NY Times On The End of Film and The End of the Megapixel Race

Gordon Moat wrote:

Jeremy wrote:
From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/te...ts/02pogue.htm

Blah, blah, blah. Pretty boring stuff. The future of imaging is more
cameras that fit into your pocket . . . wow, that really gets me
excited. I guess the least common denominator is the goal . . . we
should all be grateful. :-P

Agreed. It's oversimplified for the masses. But on the whole I'd rather
see oversimplified articles that tell people *not* to just count
megapixels that oversimplified articles that tell people megapixels are
what's most important.
I suppose it's by tiny incremental steps such as these that humanity
drags itself inexorably forward ;-)

--
Mark Roberts Photography & Digital Imaging
Next workshop June 2-4
http://www.grandfather.com/buy_ticke...hotography.php

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Kinon O'cann wrote:
Pogue. Again. Sheesh....

"640K is as much RAM as anyone will ever need."

The prophets have spoken again, I guess.
The 640K statment was an eary 80s thing, in the 70s we said that 64K
would be all the RAM anyone would ever need.

Scott

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:C7BEf.14311$Ix.4703@trnddc07...
"Beach Bum" wrote:

Here's a tip for the camera manufacturers - I'll PRESS THE
SHUTTER RELEASE when I want to take a photo.

No. You won't. Future cameras won't have shutter releases... or have any
need for you at all...

Envisioning a world full of evil killer camera robots hungry for human
flesh - they don't strike unless your eyes are open and you have an
appropriate smile. g

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

Kinon O'cann wrote:
Pogue. Again. Sheesh....

"640K is as much RAM as anyone will ever need."

The prophets have spoken again, I guess.
The 640K statment was an eary 80s thing, in the 70s we said that 64K
would be all the RAM anyone would ever need.

Technically, since the CPU register can only hold a few 32 bit items at a
time (64 bits on these new fangled computers), what we really need is very
fast hard drives and no memory. g

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

Kinon O'cann wrote:
Pogue. Again. Sheesh....

"640K is as much RAM as anyone will ever need."

The prophets have spoken again, I guess.
The 640K statment was an eary 80s thing, in the 70s we said that 64K
would be all the RAM anyone would ever need.

Scott

I remember arguing with the guy who built my first computer that I really
needed a 5g hard drive. He couldn't conceive of an app that would require
that much storage...and 5g was the largest I could buy at the time.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"640K is as much RAM as anyone will ever need."

The prophets have spoken again, I guess.
The 640K statment was an eary 80s thing, in the 70s we said that 64K
would be all the RAM anyone would ever need.

Scott

I remember arguing with the guy who built my first computer that I really
needed a 5g hard drive. He couldn't conceive of an app that would require
that much storage...and 5g was the largest I could buy at the time.

Don't generalize too much.

I'd argue that 64-bit processors is all we will ever need in my lifetime.
The primary reason, nowadays, for increasing the size of the basic word of
memory is to address more memory.

32-bit processors can address 4GB of memory

64-bit processors can address about 17,000,000,000GB of memory

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:29:57 GMT, "Beach Bum"
wrote:

Envisioning a world full of evil killer camera robots hungry for human
flesh - they don't strike unless your eyes are open and you have an
appropriate smile. g

If, for one, welcome our new photographic overlords.

--
Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://rob.rnovak.net

"Beach Bum" wrote in message
.. .
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

Kinon O'cann wrote:
Pogue. Again. Sheesh....

"640K is as much RAM as anyone will ever need."

The prophets have spoken again, I guess.
The 640K statment was an eary 80s thing, in the 70s we said that 64K
would be all the RAM anyone would ever need.

Technically, since the CPU register can only hold a few 32 bit items at a
time (64 bits on these new fangled computers), what we really need is very
fast hard drives and no memory. g

Well, pretty soon we will have 100 gig flash cards, and hard drives will be
a thing of the past......

Reporter: "What will people do with all that memory?"
Grace Hopper: "Waste it."

I'd argue that 64-bit processors is all we will ever need in my lifetime.
64-bit processors can address about 17,000,000,000GB of memory

If Google wants to live up to its namesake, Googol, then we will
need 332 bits of address space. The memory itself will have to be very,
very virtual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol

http://www.fpx.de/fp/Fun/Googolplex/

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Rob Novak wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:29:57 GMT, "Beach Bum"
wrote:

Envisioning a world full of evil killer camera robots hungry for human
flesh - they don't strike unless your eyes are open and you have an
appropriate smile. g

If, for one, welcome our new photographic overlords.

In Soviet Union, pictures take YOU!