Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2011
ASCII <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Whisky-dave wrote:


>>Physical storage space cost more each year which is another problem.


> Do periodic real estate bubbles and busts offset the cost of closet space
> to house digital data storage?
> IOW: how big, per terabyte, is the space required to store it?


That depends on the medium, doesn't it?
War and Peace (the text only, English) is about 1.2 MB, so you'd
need to store 833,333 copies per TB.

One random softcover edition is 19.8 x 12.7 x 5.4 cm. That's
then about 1131 cubic meters, or 452 square meters filled up
to 2.5 meters in height. And that doesn't even include the
packaging, support, and non-perfectly tight packing.

At a guessed 80 g/m² and known 1024 pages, the paper without
the cover alone weights over 2 kg per book, and all books
together weight over 1715 Mg (megagramm, tonne) (1890 short
tons).

How much is renting 500 square meters closet space these
days?


Of course, a 3TB hard drive is rather tiny in comparison.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
On May 24, 10:06*pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

>
> Using film because you enjoy it is fine. Claiming that
> digital is not superior is abject stupidity on your
> part.


Claiming it is because Claude Shannon said so is abject ignorance and
total faith-based reverence.

Oh sorry, I forgot: that is your speciality.
My apologies.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
On May 24, 8:30*pm, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'm considering a new 2TB drive in a couple of months, and it will
> cost less than the 1TB did last year.
> Physical storage space cost more each year which is another problem.


I'm finding the USB drives enough at the moment. Up to 4TB in quite a
few of them, multiple backups to be on the safe side, and growing.
I've essentially given up on getting my old Syquest backups back:
fortunately, I didn't have any of my images there...
Now, if USB drives suddenly disappear and the FAT-32 file system
becomes unreadable, I'll be in trouble!...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
On May 23, 11:40*pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> That's like saying (assuming you are a christ) that all those
> who are only nominally christians are stopping you from having
> a meaningful relationship to your God.


No it isn't.

>
> In which way did the masses stop *you* from serious use?


By favouring crap instead of quality.



> Like he said: vanishing small number.


But not gone and far from vanishing. What can I say? Open your eyes,
the
"lalala" stuff only works in the Usenet...




> You'll not have what you want then, but only what is offered
> (very little, there's no money in it) or what you can make
> yourself.


And the high quality stuff of a niche market. Happy with that. What's
the problem again?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On May 23, 11:40*pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:


>> That's like saying (assuming you are a christ) that all those
>> who are only nominally christians are stopping you from having
>> a meaningful relationship to your God.


> No it isn't.


Explain the difference.

>> In which way did the masses stop *you* from serious use?


> By favouring crap instead of quality.


And that stopped *you* in which way?
Would you say professional film makers were stopped from
serious use by amateur "film makers" who favoured 'crap'
(i.e. cheap systems, cheap lenses, cheap film, bad, if any,
story, bad actors (if you can even call them that) etc.?

>> Like he said: vanishing small number.


> But not gone and far from vanishing.


Same for daguerrotype. It's not gone and far from vanishing,
but it's a vanishing small number.

> What can I say? Open your eyes,
> the
> "lalala" stuff only works in the Usenet...


Well, my eyes see ... very few film offerings compared to
- digital offerings
- film offerings 10 years ago

Open your eyes ...

>> You'll not have what you want then, but only what is offered
>> (very little, there's no money in it) or what you can make
>> yourself.


> And the high quality stuff of a niche market. Happy with that. What's
> the problem again?


Niche markets don't guarantee high quality stuff. They however
practically guarantee high prices due to low competition.

Still, if you are happy, that's fine.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
Rol_Lei Nut <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/24/2011 14:06, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


[digital versus film]
>> When the market is that lopsided there can be no doubt
>> at all that one is indeed better. Not to mention that
>> it has absolutely been known since 1949 that digital is
>> in fact better. Do some research on Claude Shannon. He
>> provided a mathematical proof...


