Whats a good image management app?

In message ,
Industrial One writes:
That ear test program sucks. Why does it only go to 16 KHZ and doesn't

Reasonably valid because (a) if you can hear above that there's not
_much_ wrong with your hearing, (b) equipment (especially speakers, but
even a lot of headphones) starts to roll off around the I'm not
saying it can't reproduce it (though some can't), just it's far from
flat up there.

(Having said all that, I'd have preferred it to go to 20k too.)

give an option to sound on BOTH channels? For those of us with
headphones, it is really unpleasant and annoying to only hear from one
speaker.

Strange, I'd wanted the both option for use with speakers. A proper
hearing test (which, granted, this stresses that it isn't) _does_ test
your ears individually, through headphones; ears deteriorate
differently, or at least can.

Also, there's a click sound before the samples so this destroys the
objectiveness of the test altogether.

Yes, I noticed that. It's almost inevitable with most such software,
unfortunately; you'd need a raised-cosine type envelope to get round it,
which is certainly doable, but rarely done.

If I were you, I'd generate a sine sweep from 0 to 22.05 kHz and make
it exactly 22.05 seconds long. Open it in an audio player and pause
when you stop being able to hear.

If it were me, I'd produce random pips (with enveloping to avoid the
click problem), at random amplitudes, to random ears, and with random
spacing (to avoid prediction), still with the press-if-you-can-hear
button - from what I remember, that's what a professional hearing test
involves (well, that was about 40 years ago and had the audiologist
doing it, though still with the button). The simple test prog. we're
discussing also doesn't seem to have any "save" option. But hey, it's
free, and serves the purpose for trivial testing, so what are we
complaining about - do we want blood (-:?

If you guys can't hear past 12 kHz then you must be really ****ing old.
I can hear to 16.5-17.

Swearing doesn't make you look clever. I presume you're in your teens or
twenties?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Why not buy a ready-made meal? "Absolutely, if you don't like cooking. I'm
happy
to get takeaways if they're good." Nigella Lawson in Radio Times, 1-7 September
2007

(You sent this as an email as well; please say so if you're doing that.)

In message ,
Industrial One writes:
On Friday, July 27, 2012 9:55:47 PM UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,

Industrial One writes:

[]

For the subthread:



1. I'm aware 1080p is just a resolution. You're juggling semantics and



No, 1080 is a resolution, if we're talking still images. The p (or i)
determines the order (and possibly frequency) of pixel display when
talking video.

We started talking about video because it's an even better example of
toxic marketing and ****ty products. When you take a picture at the max
advertised resolution on the camera and it looks like ****, they'll say
its your fault for not being an engineer, just like you guys accused me.

I won't (unless it _is_ obvious you've not focused it properly or
something, if it has such controls); I'll say the lens system isn't up
to the resolution. (I have one such somewhere - an early
sold-as-video-camera type, you know the sort, more or less
pistol-shaped; it had stills capability of a claimed about 3 megapixels,
but produced results worse than my 0.8 megapixel at the time.)

But when you're watching a movie that has been extracted, converted,
processed and marketed by professionals and it doesn't even look 1080p
despite the resolution, it proves my point. I'm talking about movies in
the 21st century btw, although it doesn't really matter. 35mm
resolution is roughly 4000p and they've been shooting movies on 35mm

No, it might be roughly 4000 resolution; not 4000p, the p is an order
not a resolution matter.

film since the 1940s.

Indeed; Casablanca, for example, is excellent resolution. (Being B/W
probably helps it a bit there.)

That's actually only true of digital media with error correction (which
most has). But the difference is that you can copy a digital recording
perfectly, given error correction, and such copying can be done
indefinitely.

That's the real beauty of digital media and the only reason it survived
in this moronic capitalist system, it forced you to buy replacements on
a regular basis.

No. You can copy a digital file from one copy to another, and then after
some years if you're afraid it's about to deteriorate beyond where
error-correction can restore it, copy it again, where the copy _will_ be
pristine again. No purchasing involved, other than the cost of the blank
medium (negligible compared to the original purchase price, especially
if it's a hard disc or even flash memory), and - provided you do the
copying in time - perfect indefinitely, or at least identical to the
first time it is created, if you're going to bring up the matter of
degradation caused by the initial digitisation. This just is not the
case with an analog recording, whether tape, vinyl, shellac, or wi
_every_ copying stage _will_ introduce _some_ degradation, though it can
be very small with good equipment.

