I downloaded the movie after seeing it in theatre to once again enjoy it from the comfort of my home. Seeing 2160p, I thought it’s going to be a webcam rip but the title says webrip. Where is this leaked from that has Dolby Vision on a movie still in theatre?

  • bort@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    if you have a good camera (2x number of pixels, and 2x colordepth than the movie), then you could make a camrip with perfect quality (assuming some calibration frames, and a cinema that gives no fuck). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

    though I guess that’s still too much effort for most, and most early leaks are digital copies, as the other comments suggest.

    edit: newer comments suggest camrip with a bad camera

    • PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Would that be like on a tripod in the audience area recording the screen? Seems lossy somehow so I figure I’m misunderstanding. I’m pretty ignorant (~fully ignorant lol) about this, apologies, ya just piqued my curiosity.

      • bort@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Would that be like on a tripod in the audience area recording the screen?

        yes.

        Seems lossy somehow

        it is! but that’s where Shannon sampling theorem comes in. The sampling only needs to be twice as good as the source, and then you can reconstruct the source perfectly. (with some assumptions, e.g. correct color gamut, focal point, etc.).

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Would that be like on a tripod in the audience area recording the screen?

        Fun fact: this is how films get digitized, they play the film in a tiny movie theater just big enough for the camera. The whole apperatus is about the size of a washing machine

        • PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Wtf lol, that just seems so…low tech? I certainly can’t think of a “better” way to do it, guess I imagined some fully enclosed (or maybe that’s what you’re describing).

          It’s like finding out almost all power generation is really just different ways of boiling water lol

          • filcuk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Scanner is technically the same, it just bounces light off the object, rather than shining through it.
            Hell 3D scanning is pretty cool and what I’d consider high tech, but it’s still just bouncing waves off things and recording those!
            I guess there’s no escaping the universal fundamentals, or the limits of our technology at least