>>100162134
Save every frame as an uncompressed bitmap, some really high-end capture cards do actually support doing this

>>100162134
how can lossless video be real if our eyes aren't real?

>>100162168
And then make a container named .Zipvideos

there are several lossless video codecs and codecs supporting lossless modes, the issue is that lossless video is really big, there a massive file size difference between lossless video and very high quality lossy video

>>100162134
Return to analogue, get a projector and some 35mm prints of your favourite films

>>100162134
Quantum holography.

File: fag4.png (67 KB, 1003x479)

67 KB PNG

>$4k usd for an android streaming box
ngl i should have thought of this myself
always forget how fucking retarded boomers are

>>100162134
>want to watch a lossless movie
>1tb drive not enough

>>100164773
This, you're not smarter than a video codec that can get rid of 90% of all data without humans noticing the difference.

I don't notice any difference between 80gb rip and 20gb one.

I am pretty sure I won't notice that

>>100162910
I don't get it. What is it?

>>100164815
confetti would like a word

>>100162134
This is how digital movies work too, just store an uncompressed image for each frame.
Assuming you're storing a 2 hr movie at movie theater resolution (4k) that's
3*2160*4096*24*60*60*2 bytes or 4.5 terabytes, and thats not even including audio. That's insane for most consumers

>>100165737
Edge cases but most video can be compressed really well. Take anime, most of it doesn't even need 1 Mbps with modern codecs like AV1.

>>100162134
you cannot acheive lossless digital video because pixels are not the same as photons
sound waves can be captured digitally because modulation allows you to vibrate stuff at the same frequency of the original noise - technically speaking it's trivial to have lossless audio because it is reproduced the same way it was captured. the human ear can only hear so many frequencies anyway, so we perfected vibrating diaphragms at those frequencies and viola, perfect recreation of the original audio, playback environment nonwithstanding

digital photography will always lose the original image unless you have an image sensor with as many pixels as there are photons. even analogue photography has a similar issue with film grains only being so small and only capturing so much light, but since a grain isn't limited to one color it's vastly more accurate. you simply can't acheive that with pixels, so until digital image capture and rendering reaches a point where pixels are replaced with some sort of electrical film grain, lossless video is simply not possible

that said there are plenty of lossless video codecs, ie the source digital video is uncompressed or compressed in a lossless way so that playback is udentical to the digital source. H.264 lossless, H.265 lossless, MJPEG lossless, AAQRLE, and so on. but digital video cannot be truly considering lossless

>>100166431
>it is reproduced the same way it was captured.
sorry, i mean reproduced the same way it was originally produced. ie, a speaker vibrating to mimic human speech causes the air in front of it to do exactly the same thing your diaphragm, vocal chords, mouth etc do to produce the speech in the first place.
sound is just vibration and thay's quite easily to recreate electronically

emiting light one photo at a time to perfectly recreate a scene is very difficult electronically, as even the smallest subpixels are still orders of magnitude larger than a photon and can only emit one color each.

>>100162134
lossless video is extremely big and unnecessary for the end consumer, your average normalfag can't tell the difference between an UHD Bluray and a shitty Netflix 4K video.

>>100166657
Forgot link, 4 minutes of lossless UHD video at 35GB:

http://download.opencontent.netflix.com.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=SolLevante/hdr10/

Enjoy

1 pixel = 3 bytes
1 frame @ 1080p = 1920x1080 * 3 bytes = 6.2 MB
1 second of video @ 1080p 30 FPS = 30 * 6.2 MB = 186 MB
90 minute movie @ 1080p 30 FPS = 90 * 60 * 186 MB = 1 TB
not happening

>>100165705
it is a service that gets digital versions of movies directly from the studio. when it first launched, it had no real competition because most streaming services and digital stores were pushing low megabit movies to customers. When apple launched the appletv 4k, they upgraded the backend of the service, and started pushing movies at up to 60-70 Mbit/s. Whereas this boomerbox offers titles around 100 Mbit/s. Then, a few years later, snoy launched bravia core (now pictures core) which offers titles around 80 Mbit/s. Of course, neither snoy or apple allow you to download the high bitrate versions of movies locally, whereas this boomerbox allows you to buy one of their proprietary NASes to save movies locally. Naturally, anyone with common sense, that wants the highest quality digital file, will just rip their blurays to a NAS and use, Plex, Kodi, or Infuse. Even the boomers on those a/v forums acknowledge that this thing is a terrible value, and makes little sense compared to the cheaper options mentioned above.

tl;dr: the kaleidescape is for idiots. you can get the exact same copy from the disc, or close-enough quality from apple or snoy