If, of course, you're complaining about the same thing being released on
different _types_ of medium as technology develops, then you're not
complaining about the same thing. In addition, if when you say you're
"watching a movie that has been extracted, converted, processed and
marketed by professionals and it doesn't even look 1080p despite the
resolution", then _either_ they had a duff copy, or they or their
equipment is hopeless: as you say, good 35mm film is well above 1080
(not p) resolution. If done properly, a Bluray transfer will be better
than an SD transfer which will be better than a VHS copy; however,
no-one's forcing you to buy again - you only have to do so if you want
the improvement. The SD copy is unlikely to actually _deteriorate_, at
least for many years: it just won't get better all on its own. (If you
do buy a bluray and it _isn't_ any better than the SD version, then get
your money back, as it's not been done properly.)

However, the other disadvantage is that analog has infinite resolution

Not infinite - film grain (or dye molecule) size for images, and ambient
noise and (master) tape hiss or surface noise for audio, do provide a
limit. Modern digitising equipment exceeds this for _most_ audio
material, though has some way yo go yet for much video. (HD video
exceeds what's achievable with much 16mm, I've read, though not yet
35mm.)

while digital is fixed, so this necessitates exaggerating the filesizes
of video and audio to preserve it properly.

Not quite sure what you mean by "exaggerating".

You would think HDDs are just like vinyl records, both are spinning
disks. You think because of the density that they would be more
efficient but think about uncompressed video, even if not in
high-definition. A few hours already fills up a 2TB HDD which probably
won't spin fast enough to playback in real-time anyway.

Nothing has really changed IMO, a movie still requires one whole disc
if it hopes to match analog quality. Again, the sum is zero.

Not quite sure what point you're trying to make: the original movie
isn't on a disc.

See above. (The main problem with digital is marketing - just because
something is digital, it doesn't necessarily mean high quality, only
consistent quality; when the CD format first came out some decades ago,
digital _did_ mean - for most people - high quality. Once low bit rates
[even with compression] became common, marketers [or those who genuinely
didn't understand] kept the "digital means high quality" which was no
longer [necessarily] the case.)

Yes, very few people seem to be aware of this but super-HD film has

I was talking about audio, in the above paragraph.

been out for over 70 years. These "drastic" increases in quality people
have been following since the 240p VHS days to the now "high-

VHS wasn't p, it was i. (If working properly, which it often wasn't -
and/or the TV displaying it wasn't.)

definition" 1080p are ****ing pathetic compared to the 4000p 35mm film
that has been out since forever. I have no idea how the hell they were
able to get people to switch from watching the original theater-quality
4000p films to garbage 240p videotapes and then slowly start releasing

Different situations. The added convenience (and lower cost, given
repeatability!) of being able to watch at home is what people paid for;
I don't think the majority of even non-technically-minded people thought
picture quality from a video tape was anything like what they'd get in
the cinema (theater).

"better quality" mediums. Pretty awesome scam.

Re-releasing back catalogue on progressively higher-quality mediums is
certainly keeping a lot of the movie industry in business, but it hasn't
been entirely a scam: the better quality mediums just weren't available
(to them or us) initially. If by putting "better quality" in quotes
means you're buying (say) bluray copies and finding they're genuinely no
better than DVD copies, then more fool you (-:! I don't have a bluray
player (nor a 1080 TV, for that matter - I have a small 720 one, but
that's not connected to my disc player), but if I did, I'd expect
anything I bought in that format to be better than the same thing bought
in plain DVD format, and would return it if not: I'd not expect it to be
up to the quality of the original film, however, assuming the movie in
question was actually made on film.

... of the two little boxes in the corner of your room, the one without the
pictures is the one that opens the mind. - Stuart Maconie in Radio Times,
2008/10/11-17

I have no posters on my walls. My room is as white as a psyche ward. I

No comment (-:

guess I'm pretty damn open-minded.

On Friday, July 27, 2012 8:54:08 PM UTC, Bill in Co wrote:
Who are you quoting as "your friend"? No attrbutions were given.

-.-

The bottom line is that MP4 *is* a composite format that normally contains
both video and audio streams. Period. The audio only component is m4a,
the video m4v. Together, they make MP4.

You mean like how M3A and M3V made MP3? Please... let's voluntarily use
some consistency if those stupid ****s at ISO can't.

