Cards as Primary Media Sources

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by heremon, Nov 8, 2007.

  1. heremon

    heremon Guest

    Is there any chance that the costs of one, or more, types of memory
    card will drop enough to allow them to compete with dvd's as a direct-
    from-studio content source?

    It seems like a high definition copy could fit on a card, and future
    hdtv sets might come with a slot for flash card uploads. It would save
    a lot of space, if movies started coming out on cards the size of a
    gum stick.
     
    heremon, Nov 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. heremon

    John carter Guest

    On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:25:40 -0800, heremon wrote:

    > Is there any chance that the costs of one, or more, types of memory card
    > will drop enough to allow them to compete with dvd's as a direct-
    > from-studio content source?


    No chance. DVDs are very very cheap to manufacture. Flash cards are
    active semiconductor devices - they will always cost a lot more than DVDs.
     
    John carter, Nov 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. heremon

    IronyMan Guest

    On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:19:18 GMT, John carter <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:25:40 -0800, heremon wrote:
    >
    >> Is there any chance that the costs of one, or more, types of memory card
    >> will drop enough to allow them to compete with dvd's as a direct-
    >> from-studio content source?

    >
    >No chance. DVDs are very very cheap to manufacture. Flash cards are
    >active semiconductor devices - they will always cost a lot more than DVDs.
    >
    >


    Exactly. The very same way that floppies are so cheap to produce and don't need
    anything more than a magnetic head to read and write to them. Those elaborate
    optical storage discs for storing audio require lasers more powerful than are
    available to consumers. The cost of the optical laser writers alone making them
    impossible to own. The amount of technology and its high production costs
    putting CD writers and the expensive media beyond anyone's reach and needs. Not
    to mention that any society can create magnetic media and a way to read it. My
    data is never going to be unreadable. It's not as safe nor as easy to reproduce
    as a mechanical groove in a record, but its still within reach of most
    civilizations to read my data in the future if they just know about electricity
    and magnets. And I can store much more data this way. Better to just stick with
    floppies. Though I have to admit, I've not used the 8" diameter ones in a while.
    I have a case of them in the basement. When they found a way to store 168k on a
    5.25" floppy compared to the same storage on the 8" ones, I invested in that new
    technology without even thinking about it. I just copied all the data on my 8"
    floppies to my 5.25" ones.

    DVDs? What are those?
     
    IronyMan, Nov 9, 2007
    #3
  4. heremon

    Neil Guest

    In message <>, IronyMan
    <> writes
    >On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:19:18 GMT, John carter <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:25:40 -0800, heremon wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is there any chance that the costs of one, or more, types of memory card
    >>> will drop enough to allow them to compete with dvd's as a direct-
    >>> from-studio content source?

    >>
    >>No chance. DVDs are very very cheap to manufacture. Flash cards are
    >>active semiconductor devices - they will always cost a lot more than DVDs.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Exactly. The very same way that floppies are so cheap to produce and don't need
    >anything more than a magnetic head to read and write to them. Those elaborate
    >optical storage discs for storing audio require lasers more powerful than are
    >available to consumers. The cost of the optical laser writers alone making them
    >impossible to own. The amount of technology and its high production costs
    >putting CD writers and the expensive media beyond anyone's reach and needs. Not
    >to mention that any society can create magnetic media and a way to read it. My
    >data is never going to be unreadable. It's not as safe nor as easy to reproduce
    >as a mechanical groove in a record, but its still within reach of most
    >civilizations to read my data in the future if they just know about electricity
    >and magnets. And I can store much more data this way. Better to just stick with
    >floppies. Though I have to admit, I've not used the 8" diameter ones in
    >a while.
    >I have a case of them in the basement. When they found a way to store 168k on a
    >5.25" floppy compared to the same storage on the 8" ones, I invested in
    >that new
    >technology without even thinking about it. I just copied all the data on my 8"
    >floppies to my 5.25" ones.
    >
    >DVDs? What are those?
    >


    Careful, I had a mouthful of coffee, that's another keyboard wrecked.

    Never had any 8" floppies, I've got an unopened box of 5.25" in the
    cupboard.

    Regards,
    --
    Neil Pugh
     
    Neil, Nov 9, 2007
    #4
  5. heremon

    Allen Guest

    Neil wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    > Careful, I had a mouthful of coffee, that's another keyboard wrecked.
    >
    > Never had any 8" floppies, I've got an unopened box of 5.25" in the
    > cupboard.
    >
    > Regards,


    I hope you aren't feeling sad about missing out on 8" floppies. I had
    some dealings with them on mainframes (IBM 135, 145), minicomputers,
    some early microcomputers, and keypunch replacement devices; they were
    convenient for transferring data from mainframes to minis, among other
    things. Fine in their time--which corresponded roughly with the hyday of
    Kodak Tri-X.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Nov 9, 2007
    #5
  6. heremon

    IronyMan Guest

    On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:28:51 -0600, Allen <> wrote:

    >Neil wrote:
    ><snip>
    >>
    >> Careful, I had a mouthful of coffee, that's another keyboard wrecked.
    >>
    >> Never had any 8" floppies, I've got an unopened box of 5.25" in the
    >> cupboard.
    >>
    >> Regards,

    >
    >I hope you aren't feeling sad about missing out on 8" floppies. I had
    >some dealings with them on mainframes (IBM 135, 145), minicomputers,
    >some early microcomputers, and keypunch replacement devices; they were
    >convenient for transferring data from mainframes to minis, among other
    >things. Fine in their time--which corresponded roughly with the hyday of
    >Kodak Tri-X.
    >Allen


    And I hope you're not belittling my 8" floppies, they still work just fine for
    transferring data to my 10 meg MFM hard-drives on my CP/M machines. With that
    much storage I don't think I'll ever fill them up. But I do wish they'd get
    these 150 baud modems smaller. The one I have now is the size of a medium
    suitcase, weighs about 35 lbs., and needs to be hard-wired into the
    communication lines. At least it still works good. The speed is impressive. I
    can send all the data from an 8" - 168k single-sided floppy in about 2 days ...
    if nothing goes wrong. I should invent some kind of error checking protocol, it
    would help. So far the receiving computer owner and I just check our wall-clocks
    and agree when I'll try to start sending data. If it fails then we try again on
    15 minute intervals to get them talking to each other. It works about 50% of the
    time.
     