> LOL!


> Going back again to the fact that many more Big Macs are sold than
> gourmet dishes, so Big Macs *must* be better...


They are. You cannot properly eat gourmet dishes on the go
(you should take enough time to appreciate them), you cannot
get them at the price of a Big Mac meal, you cannot get them
within seconds.

Now, if your only measuring stick is food quality, you might
be right: buy expensive gourmet meals every time and have
lots of time.

> Sorry about your dire need to believe that digital is absolutely special
> and inherently superior.


Unfortunately, digital is superior in a lot of ways. Even
with the fastest polaroid films, digital can show the shot
just made faster. You don't need to digitize the shots.
Many many more shots fit into a much smaller package (CF, SD,
.... microSD). You can print them near everywhere. etc.

And the idea that film is inherently better is ... well.

> Very logical, photography = telephony?


Look at the development from film based optical satellites to
electronic based ones to digital based ones.

>> Using film because you enjoy it is fine. Claiming that
>> digital is not superior is abject stupidity on your
>> part.


> Just as the Taliban claim that not being Muslim is abject stupidity (or
> worse)...


Floyd doesn't condone mass murder of innocents and Muslims^Wdigital
users to make a point. You however seem to need to demonize
those who disagree with you. Which says more about you ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
On May 24, 11:26*pm, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 05:24:11 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On May 23, 11:31*pm, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:33:24 -0400, "K W Hart" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >I don't see the digital sensors getting too much more 'populated'. There is
> >> >a limit to how many pixels you can cram into a 24x35mm piece of real estate.
> >> >But even if you do manage to get more pixels, how do you print them? There
> >> >is a limit to the size of the inkjets on the printer. With optical printing,
> >> >that limit is molecular.

>
> >> On page 2 ofhttp://ftp.epson.com/pdf/600q__/600q__ti.pdfyouwill
> >> find:

>
> >> * "Most Epson printers produce ink droplets so small you cannot see
> >> * *them with the naked eye."

>
> >> If that is the case, and it is with my Epson 3800, one has to ask why
> >> there is any need for better print resolution. The ability to deposit
> >> individual molecules is interesting, but is it relevant?

>
> >As relevant as the next washing powder being whiter than it's previous
> >incarnation.
> >Would you really buy a new printer with lower resolution.......

>
> Not for that reason alone, but I might for some other reason.
>
> However, right now, I'm very satisfied with what I've got.


I'm happy[1] with my epson 1270, when it dies I'll be looking to
replace it.
Any printer that is of lower resolution will not be considered.


[1] Well it eventually prints a reasonable image with a little effort.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
On May 25, 1:51*am, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:29:01 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Davidson) wrote:
> >Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 24 May 2011 03:12:37 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
> >>Davidson) wrote:

>
> >>>Rol_Lei Nut <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>On 5/24/2011 11:32, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >>>>> Do I take it you believe there is something special and inherently
> >>>>> superior about the use of film?

>
> >>>>> Regards,

>
> >>>>> Eric Stevens

>
> >>>>No, just like I don't believe there is anything special and inherently
> >>>>superior about digital either.

>
> >>>>When people start preaching absolute truths, my BS meter goes off its
> >>>>scale...

>
> >>>Ask yourself why Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Leica,
> >>>Hasselblad and Mamiya (virtually *every* major camera
> >>>manufacturer) are now making thousands and thousands of
> >>>digital cameras... as opposed to how many film cameras?

>
> >>>If you *don't* see anything "special and inherently
> >>>superior about digital", you are either not looking or
> >>>not competent to judge what you observe.

>
> >>When I first encountered digital it was something of an occasional
> >>gimmick and of conspicuously bad quality. Later the quality somewhat
> >>improved but it was beginning to be bought mainly by those who did not
> >>appreciate how bad it still was. Now there are digital cameras the
> >>output of which can surpass all but a very small number of film
> >>cameras. However there are still digital cameras producing images of
> >>poor quality. These cameras sell in large quantity simply because
> >>their buyers do not know or really care how bad the images are. It is
> >>sufficient that you can see that it is uncle Fred who is holding baby
> >>Elizabeth. Its inappropriate to use the preferences of this end of the
> >>market to help you judge the relative performance of film vs digital.
> >>I'm surprised I should have to spell this out.