There's that mouth again.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Why not buy a ready-made meal? "Absolutely, if you don't like cooking. I'm happy
to get takeaways if they're good." Nigella Lawson in Radio Times, 1-7 September
2007

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:30:07 AM UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,

Strange, I'd wanted the both option for use with speakers. A proper
hearing test (which, granted, this stresses that it isn't) _does_ test
your ears individually, through headphones; ears deteriorate
differently, or at least can.

You shouldn't be using speakers to test your hearing. Headphones are way better. Hearing something at full volume on one ear and nothing on the other is really annoying. Idiots do it on Youtube all the time. To date I've never watched one of those longer than 3 seconds.

Yes, I noticed that. It's almost inevitable with most such software,
unfortunately; you'd need a raised-cosine type envelope to get round it,
which is certainly doable, but rarely done.

Shows how serious they really were about their program.

If it were me, I'd produce random pips (with enveloping to avoid the
click problem), at random amplitudes, to random ears, and with random
spacing (to avoid prediction), still with the press-if-you-can-hear
button - from what I remember, that's what a professional hearing test
involves (well, that was about 40 years ago and had the audiologist
doing it, though still with the button). The simple test prog. we're
discussing also doesn't seem to have any "save" option. But hey, it's
free, and serves the purpose for trivial testing, so what are we
complaining about - do we want blood (-:?

Unnecessary, but you can easily do that with an audio ABXer. You will have to produce your own samples though. Make the original sample silent and ABX it with high-freq sines.

Swearing doesn't make you look clever. I presume you're in your teens or
twenties?

Oh but a genius doesn't need to look clever, mang. It's only the useless and incapable who have something to prove.

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 12:09:58 PM UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
(You sent this as an email as well; please say so if you're doing that.)

Mistake. I'm not too fond of this new GG interface.

No, it might be roughly 4000 resolution; not 4000p, the p is an order
not a resolution matter.

Film is inherently progressive is it not? Interlacing is only added to make it look like its going twice the framerate for TVs.

No. You can copy a digital file from one copy to another, and then after
some years if you're afraid it's about to deteriorate beyond where
error-correction can restore it, copy it again, where the copy _will_ be
pristine again. No purchasing involved, other than the cost of the blank
medium (negligible compared to the original purchase price, especially

Bingo, the cost of the new medium, again again and again. I have probably 110 GB of irreplaceable stuff and 500GB if you include the stuff technically replaceable but a real time-consuming bitch to do so shall I ever lose it in a crash.

500GB is not trivial to store, it would cost over $100 for an HDD to fit it on, and it takes hours to do regular backups since HDDs transfer speed has not increased at the same rate as its storage. An SDD or flash drive of that size (if it even exists) would cost even more, and transfering to an online backup site would take months on most affordable connection speeds.

You call this practical?

If, of course, you're complaining about the same thing being released on
different _types_ of medium as technology develops, then you're not

That's one of the factors. All the stuff you backed up on old CDs and floppies would not be compatible with modern PCs, so you would have to re-transfer to more modern media. But this is an asinine observation as the media would decay in time anyway so transfering to more modern media or identical media is inevitable.

do buy a bluray and it _isn't_ any better than the SD version, then get
your money back, as it's not been done properly.)

Not as good as it could be. Blu-ray copies lack the prominent quilting/banding artifacts common with MPEG-2 on DVDs, and many are better quality for that reason alone. BPP of 0.500 was really pushing the limits of the encoder at the time DVDs were out, they originally meant DVDs to have capacities of 5 GB not 4.37.

Not infinite - film grain (or dye molecule) size for images, and ambient
noise and (master) tape hiss or surface noise for audio, do provide a
limit. Modern digitising equipment exceeds this for _most_ audio
material, though has some way yo go yet for much video. (HD video
exceeds what's achievable with much 16mm, I've read, though not yet
35mm.)

They don't exceed it with better efficiency. A 35mm film roll would be a lot smaller than a digital transfer of the same resolution and quality. The only immediate advantage as you put it is flexibility and no gradual degradation.

Not quite sure what you mean by "exaggerating".

Video codecs quality does not scale linearly with bitrate, especially with the most advanced ones. With x264, 720p at 2Mb/s is really good quality, at 1Mb/s it sucks, at 4Mb/s its only a little better quality than 2Mb/s and most people encode at this bitrate for good insurance, at 10Mb/s the quality appears perfect but close-inspection can still uncover some degradation on some of the scenes, so it's necessary to encode a couple times higher than that rate to have a 99.99% perfect, long-term archive-quality.

