BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight

Discussion in 'Photoshop Tutorials' started by +/-, Sep 30, 2005.

  1. +/-

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I agree. But that is a serious major use. With an
    ever larger pixel count it is getting to the point
    where I will be up to my navel in DVDs with images
    on them.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Oct 1, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements


  2. For one thing, the original post cannot be mathematically correct. A 300
    percent reduction in size would make the file size negative.
     
    Robert L. Haar, Oct 1, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. +/-

    toby Guest

    That's odd - because my folders of 35mm/120 negatives, which carry
    considerably more information than any JPEG I've seen - take up
    relatively little space.

    So much for the revolution.
     
    toby, Oct 1, 2005
    #43
  4. But storage densities are increasing too. When blu-ray DVDs come out
    (And more technology after that) it will be less of a problem.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Oct 1, 2005
    #44
  5. +/-

    Charlie Self Guest

    25 to 50 gigs. Not bad. My only fear is that by the time Blu Ray is
    affordable, we'll be staring at 100 MP cameras. There goes the advance
    in storage.
     
    Charlie Self, Oct 1, 2005
    #45
  6. But if they increase together at the same rate, it'll never be any worse
    than it is right now :).

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Oct 1, 2005
    #46
  7. +/-

    Andrew Haley Guest

    Relative to what? Colour film is about 100kbytes/mm^3, whereas
    current hard disc drives are at about 1.5 Mbytes/mm^3.

    Andrew.
     
    Andrew Haley, Oct 1, 2005
    #47
  8. +/-

    Skip M Guest

    A 300gig external hard drive is a whole lot smaller than the cases for 300
    slides.
     
    Skip M, Oct 1, 2005
    #48
  9. +/-

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    So the thread degenerates to minutiae. Unplug your drive. Now measure. See
    how it works?
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 1, 2005
    #49
  10. +/-

    toby Guest

    Yes, that's why I said it the remark was "odd" - since the density is
    remarkably different. I'm not up to my navel in film negatives. But
    then maybe the poster is storing the Bettmann Archive.

    (Based on specs for a typical 200GB SATA drive such as
    http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,599,00.html
    I compute hard drive density at 513,349 bytes/mm^3. I suppose a 600GB
    drive in the same form factor would equate to roughly your figure.)

    At (uncompressed) 24-bit, I empirically measure film at a minimum of
    17Kb x mm^2 (typically higher), and assuming 0.11mm base and 10%
    packing waste, I compute a minimum density of 140Kb/mm^3 at 24 bit.
    This does not take into account continuous-tone vs. 8-bit quantisation
    (if we assume 16 bit samples, density would be more like 280Kb/mm^3,
    which is interestingly enough, only half current hard drive density).
    More scientific data at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html

    (Based on assessment of many drum scans, I put low-end 35mm at approx
    15 Mp equivalent, 6x7cm at a minimum of 73 Mp. But that's a whole
    different war. Not to mention 4x5" and 8x10"...)
     
    toby, Oct 1, 2005
    #50
  11. +/-

    Rainer Latka Guest

    Ron Hunter schrieb am Freitag, 30. September 2005 10:18:

    [...]
    provided the algorithm is really lossless, one could of course compress
    the RGB channels individually...
     
    Rainer Latka, Oct 1, 2005
    #51
  12. +/-

    KatWoman Guest

    "Look out the sky is falling"
    Chicken Little
     
    KatWoman, Oct 1, 2005
    #52
  13. +/-

    toby Guest

    I imagine I could fit a lot more than 300 slides into the space of 70
    DVDs (which Paul said had reached his navel, and they probably would,
    stacked from the floor). But possibly not enough slides to fill 300GB
    (say 6000 uncompressed 35mm scans :). Bottom line is, should Paul be
    archiving on hard disk?
     
    toby, Oct 2, 2005
    #53
  14. +/-

    Skip M Guest

    I would say emphatically, "Hell Yes!" An external HD is less likely to be
    affected by the vagaries of the main computer, too.
     
    Skip M, Oct 2, 2005
    #54
  15. +/-

    JohnR66 Guest

    I like the idea. Put files on the drive and you get more space!
     
    JohnR66, Oct 2, 2005
    #55
  16. +/-

    Rainer Latka Guest

    Skip M schrieb am Sonntag, 2. Oktober 2005 06:58:
    how come? You'll have to connect it to read/write on it, so any
    malicious SW will reach it. And when disconnected, the risk of being
    dropped is certainly higher than with a built-in disk
     
    Rainer Latka, Oct 2, 2005
    #56
  17. +/-

    toby Guest

    It can be made read-only easily enough.
    I could drop a folder of negatives in the bath, too. DVD-Rs are very
    fragile media, I'd sooner use a hermetic metal case.
     
    toby, Oct 2, 2005
    #57
  18. +/-

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    While getting into the car yesterday, I dropped 4 gig of data onto the
    concrete drive. It was wrapped only in an acetate envelope. Zero damage.
    (8x10" negative).
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 2, 2005
    #58
  19. +/-

    ggull Guest

    "Robert L. Haar" < wrote in ...
    Also, anyone who (or whose press release) describes themselves as a "genius"
    raises the bs flag too. Especially an unknown genius.
     
    ggull, Oct 2, 2005
    #59
  20. +/-

    kashe Guest

    Perhaps you like to psychoanalyze people on the basis of a
    single usenet posting?

    Is your license to practice current?
     
    kashe, Oct 3, 2005
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.