr. No" with Ursula Andress [imdb.com] wearing the New & Improved High Resolution Digital Bikini than they are of Singin' in the Rain, starring Gene Kelly [imdb.com] and the Incredibly Vivid High Resolution Raindrops.

careful... (0, Troll)

irokie (697424) | about 10 years ago | (#8902971)

this sounds really cool...

but if its so secret, they better watch out... those pesky copyright lawyers might come after them....

"but we're just recording it for posterity, preserving the classics so that they can be enjoyed by future generations!"
"tell it to the "

Re:careful... (2, Informative)

Peale (9155) | about 10 years ago | (#8903083)

but if its so secret, they better watch out... those pesky copyright lawyers might come after them....

If you'd read the article, you would have found that this was an official project. It's MGM that wants this done.

Re:careful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903094)

they better watch out... those pesky copyright lawyers might come after them....

Read the article. The copyright owners are paying them to do the transfers.

Re:careful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903183)

If they have the master then they probably own the copyright.

What are the Macs for? (4, Interesting)

CvD (94050) | about 10 years ago | (#8902973)

What are the Macs being used for?

Yes, I RTFA, and they mention the Imagica 4000 lines/frame scanner and the 600 Macs, but not what the Macs are used for. Only that the frames are offloaded to a server with a large hard disk.

So WHAT part of the process are they being used for? Someone enlighten me please.

Re:What are the Macs for? (5, Informative)

way2trivial (601132) | about 10 years ago | (#8903012)

cleanup-- "He then processed the images with his film-restoration software, which he'd programmed onto some Macintosh G4 computers. (The effort took months, as the faster G5's weren't out yet.) The processed picture was clearer, sharper and more detailed still. He could see every divot on the turf. What had once looked like a smudge in the background was now recognizable as a boat on the lake."

Re:What are the Macs for? (1)

CvD (94050) | about 10 years ago | (#8903026)

Aw geez... there was a second page... oops. :-) Didn't see that. Thanks.

Re:What are the Macs for? (3, Informative)

ToddML (590924) | about 10 years ago | (#8903028)

If you RTFA, then how did you miss this?

Thirty-five years ago, Mr. Lowry, who is now 71, patented a method of cleaning up NASA's live televised transmissions from the moon. Six years ago, as the DVD took off, he set up Lowry Digital -- then a two-man R & D shop -- to apply his techniques to digital restoration.

He hired a photographer to make a short 35-millimeter film clip of some children playing soccer on a lakeshore. He paid a local lab to transfer the film to digital video, using a 4K scanner. The picture was clear, sharp, detailed. He then processed the images with his film-restoration software, which he'd programmed onto some Macintosh G4 computers. (The effort took months, as the faster G5's weren't out yet.)The processed picture was clearer, sharper and more detailed still. He could see every divot on the turf. What had once looked like a smudge in the background was now recognizable as a boat on the lake.

In January 2000, some executives from Warner Brothers saw his demo. They were so impressed, they faxed him an order the same day to restore the masters for three DVD's: "Gone With the Wind," "Now Voyager" and "North by Northwest." With the advance money, he bought the computers he needed to do the job.

Re:What are the Macs for? (1)

quantumparadox (454022) | about 10 years ago | (#8903043)

You needed to click to the second page. The macs are being used for image processing after the frames are scanned. The 4000 line scanning is only the first step in the archival process which is then followed by the image processing algorithm and probably some manual restoration (digitally of course) where needed. According to the article the image processing noticably sharpens the image along with other benefits.

Re:What are the Macs for? (1, Informative)

mikeophile (647318) | about 10 years ago | (#8903072)

You Only Live Twice is 117 minutes long.

At 24 frames per second, it contains 168480 frames.

The article says there are a pair of Imager XE-Advanced scanners.

Each scanner takes four minutes per frame.

Using these numbers, You Only Live Twice will take about 25 days to scan.


To answer your question, I have no fucking idea why so many Macs are being used, except maybe for their hard drives.

