because 1080p just isnt enough... - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The DV Info Network > Digital Video Industry News

Digital Video Industry News
Events, press releases, bulletins and dispatches from the DV world at large.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 4th, 2007, 11:59 AM   #16
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Summit, NJ
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Lohman View Post
No, he did not. 640 KB was a limit of the architecture at that time (1 MB max, with the upper part reserved for ROM's). It was a big jump from 64 KB that was available previously and in 1981 no-one did need more than 640 KB. It was not a prediction for the future!

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed

Also see how the real quote was supposedly "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (TODAY, 1981), no mention of 'ever' in there


Source: http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/...the-640k-line/ (see update at the bottom)

In other words, they moved from 64 to 640 KB (could go no higher due to architecture limits of the Intel chip) and thought that would last 10 years.


O plague right well prevented!
Adam Palomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2007, 02:22 AM   #17
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,761
What about the one where the CPM guy reckoned that 64K was enough ;). Actually I did some thinking about the CPM program problem back in the period, or how to make an shell GUI program that transformed text based CPM programs into full GUI programs, amazing what you can do with chucks of 64k (as Intel 8086 did).
Wayne Morellini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2007, 04:23 AM   #18
RED Code Chef
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
Adam: I have no idea what you're saying

Let's get back on topic!
__________________

Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com
DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef

Join the DV Challenge | Lady X

Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors
Rob Lohman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2007, 05:02 AM   #19
New Boot
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Posts: 14
Never mind the increased resolution of sensors - what kind of optics are going to be needed to clearly resolve that detail. I realise people will say film lenses, but surely the light sensitivity of such a hi resolution sensor will require much faster optics due to the relative lack of light per pixel ?
Steve Benn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2007, 09:05 AM   #20
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Benn View Post
Never mind the increased resolution of sensors - what kind of optics are going to be needed to clearly resolve that detail. I realise people will say film lenses, but surely the light sensitivity of such a hi resolution sensor will require much faster optics due to the relative lack of light per pixel ?
Don't assume that sensor-manufacturing technology won't improve. It won't do to have to use a very large imager to counter decrease sensitivity due to extreme pixel density -- the lenses would get unmanageably large and heavy, and depth of field unmanageably shallow. I think it's pretty certain that if the technology is ever to move outside the lab and into the mainstream, it has to be made more practical. And that means using more-light-sensitive materials.
Lawrence Bansbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2007, 08:04 AM   #21
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Benn View Post
Never mind the increased resolution of sensors - what kind of optics are going to be needed to clearly resolve that detail. I realise people will say film lenses, but surely the light sensitivity of such a hi resolution sensor will require much faster optics due to the relative lack of light per pixel ?
My gravity warp lens (another thread in joke). Seriously, you ever notice that ion Star Trek that the very fast ships the Enterprises chases at huge distances look close and slow (bi-planes) that must be the warp field going telephoto ;)

The sensitivity of pixels have taken an enormous artificial boost of thousands of times, over recent years sensors latitude has been increased by thousands as well. SN ratio has taken an improvement recently too, but how much?
Wayne Morellini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2007, 10:59 AM   #22
Tourist
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 2
Jeffrey BRown of Molly's Pilgrim

If you are connected with Molly's Pilgrim let me know I have fun info for you.
LydiaDotRobertsonAtMacDotCom
Lydia J. Robertson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2007, 07:47 AM   #23
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Lohman View Post
No, he did not. 640 KB was a limit of the architecture at that time (1 MB max, with the upper part reserved for ROM's). It was a big jump from 64 KB that was available previously and in 1981 no-one did need more than 640 KB. It was not a prediction for the future!

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed

Also see how the real quote was supposedly "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (TODAY, 1981), no mention of 'ever' in there
Actually it was Ken Olsen who said something like that.

In 1977, Ken Olsen, the founder and CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation, said, "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
Andre Theelen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2007, 02:47 PM   #24
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Franklinville, NJ
Posts: 45
These Japanese companies kind of piss me off in doing this. If they want to do this crazy stuff, they should design hard drives capable of handling that amount of video data. They should design processors capable of editing the amount of data necessary for that resolution. They should do both of those things first before they bother coming up with this stuff.

When you can fit more than a few hours of completely uncompressed HD on a hard drive or even a home video disc, then it might be time to talk about increasing resolution.

Plus, the upgrade from NTSC to High Definition has been hard and expensive enough already on the TV and Video industry.
Matt Headley is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The DV Info Network > Digital Video Industry News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:18 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network