    IronyMan, Nov 9, 2007
    #6
  7. heremon

    Allen Guest

    IronyMan wrote:
    <snip>
    > And I hope you're not belittling my 8" floppies, they still work just fine for
    > transferring data to my 10 meg MFM hard-drives on my CP/M machines. With that
    > much storage I don't think I'll ever fill them up. But I do wish they'd get
    > these 150 baud modems smaller. The one I have now is the size of a medium
    > suitcase, weighs about 35 lbs., and needs to be hard-wired into the
    > communication lines. At least it still works good. The speed is impressive. I
    > can send all the data from an 8" - 168k single-sided floppy in about 2 days ...
    > if nothing goes wrong. I should invent some kind of error checking protocol, it
    > would help. So far the receiving computer owner and I just check our wall-clocks
    > and agree when I'll try to start sending data. If it fails then we try again on
    > 15 minute intervals to get them talking to each other. It works about 50% of the
    > time.


    Have you tried direct mail? It might be faster. Of course you would need
    a second 8" drive to make a copy.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Nov 9, 2007
    #7
  8. heremon

    ZenDiver Guest

    heremon wrote:
    > Is there any chance that the costs of one, or more, types of memory
    > card will drop enough to allow them to compete with dvd's as a direct-
    > from-studio content source?
    >
    > It seems like a high definition copy could fit on a card, and future
    > hdtv sets might come with a slot for flash card uploads. It would save
    > a lot of space, if movies started coming out on cards the size of a
    > gum stick.
    >


    Way back when I was at Uni I sat in on a modern optics course. Probably
    the only thing I remember from it was the prospect of volumetric optical
    storage. Rather than use just the surface to store data ie 2D which is
    essentially what current optical disks do, the idea is to use the volume
    of the storage medium. This is somewhat achieved by multi-layer disks
    but the proposal would be for many more layers. Another 3D solution is
    holographic storage. Advantages of holographic storage are
    robustness/durability, all the data is stored in every part of the media
    meaning that no data will be catastrophically lost with localised
    damage. Both of these technologies were set to provide terabyte
    capacity in a 12cm disc and looking at a transfer rate in the order of a
    gigabit/s.

    That was the talk nearly a decade ago. Guess we'll have to wait a bit
    longer yet.
     
    ZenDiver, Nov 9, 2007
    #8
  9. heremon

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    In article <>,
    heremon <> wrote:

    > Is there any chance that the costs of one, or more, types of memory
    > card will drop enough to allow them to compete with dvd's as a direct-
    > from-studio content source?
    >
    > It seems like a high definition copy could fit on a card, and future
    > hdtv sets might come with a slot for flash card uploads. It would save
    > a lot of space, if movies started coming out on cards the size of a
    > gum stick.


    Sure, there's a chance this will happen. There's also a chance it won't
    happen.
     
    Shawn Hirn, Nov 11, 2007
    #9
  10. heremon

    JosephKK Guest

    IronyMan posted to rec.photo.digital:

    > On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:28:51 -0600, Allen <> wrote:
    >
    >>Neil wrote:
    >><snip>
    >>>
    >>> Careful, I had a mouthful of coffee, that's another keyboard
    >>> wrecked.
    >>>
    >>> Never had any 8" floppies, I've got an unopened box of 5.25" in
    >>> the cupboard.
    >>>
    >>> Regards,

    >>
    >>I hope you aren't feeling sad about missing out on 8" floppies. I
    >>had some dealings with them on mainframes (IBM 135, 145),
    >>minicomputers, some early microcomputers, and keypunch replacement
    >>devices; they were convenient for transferring data from mainframes
    >>to minis, among other things. Fine in their time--which corresponded
    >>roughly with the hyday of Kodak Tri-X.
    >>Allen

    >
    > And I hope you're not belittling my 8" floppies, they still work
    > just fine for transferring data to my 10 meg MFM hard-drives on my
    > CP/M machines. With that much storage I don't think I'll ever fill
    > them up. But I do wish they'd get these 150 baud modems smaller. The
    > one I have now is the size of a medium suitcase, weighs about 35
    > lbs., and needs to be hard-wired into the communication lines. At
    > least it still works good. The speed is impressive. I can send all
    > the data from an 8" - 168k single-sided floppy in about 2 days ...
    > if nothing goes wrong. I should invent some kind of error checking
    > protocol, it would help. So far the receiving computer owner and I
    > just check our wall-clocks and agree when I'll try to start sending
    > data. If it fails then we try again on 15 minute intervals to get
    > them talking to each other. It works about 50% of the time.


    Both your tongue and your groove must hurt by now.
     
    JosephKK, Nov 15, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    19,384
    Snowbat
    Dec 2, 2005
  2. Politician Spock

    Re: Information Sources

    Politician Spock, Jan 8, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    473
    Politician Spock
    Jan 8, 2004
  3. Marko

    Information Sources

    Marko, Jan 8, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    568
    Marko
    Jan 8, 2004
  4. wjva
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    578
    Bryce
    Aug 20, 2003
  5. Rogerdeville
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,442
    Rogerdeville
    Apr 9, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page