because 1080p just isnt enough...

Adam Palomer · June 4th, 2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Lohman

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!

Wayne Morellini · June 5th, 2007, 01:22 AM

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).

Rob Lohman · June 5th, 2007, 03:23 AM

Adam: I have no idea what you're saying

Let's get back on topic!

Steve Benn · June 5th, 2007, 04:02 AM

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 ?

Lawrence Bansbach · June 5th, 2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Benn

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.

Wayne Morellini · June 6th, 2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Benn

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?

Lydia J. Robertson · June 18th, 2007, 09:59 AM

If you are connected with Molly's Pilgrim let me know I have fun info for you.
LydiaDotRobertsonAtMacDotCom

Andre Theelen · June 19th, 2007, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Lohman

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."

Matt Headley · June 19th, 2007, 01:47 PM

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.

June 5th, 2007, 03:23 AM	#18
Rob Lohman 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

June 18th, 2007, 09:59 AM	#22
Lydia J. Robertson 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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

June 5th, 2007, 01:22 AM	#17
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	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).

June 5th, 2007, 04:02 AM	#19
Steve Benn 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 ?

June 19th, 2007, 01:47 PM	#24
Matt Headley 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.