500GB not enough for uncompressed video

[CptGreedle]

Now that Pioneer has confirmed it is possible to make 500GB Blu-ray discs, and fully expect to get these things out within 5 years, several people have suggested uses for the extra 450GB.
Some people mentioned that all movies will be able to support uncompressed video. Well I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but unless my math is wrong, 1 uncompressed frame is 5.93MB.

1920 X 1080 (resolution) = 2,073,600 (pixels)
2,073,600 X 3 (RGB/color) = 6,220,800 (bytes)
6,220,800 ÷ 1,048,576 (byte conversion to MB) = 5.93 (MB)

So for a 24 fps movie that lasts 2 hours, that would make the movie about 1,024GB. If it was in 29.97 fps, it would be about 1.3TB. Obviously uncompressed won't work. Even a 90 minute 24 fps movie would be 700GB, still too large for a single 500GB disc.

There are other technologies that might be able to take up the slack here and obtain uncompressed video however. For instance the next medium people are talking about might be holographic discs, which are capable of storing tens of terabytes of data. So perhaps holographic discs can hold uncompressed images, if it ever comes to out. The HVD format holds 3.9TB, but is still in development. Obviously, 500GB can not compete to that, but is it really worth it?

Sure an uncompressed image is the best image, but does the compressed image suffer that much from artifacts and errors, so much so that only uncompressed images are acceptable? Aren't compressed images enough? What are the limits to human sight and how would that limit the size and compression of an image?
Perhaps there is no answer, but just as with lossless compressed audio formats, perhaps there will have to be a lossless compressed video format that can shrink a lossless image to less than half its current size.
Are there any lossless video compression codecs?

Something tells me that most video will be compressed for a long time still.