Your statement makes me think that one of the following is true:

1. You prefer Betamax or VHS to digital media (highly unlikely)

2. You own laserdiscs (limited to 480i)

3. You own 35mm prints of film.

Since all other formats film has been made available on are both digital media and compressed.

> 2. You own laserdiscs (limited to 480i)

Down-scaling to 480i is also a form of compression so you can discount that one.

Uncompressed 4k video is ~5Gbps (3840 * 2160 * 3 * 24 * 8). A 2-hour movie clocks in at about 4.3TB. (3840 * 2160 * 3 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 2)

All that is 24fps.

That's without audio, which I assume you also want to be uncompressed.

Not that it changes the argument but most movies are not 16:9 aspect ratio so don't need to make use of 2160 pixels height.

TBF even as bloated as 48/24 FLAC is it's a rounding error at that point.

But FLAC is compressed. Don't forget 13 channels. Only the best! Probably 192 khz.

Lossless is lossless. But I shudder to imagine the file size of a 2 hour 13 channel 192/24 flac soundtrack.

However I notice a critical oversight on your part. You have assumed a channel depth of merely 8 bits when the minimum for a decent workflow is 12. Thus rather than 3.9 TiB (ie 4.3 TB) we arrive at 5.9 TiB.

Of course a modern feature length film is likely closer to 2.5 hours (7.3 TiB). Lossless HEVC should get that down closer to 2.5 TiB. At approximately 290 MiB per second that's going to demand dropping an SSD in the mail as the only practical method of distribution and playback.

Even though op wrote "uncompressed" you should be able to deduce from context that they meant not lossy compressed.

If either lossless or uncompressed was reasonable in this instance, I would interpret it as such. Uncompressed video is completely bonkers of course. So is lossless. Shrug.

Physical media is what pioneered "stepping on" the product with things like Pan & Scan

agree