←back to thread

256 points MattSayar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
_m_p ◴[] No.43542301[source]
I was reading about the cinematography of _Collateral_, possibly the first large budget feature film to be shot digitally, and one of the issues back in 2004 when it was made was the amount of storage required for digital video and the risk of not being able to retrieve the images from the data stores:

> “We did massive testing with the hard drives, and everything was great, and then we had an experience where we shot, and when we sent in the material, they couldn’t get the information off the hard drive,” said Cameron. “So the studio went ballistic and was like, ‘There’s just no way we can we can let you guys do this.’”

> The compromise was the production would record to hard drives as well as SRW tape. And unlike today, verifying the digital footage was equally cumbersome and tension-filled.

> “We recorded everything two or three times on decks that we carried with us,” said Beebe. “So we were backing up, two or three times.”

https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/michael-mann-c...

replies(5): >>43542366 #>>43543089 #>>43543484 #>>43544193 #>>43547000 #
progbits ◴[] No.43542366[source]
> we were backing up, two or three times

So they just rediscovered what IT world knew for decades, or what am I missing?

replies(3): >>43542413 #>>43542527 #>>43542893 #
1. m463 ◴[] No.43542527[source]
probably 20 years and the switch from hard disks to flash drives.

I remember when hard drives started getting big that it took a long time to get data on and off them. They got bigger faster than interfaces could keep up.

I think about 2004, a "big machine" would be an aluminum powermac G5 with an 80gb sata hard drive. Or a powerbook G4 with a 60gb ATA drive.