Re: Is 3mp the sweet spot?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by HRosita, Aug 14, 2003.

  1. HRosita

    HRosita Guest

    >John Navas wrote:

    >t actually encourage more efficient use of resources. Hardware is CHEAP.
    >Painful gyrations to conserve it are STUPID.


    Very true.
    Yes software is bloated but it is quite a bit cheaper to buy additional memory
    and storage than pay heftily for the man/hours to produce super efficient code.
    In business, they would rather budget for extra hardware than for hiring
    additional personell.
    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Aug 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. HRosita

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 14 Aug 2003 18:38:24 GMT, et (HRosita) wrote:

    >>John Navas wrote:

    >
    >>t actually encourage more efficient use of resources. Hardware is CHEAP.
    >>Painful gyrations to conserve it are STUPID.

    >
    >Very true.
    >Yes software is bloated but it is quite a bit cheaper to buy additional memory
    >and storage than pay heftily for the man/hours to produce super efficient code.
    >In business, they would rather budget for extra hardware than for hiring
    >additional personell.
    >Rosita
    >



    They'd hire more personnel if it would get their
    products to marke faster, but when you're developing
    firmware for products, more developers isn't always
    the ticket.

    Read "The Mythical Man Month" by Brooks.

    Software is complicated because people expect
    more nowadays, and because software/firmware is
    used to compensate for cheap hardware.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. HRosita

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:10:43 GMT, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    >In <> on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:48:03
    >GMT, Rafe B. <> wrote:
    >
    >>They'd hire more personnel if it would get their
    >>products to marke faster, but when you're developing
    >>firmware for products, more developers isn't always
    >>the ticket.

    >
    >True.
    >
    >>Read "The Mythical Man Month" by Brooks.

    >
    >Good book. Well worth the read.
    >
    >>Software is complicated because people expect
    >>more nowadays,

    >
    >Yes.
    >
    >>and because software/firmware is
    >>used to compensate for cheap hardware.

    >
    >Not really -- in general the cheap hardware is far more capable than the older
    >expensive hardware.



    Indeed -- but mostly because of all the extra firmware!

    I'll give you one more example. For flatbed scanners,
    the "typical" design uses an optical sensor to detect
    "home" position. It also has a white strip that's used
    for CCD calibration prior to each scan.

    Company X realized that the $0.15 optical sensor for
    home position was unnecessary. Why not print a small
    black dot on one edge of the white strip. The scanner
    already has a fine optical sensor -- the CCD itself. Of
    course, the necessary firmware takes a few Kbytes to
    pull off, but for them it's a worthwhile tradeoff. If this
    scanner sells 1 million copies, they will have saved
    $150K in parts costs -- and even a senior programmer
    doesn't earn that much in the two days or so that it t takes
    to write the code to "image process" the data to find the
    black dot.

    Extra smarts in firmware enables cheap hardware to
    perform the same tasks that formerly was done by
    precision mechanics and laborious calibration.

    Think of all the efficiencies that computers have brought
    to the performance of internal-combustion engines.
    When's the last time you gapped a set of points in
    a distributor? Do you worry about "code bloat" in your
    car's engine computer?


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 16, 2003
    #3
  4. HRosita

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:44:09
    GMT, Rafe B. <> wrote:

    >Think of all the efficiencies that computers have brought
    >to the performance of internal-combustion engines.
    >When's the last time you gapped a set of points in
    >a distributor? Do you worry about "code bloat" in your
    >car's engine computer?


    I don't worry about code bloat at all. Disks and RAM are dirt cheap.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Aug 16, 2003
    #4
    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. Is 3mp the sweet spot?

    , Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    60
    Views:
    1,301
    John Navas
    Aug 20, 2003
  2. Dave Bauer

    Canon EOS 6.3MP

    Dave Bauer, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    400
    HRosita
    Aug 27, 2003
  3. dvdfred

    3MP stills from the Sony DCR-PC330 are great?

    dvdfred, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    369
    dvdfred
    Nov 3, 2003
  4. Jax
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    579
    bener
    May 16, 2006
  5. PeterN

    Re: F4-5.6 sweet spot for APS-C cameras?

    PeterN, Jul 16, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    435
    Chris Malcolm
    Jul 20, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page