On 7 Jan 2001, at 17:59, Jan van Wijk wrote:
> True, but the underlying bottleneck here is storage capacity (memory).
>
> Given enough storage, compression is not really needed, you could
> use TIFF or RAW formats, avoiding any loss of quality ...
>
> Storage technology has a reputation of ever increasing capacity.
>
> I would expect to use a high-end digital SLR like the Pentax only with high
> capacity storage like the IBM 1Gb Microdrive, currently about $700.
>
> (Now using a Canon S20 with 340 Mb Microdrive for digital)
I disagree and would sight processing speed, internal data transfer rates and
storage media data rates as the major bottle-necks after the CCD resolution
has been addressed.
Firstly any processing ie per pixel colour adjustment (via look-up table) to
colour cast correction to interpolation to image compression requires CPU
band-width and fast data transfer rates as does the initial data acquisition
from the digital imaging device. Even a well configured desk-top computer
generally takes a noticeable amount of time to load a large image (raw or
compressed) from even a fast 10,000 RPM RAID storage system, how fast
do you think a little low power micro-drive can deliver or save data? Hard
drives are essentially mechanical devices and even though they have
increased radically in capacity their effective data rates are fairly constrained
by the nature of the medium.
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
Fax +61-2-9554-9259
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