Re:What are the Macs for? (1)

mikeophile (647318) | about 10 years ago | (#8903099)

Yeah, it sure pays to click page 2, alright.

It pays even more to recheck the parent before clicking submit.

Obligatory reg free link (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8902980)

Link [nytimes.com]

PARENT IS A GOATSE LINK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903096)

Common misconception (3, Informative)

Digitus1337 (671442) | about 10 years ago | (#8902991)

Most people are confusing 4000 DPI (dots per inch) with 4000 Lines Per Inch. A line could be any length, as the inch is only a measurement one way; this is one of those techniques for making something seem bigger and/or better than it really is (think weight loss commercials).

Re:Common misconception (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903138)

This is neither 4000dpi nor 4000lpi. Its 4000 lines per frame of film. Think 4000p vs 720p in HDTV or 480p in DVD.

Jack Valenti's not pleased (1, Funny)

YetAnotherName (168064) | about 10 years ago | (#8903000)

Lawyers for the MPAA are probably preparing 4000 lawsuits right now, one for each Mac G5 participating in the illegal scanning effort.

Re:Jack Valenti's not pleased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903025)

it's 600 macs idiot, 4000 scanlines...their not suing the scanlines

Imagine.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903002)

a beowulf cluster of... oh wait.

Re:Imagine.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903143)

But does it run Linux? :p

Now honestly.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903004)

did anyone NOT laugh after reading that headline?

Piracy implications? (0)

Two99Point80 (542678) | about 10 years ago | (#8903021)

If DVDs of this image quality became available, then knockoffs of merely-terrific quality could follow pretty quickly. These could still be better than the DVDs the studios are now selling...

Re:Piracy implications? (4, Insightful)

Morgahastu (522162) | about 10 years ago | (#8903213)

Film studios have always been using higher quality masters and they have never leaked. This doesn't change anything.

Who's gonna bother to steal it (it being hundreds of gigabytes) and then downscale it to regular resoluiton for hours just to have something at the same quality that's available at blockbuster for $5?

Or are you implying that people would like to download the original and store it on a terabyte disk array?

Re:Piracy implications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903240)

>>I've also seen a DVD, which Mr. Lowry gave me, on my TV set at home.

thats what I was thinking, anyone got pictures of Mr Lowry interfering with chickens??

But what about the sound? (5, Insightful)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | about 10 years ago | (#8903045)


Great, so he's doing optical at 4000 lines per inch.

But what about the sound? Is he using non-compressed 24-bit samples at [at least] 96KSS [kilo samples per second]?

Your ear is a vastly more sophisticated sampling device than your eye; I don't know of a single sound compression technology on the market that can fool the human ear.

It would be a real tragedy to go to all that trouble to make good digital copies of the optical prints, only to try to cheat on storage space by downgrading the soundtracks to one of these abominable undersampled, compressed audio standards.

Re:But what about the sound? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903123)

Yes, along this line are people who think surround sound systems are vital for Alfred Hitchcock movies, etc. which were recorded in mono; or later on stereo.

Re:But what about the sound? (1)

Gropo (445879) | about 10 years ago | (#8903130)

Commence the Audible Zealot vs. Visible Zealot flame war!

No, I hear you and I'm with you. I guess the 6+/- Gb ceiling on today's "versatile" discs will leave high quality sound by the wayside. Featurettes on Haley Joel Osmont are more important :P

Bring the Blue Ray!

Re:But what about the sound? (2, Informative)

flux (5274) | about 10 years ago | (#8903132)

It would hardly make any sense to be cheat with storage space, as one second of the original movie could take 2 gigabytes of storage. If you just waste one 1/1000 of that to sound, you've already got 32 bit 300kHz sound..

Re:But what about the sound? (1)

MikeHunt69 (695265) | about 10 years ago | (#8903147)

Im pretty sure the limiting factor of that time period would be the recording devices themselves (old microphones, Nagra reel-to-reel recorders) rather than the technology used to digitise & archive the sound.