>
> >I'm not a bit surprised that you don't understand what I said.

>
> I do understand what you said. I'm not quite sure that you fully
> understand tghe facts of what underlies your statement. Most people
> aren't buying thousands and thousands of digital cameras because they
> are better then film. They are buying them because they are small,
> light and convenient. Most of them wouldn't have a clue about relative
> image quality of film vs digital. All they know is that the digital
> images are good enough for them.


Yes if fact most of them were the type of purchasers of the 110 format
and the disc format cameras
which were really crap image quality wise and were mostly much worse
in image quality
than what their buyers replaced. Which in general were 35mm or even
120 film camera
which could in the right hands produce much better results.
But the 110 and disc camera were popular for exactly the same reasons
as the early digital consumer cameras.
They did what the user required them to do... record images/events
etc...




 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
On May 25, 3:47*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On May 24, 8:30*pm, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > I'm considering a new 2TB drive in a couple of months, and it will
> > cost less than the 1TB did last year.
> > Physical storage space cost more each year which is another problem.

>
> I'm finding the USB drives enough at the moment.


Mine are firewire and USB 2
Looking forward to a thunder-bolt drive or USB 3

>*Up to 4TB in quite a
> few of them, multiple backups to be on the safe side, and growing.

Thats the way to go, also off site backups are a good idea whether
that is via the internet or carrying a hard drive to another location
is another method.

> I've essentially given up on getting my old Syquest backups back:
> fortunately, I didn't have any of my images there...


Well most sensible people migrate from one system to another.
I started using 100k floppies to back up my first digital data in the
80s
In the early 90s I started to use 100MB zips to backup my files.
When I could afford a CD writer I could get 6 zips drives data onto on
1 CD
Zips used to cost me 10 each CDs were under 1
Now CDs are under 20p. I don;t use floppies, ZIPs or CDs as serious
backup media now. I used DVDs in 2000s but now only really see Hard
discs
as a worthwhile backup strategy, although I know I should serious
consider on-line
methods.


> Now, if USB drives suddenly disappear and the FAT-32 file system
> becomes unreadable, I'll be in trouble!...


Are you saying you'd never considered updating your backup strategy.
I'm prepared to do that on a regular basis especially as it becomes
cheaper and cheaper.

It's also physically impossible for me to continue to use 5 1/4 100k
floppies as a backup medium







 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
On May 25, 11:32*am, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 19:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Noons <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 24, 8:30 pm, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> I'm considering a new 2TB drive in a couple of months, and it will
> >> cost less than the 1TB did last year.
> >> Physical storage space cost more each year which is another problem.

>
> >I'm finding the USB drives enough at the moment. *Up to 4TB in quite a
> >few of them, multiple backups to be on the safe side, and growing.
> >I've essentially given up on getting my old Syquest backups back:
> >fortunately, I didn't have any of my images there...
> >Now, if USB drives suddenly disappear and the FAT-32 file system
> >becomes unreadable, I'll be in trouble!...

>
> FAT-32 on up to 4TB?
>
> Come on, you got to be joking.


I assumed it was a typo and should have been 4GB
But another interesting thing is that I don;t think you can backup
files
larger than 2GB using FAT-32 . Which might not be a problem today with
pictures
but I have a few movies/videos above that so for me FAT 32 is not much
use
as far as backing up goes.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! Whisky-dave Digital Photography 6 06-05-2011 02:50 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-26-2011 01:49 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 2 05-25-2011 07:20 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! MC Digital Photography 7 05-24-2011 12:37 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 2 05-18-2011 02:13 PM



Advertisments