Let's not forget this is for YV12 colorspace and archive-quality would require the full RGB quality which would mean another doubling of the bitrate.

Not quite sure what point you're trying to make: the original movie
isn't on a disc.

It's on a film roll, close enough.

Different situations. The added convenience (and lower cost, given
repeatability!) of being able to watch at home is what people paid for;
I don't think the majority of even non-technically-minded people thought
picture quality from a video tape was anything like what they'd get in
the cinema (theater).

Did we not have those portable home movie projectors in the past that usually used 16mm and smaller prints? It had to better quality than VHS.

Re-releasing back catalogue on progressively higher-quality mediums is
certainly keeping a lot of the movie industry in business, but it hasn't
been entirely a scam: the better quality mediums just weren't available
(to them or us) initially. If by putting "better quality" in quotes
means you're buying (say) bluray copies and finding they're genuinely no
better than DVD copies, then more fool you (-:! I don't have a bluray
player (nor a 1080 TV, for that matter - I have a small 720 one, but
that's not connected to my disc player), but if I did, I'd expect
anything I bought in that format to be better than the same thing bought
in plain DVD format, and would return it if not: I'd not expect it to be
up to the quality of the original film, however, assuming the movie in
question was actually made on film.

Not all of them suck that bad, and not all are worse in terms of resolution but other things like brightness not being properly adjusted, false colors and saturations and sometimes artifacts from automated software algorithms to remove dirt/noise which I might even accept if it wasn't being done to movies produced digitally and never should have been sourced from a film master in the first place (South Park the Movie being one.)

Incompetence at those studios is amazing. I could do twice the better job with my freeware equipment.

You mean like how M3A and M3V made MP3? Please... let's voluntarily use

some consistency if those stupid ****s at ISO can't.



There's that mouth again.

....which speaks the truth.

(Industrial's post came to me as an email as well. I gather it has
something to do with Google Groups; can anyone help it stop happening
for him?)

In message ,
Industrial One writes:
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:30:07 AM UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,

Strange, I'd wanted the both option for use with speakers. A proper
hearing test (which, granted, this stresses that it isn't) _does_ test
your ears individually, through headphones; ears deteriorate
differently, or at least can.

You shouldn't be using speakers to test your hearing. Headphones are
way better. Hearing something at full volume on one ear and nothing on

I know; I just wanted a quick way of trying out the prog. (and don't
have headphones to hand).

the other is really annoying. Idiots do it on Youtube all the time. To

It may be annoying, but it's how to go about testing your hearing
seriously.

date I've never watched one of those longer than 3 seconds.

Yes, I noticed that. It's almost inevitable with most such software,
unfortunately; you'd need a raised-cosine type envelope to get round it,
which is certainly doable, but rarely done.

Shows how serious they really were about their program.

For goodness' sake, it's a free prog.!

If it were me, I'd produce random pips (with enveloping to avoid the
click problem), at random amplitudes, to random ears, and with random
spacing (to avoid prediction), still with the press-if-you-can-hear
button - from what I remember, that's what a professional hearing test
involves (well, that was about 40 years ago and had the audiologist
doing it, though still with the button). The simple test prog. we're
discussing also doesn't seem to have any "save" option. But hey, it's
free, and serves the purpose for trivial testing, so what are we
complaining about - do we want blood (-:?

Unnecessary, but you can easily do that with an audio ABXer. You will
have to produce your own samples though. Make the original sample
silent and ABX it with high-freq sines.

ABX?
[]
No, it might be roughly 4000 resolution; not 4000p, the p is an order
not a resolution matter.

Film is inherently progressive is it not? Interlacing is only added to
make it look like its going twice the framerate for TVs.

Who mentioned film? Film is instantaneous, neither i nor p. And that
wasn't the reason for interlacing.

No. You can copy a digital file from one copy to another, and then after
some years if you're afraid it's about to deteriorate beyond where
error-correction can restore it, copy it again, where the copy _will_ be
pristine again. No purchasing involved, other than the cost of the blank
medium (negligible compared to the original purchase price, especially

Bingo, the cost of the new medium, again again and again. I have

What, a few pennies for a blank CD?

probably 110 GB of irreplaceable stuff and 500GB if you include the
stuff technically replaceable but a real time-consuming bitch to do so
shall I ever lose it in a crash.