Re:But what about the sound? (2, Insightful)

SofaMan (454881) | about 10 years ago | (#8903177)

I'm sure he's not an idiot - he'd probably sample the sound at an appropriate level of compression (which includes none at all), taking into account the age of the soundtrack and consequently the signal-to-noise ratio.

Re:But what about the sound? (5, Insightful)

Jonas the Bold (701271) | about 10 years ago | (#8903218)

Your ear is a vastly more sophisticated sampling device than your eye; I don't know of a single sound compression technology on the market that can fool the human ear.

Um, no it isn't. Your eye is vastly more sophisticated. Is it easier to recognize people by their faces or thier voice? Even musical instruments, is it easier to tell what kind of instrument is being played by looking at than listening to it.

And there isn't any technology that can "fool" the eye either. When you look at a picture, you don't think it's real, you know it's a picture. Just like a recording, except a recording can come a lot closer.

Super-hardcore audiophilia is a bit of a religion.

Pointilism (1)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | about 10 years ago | (#8903313)


And there isn't any technology that can "fool" the eye either.

Artists have known since at least the time of Rembrandt [i.e. almost 400 years] that the human eye can be fooled into seeing what it wants to see; in the case of Rembrandt and his pointilism, the eye [or the part of the brain responsible for processing data collected by the eye] merges small dots of color into a larger whole that it would prefer to see.

I know of no such technique for fooling the human ear. If you run any of these hideous compression technologies through even mid-range audio equipment [at the level of Sony, or Onkyo], you'll be more than aware of what you're missing.

And, while the art of reproducing optical phenomena doesn't even have a popularized concept of "noise," try reproducing ANY sound on ANY electronic device [$100,000 and up] and see if you can get rid of that crackling, hissy sound in the background.

Re:But what about the sound? (4, Interesting)

zakezuke (229119) | about 10 years ago | (#8903247)

But what about the sound? Is he using non-compressed 24-bit samples at [at least] 96KSS [kilo samples per second]?

While this is not my field, I have observed the audio track on 35mm movie film often times is encoded in the negative. So 4000 lpi and 18mm per 1/30 of a second. 540mm per second or 21.2 inches/sec. 21.2 * 4000 = 84.8KSS Unknown bit width.

This figure is aproximate and doesn't take into account the fact that the audio track extends in the blank space between the frames. My point is if the audio is encoded photographicly, it can be extracted photographicly.

Can I use this for porn? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8903071)

Some of the stuff I get off emule is really low quality. If I can use this for porn I might buy a Mac

Re:Can I use this for porn? (1)

Narkov (576249) | about 10 years ago | (#8903194)

Are you serious? Don't get my wrong, I love my porn. But I don't think I would sink that low.

A Mac? lol.

old tech (4, Interesting)

MikeHunt69 (695265) | about 10 years ago | (#8903185)

This system has been used for telecine/non-linear editing for a few years now afaik.

You digitise your originals, then "offline" edit with your scaled down versions on a PC/mac. Once you have everything editied to your liking, you get back on the big, expensive "online" system and it can build your film - even going to the point of writing out your 35mm print.

The news here I guess is that they are using this technology to archive old films. I still don't see where the 600 macs fit in however.

I'd rather have used 1024 chickens (0)

DrSkwid (118965) | about 10 years ago | (#8903236)


than 600 oxen

Still, if G5's are your hammer then it's your prerogative to use them.

Future-proof -- until your storage array dies (4, Insightful)

mib (132909) | about 10 years ago | (#8903238)

How do they store these digitized movies? Even better, how do they transport them?

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming a 4000x4000 image, 24 bit color (too low?), lossless (optimistic) 4:1 compression and 24fps show that a 2 hour movie takes up over 1.8TiB.

Is it just a box of 300GB tapes, or do they have something even cooler?

Can you imagine the restore times for a movie from tape...

- mib
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...