Breaking 1TB
I remember getting my first hard drive that was bigger than 1GB, and thinking this was amazing. Today it takes half an hour to take 1GB of photos, so I obviously need much more space. Before this morning, my setup had one "500GB" and two "250GB" drives, but this actually added up to 927GB. This is because the manufacturers' definition of a gigabyte differs from a computer's definition of a gigabyte. Today I added a second "500GB" backup drive (I saw far too much data loss this week, and it scared me) and passed 1TB1 for the first time. Meaningless, but a little milestone nonetheless.
I'm trying to work out if I'll ever hit the next milestone: 1024 terabytes = a petabyte. Let's say I become a professional sports photographer, or something, and take 8GB of photos per day. Even with that, it'd still take 342 years to hit a petabyte. I'd need 55GB of photos per day to hit a petabyte within 50 years. For my camera that would be 6875 photos/day, while the most expensive Canon SLR, at 22MB/photo, would need 2500 shots. Nah, I can't see individual photographers needing that much space for a long, long time.
- and 1 tebibyte [↩]
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
September 1st, 2008 - 11:43
Hmm assuming 3 seconds between each shot, having to swap (lets be generous and allow 2 minutes) & copy a 8gb flash card (lets allow 20 minutes) 7 times in total thats 10 hours of work…
I’d imagine the chances of photographers *ever* requiring that amount of space is slim to none. Video however is an entirely different ballgame, if they record at 25fps at the same resolution that digital photography is being shot.. then… omgwtfbbq i died.
September 1st, 2008 - 12:06
I was thinking about it yesterday, and I’m not so sure now. Plenoptic cameras, for example, will capture crazy amounts of data so that scenes can be re-focussed in post-production. Not to mention Adobe’s 3D lens and ‘computational photography’ technologies, which essentially grab as much information as possible and process it to produce a 3D scene around which the camera can move (within reason). The storage requirements will be vast.