500GB is not trivial to store, it would cost over $100 for an HDD to
fit it on, and it takes hours to do regular backups since HDDs transfer
speed has not increased at the same rate as its storage. An SDD or
flash drive of that size (if it even exists) would cost even more, and
transfering to an online backup site would take months on most
affordable connection speeds.

You call this practical?

I think your original point was that analog recordings last better than
digital ones. I questioned that. But now you've wandered off: I
seriously doubt you have the equivalent of 110 GB on LPs or tapes, so
the point is now moot.

If, of course, you're complaining about the same thing being released on
different _types_ of medium as technology develops, then you're not

That's one of the factors. All the stuff you backed up on old CDs and
floppies would not be compatible with modern PCs, so you would have to
re-transfer to more modern media. But this is an asinine observation as

Hmm? granted floppies are a bit old hat, though you can still get USB
floppy drives (which AFAIK work on 7), but as for CDs, I don't see why
they wouldn't be "compatible".

the media would decay in time anyway so transfering to more modern
media or identical media is inevitable.
[]
Not infinite - film grain (or dye molecule) size for images, and ambient
noise and (master) tape hiss or surface noise for audio, do provide a
limit. Modern digitising equipment exceeds this for _most_ audio
material, though has some way yo go yet for much video. (HD video
exceeds what's achievable with much 16mm, I've read, though not yet
35mm.)

They don't exceed it with better efficiency. A 35mm film roll would be
a lot smaller than a digital transfer of the same resolution and

Hm? Even assuming 30 to 50 megabytes per frame (a discussion I was part
of in another 'group decided about 14 megapixels is about the same
resolution as a 35mm slide/negative using about 40 ASA film), that's 10
to 15 images on a CD, a lot more on a DVD, yet more on a bluray or hard
disc. If you're talking of a movie film, a 35mm print of that needs a
huge can to keep it in.
[]
Not quite sure what point you're trying to make: the original movie
isn't on a disc.

It's on a film roll, close enough.

Different situations. The added convenience (and lower cost, given
repeatability!) of being able to watch at home is what people paid for;
I don't think the majority of even non-technically-minded people thought
picture quality from a video tape was anything like what they'd get in
the cinema (theater).

Did we not have those portable home movie projectors in the past that
usually used 16mm and smaller prints? It had to better quality than VHS.

I had 8mm ones (still better than VHS mind!); a 16mm projector is still
quite a beast, though obviously smaller than a 35mm one. Yes, some real
(reel!) enthusiasts with their own cinemas (movie theaters) had them,
but pretty rare. (I used to operate the 16mm projector at [boarding]
school, and they did indeed hire prints of feature films.)

But people will pay a lot (in terms of accepting poor quality) for
convenience. There's no way I'd describe any size of film projector as
convenient to use (fast wind, variable speed playback, ability to record
[without having to wait for the film to be processed!] and re-use).
[]
You mean like how M3A and M3V made MP3? Please... let's voluntarily use

some consistency if those stupid ****s at ISO can't.



There's that mouth again.

...which speaks the truth.

But seems unable to do so without profanity that doesn't actually
contribute anything.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much
more *interesting* to live not knowing than to have answers which might be
wrong. - Richard Feynman, in 1981 Horizon interview

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
(Industrial's post came to me as an email as well. I gather it has
something to do with Google Groups; can anyone help it stop happening
for him?)

LOL. Surely he can figure that one out! (???)
More below.

In message ,
Industrial One writes:
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:30:07 AM UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,


snip

I think your original point was that analog recordings last better than
digital ones. I questioned that.

"last better" or last longer? :-)

Actually, this is an interesting subject. I hate to say it, but I think
analog may have an edge on that one, due to the medium used. I haven't
heard of a record going bad due to aging of the medium, but I sure have for
CDs and DVDs, which, unfortunately, do not last forever.

To give an example, we still have records dating back to over 70 years ago!
I'd be very surprised if any recordable CDs or DVDs or hard drives or flash
drives will last that long.

I've already witnessed a few DVDs bite the dust (due to apparent aging of
the dyes), and those weren't even 10 years old. (Of course, more recent
and better brand name media, like Verbatim, are a step up in that regard,
but even at that, they too won't last forever. Commercial DVDs have an
advantage (due to the different processes used in their making, and not
relying on color dyes), but I'd bet in 50 years they, too, will have
problems.

