Power consumption? Which I believe to be quite high in the first XDCAMs, at least compared to comparable tape cameras.

And smaller discs were originally promised (8cm), any sign of them, or the cameras being able to accept them? For some usage I'd happily trade off running time for being able to pocket media - as is now easily possible with DVCAM.

F350 power consumption
 

I have been running the F350 for about 3.5 hours continuous using Sony BP-GL95 batteries. That is primarily HDSDI capture so the disc is not spinning much.

The 330 is rated at 31w while the 350 is rated at 32. So far it does appear to be needing less juice than my current SD XDCAM. However it should also be noted that the SD XDCAM's have now been updated to use less power.

A mystery "blank" as the forum software chops out the quote of what I said. I hope they revert to fully quoting what was said, it is difficult to have to put everything back in, so it is easy for people to follow conversations. Then you can decide what to chop and keep.

VOS, Virtual OS, like JAVA, I independently started work on it around the same year Java (OAK) and Taos started, which is earlier than most people realise.

Hmm, you missed the bit a chopped out. But, I have had some false starts with people that just seem to want to do nothing or have designs on "milking it". Once they realise that I want a formal business agreement (that doesn't allow for much milking, but profit instead) and standard IP disclosure agreements, it seems to weed them out. Unless you have the money to plock down to hire an engineer instead, they seem very reluctant to prioritise working on a project, don't matter how part time, little effort, or little money involved. Something of something is worth more than 100% of nothing, especially if the something is worth millions of net profit. Entrepreneurs, are another trap, real sharks this time, they can get 90% of everything for their investment, and you basically do "ALL" the work, and get chucked out in the end, as they take their place as "King of the Hill" of what they didn't have any idea of what to build in the first. In reality, their actions are like depending on finding somebody at a disadvantage to exploit. Depending on idea and circumstances, risk can be reduced, and I don't believe they should get as much for low risk projects where even 50% would reap tens or hundreds of times their investment. I believe in more equitable profit sharing, and for some simple high risk things, like the 3D extraction, I would agree to loss the 90%. But as you can see, and probably know from experience, trying to do it yourself, start a business on it, is very difficult in these areas. It is better to find an existing business as a buyer, which is my intention for a number of things. Quiet frankly, there is not so much money to be made from 3D, because big market players are already dominating on slim margins, and the number of IP, requiring massive capital investments to compete against. With 3D tech like I'm talking about, you could easily compete and beat them, if you had a budget in the billions, so licensing is best. But just IP costs, over the key markets, are very significant.


The VOS, could have hundreds of "claims" on it and associated developments (because this involved improving OS and related technologies, like 3D, compression etc). Because of the great cost, and lateness, I am considering forms of open-sourcing/freeware etc after I have finished the design, maybe even donating it for a donation. So it is important to let other ideas slip. It is far better than Linux, and comes from deep work based on ideas from alternative processor technology areas that I have been involved with (Misc by Chuck Moore, who now holds key patents in the IC industry and is involved in a major new processor company, Intelasys, but more comprehensive) it is revolutionary.

We are wasting tens times the complexity and sacrificing many times the speed in the way we are doing present computer technologies. Most is wasted because of inadequate design in throwing out product, and that is the most important space.

Believe me, that is the start, there is a much more profitable alternative use for it. In my system reality perfect rendering requires many times more processing power, probably still a fraction compared to professional rendering systems. But it is sort of so close to reality anyway, that hopefully people won't be able to notice the difference without accessing it, it should seem almost normal, that is more than you can say for consumer 3D systems, at a small fraction of processing and complexity.

Sorry for the sparseness, I can often not say much about things I work on, because I simplify/streamline them to much. I usually find the best solutions are alternatives that people missed/or didn't get around to looking at (something that often works, if a solution looks way to complex for the problem, then your probably going down the wrong path).

Nope, I clean roomed a lot of it.

Been thinking of contacting an old Uni friend about it, but I don't know how good his skills are, particularly with the non 3d area.


;), been following this for years, they aim for 1.6TB for a disk:

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/27/in...dia/index.html

I'm sure cheaper versions will be available in the next year or two.

This reminds me of one design for a new way of doing tape, able to store many times more than any disk format, with much more durability and reliability than any tape format, and a simplified player mechanism almost as cheap as disk. I was thinking that I should approach Sony with it at some cheap price, some time. Development would not be too complex.

Anyway, this is probably more on topic, but off topic, then we need to be here, you are welcome to contact me by email.