Magnetic tape might also hold up, but I don't think as well. Given enough
time, I think the oxide will get a bit brittle and start coming off. Even
with the best mylar tape. (Which just reminded me of the old acetate vs
mylar reel to reel tape debate, for anyone old enough here to remember.
Well, at least when acetate tape broke, it broke cleanly and didn't stretch,
LOL. But I'd still stay with mylar. :-)

Hey. What about paper tape, with hole punches? Or index cards? Or stones
with etching? :-)

snip

On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:04:40 PM UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
For goodness' sake, it's a free prog.!

I spend hours post-processing, encoding and uploading rips for free, but I do it because I know I do it right unlike 95% of the basement-dwelling degenerates that make the BitTorrent network always what it never ceased to be: a cesspool of elephant ****.

Do it right or dont bother is the point.

ABX?

A program that plays back clip A and B randomly and you hit A or B, whichever you think it is. A is the original recording, B is processed. If you can hear a difference, you'll have no problem guessing it right 20x in a row for a good confidence rating. If you can't tell them apart, the processed clip is transparent. This is how audiophiles do double-blind tests and judge the quality of codecs and what bitrate to use.

Its not designed for our purpose but it'll work just as objectively, and this way you do it fast without needing to be a coder.

No, it might be roughly 4000 resolution; not 4000p, the p is an order
not a resolution matter.

Film is inherently progressive is it not? Interlacing is only added to

make it look like its going twice the framerate for TVs.

Who mentioned film?

Look up...

Film is instantaneous, neither i nor p.

Anything that doesn't have every other line chopped out is progressive.

And that wasn't the reason for interlacing.

Yes it was. Video wasnt smooth enough at 30 fps, but TV cable didnt have bandwidth for 60p so they invented 60i.

What, a few pennies for a blank CD?

No shop sells a single CD, and most packs of CDs cost $10+. Either way, who the hell still uses CDs?

I think your original point was that analog recordings last better than
digital ones. I questioned that. But now you've wandered off: I
seriously doubt you have the equivalent of 110 GB on LPs or tapes, so
the point is now moot.

My point was that nothing changed. The sum is zero. Digital media at least provided the choice to copy without degradation and I'll give it that much credit.

Hmm? granted floppies are a bit old hat, though you can still get USB
floppy drives (which AFAIK work on 7), but as for CDs, I don't see why
they wouldn't be "compatible".

Who thinks about those old photos they put on a floppy/CD 20 years ago foolishly thinking it would be preserved because it was 1s and 0s? 20 years later you find those irreplacable memories worth a hell of a lot more now than it did the day you recorded them, in a dusty drawer realizing no computer has floppy drives anymore.

Hm? Even assuming 30 to 50 megabytes per frame (a discussion I was part
of in another 'group decided about 14 megapixels is about the same
resolution as a 35mm slide/negative using about 40 ASA film), that's 10
to 15 images on a CD, a lot more on a DVD, yet more on a bluray or hard
disc. If you're talking of a movie film, a 35mm print of that needs a
huge can to keep it in.

50 MB per frame is 1.2 GB/s at 24fps, no HDD can read that fast and that's not even enough to store half an hour.

I had 8mm ones (still better than VHS mind!); a 16mm projector is still
quite a beast, though obviously smaller than a 35mm one. Yes, some real
(reel!) enthusiasts with their own cinemas (movie theaters) had them,
but pretty rare. (I used to operate the 16mm projector at [boarding]
school, and they did indeed hire prints of feature films.)

Being not a spawn of the dark ages, I dont recall if those were significantly more costly than VHS setups, but I'm not convinced there is cost-effectiveness when quality is taken into account.

8mm projectors had to be cheap (people used them before VHS was available) so I'm puzzled how people were duped into accepting such pathetic quality. Maybe I suffer from false consensus effect.

But people will pay a lot (in terms of accepting poor quality) for
convenience. There's no way I'd describe any size of film projector as
convenient to use (fast wind, variable speed playback, ability to record
[without having to wait for the film to be processed!] and re-use).

Film cant be re-used? Videotape doesnt deteriorate quality when making copies?

But seems unable to do so without profanity that doesn't actually
contribute anything.

Buddy you ain't no videophile, you didn't deal with retard codec fanboys who type while dipping their dongs in toasters. You'd know where i'm coming from if you did.