Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (17849)	12/31/2000 12:55:31 PM
From: Andre Williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

On card size - In my recent experience, 64MB is usually sufficient. I take only the highest res pictures my coolpix 800 will allow (a little less than 1MB/picture in 1600x1200 jpg). Until I recently got a 48MB card, I was using two 16s and a 24, and never really filled them up. However, I don't have a 3.3 or larger camera, nor do I take uncompressed tiff files. Steve has raised this repeatedly; I have done a little reading and can't quite figure out, from a practical standpoint, why a little compression leaves one with 'substandard' files. But if raw, uncompressed files are superior, then these would require not only faster cameras but faster cards and much larger cards. The vast majority of users IMO are not willing to wait more than a few seconds between pictures - and we're far from that at this point - but if important, this does mean there is room for growth in the market for much larger cards. Andre

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (17849)	12/31/2000 6:13:53 PM
From: Ausdauer	Respond to of 60323

Sarmad, Thanks for sharing your SNDK experience. At $1200.00 per card I am sure the SNDK folks love you! You asked... "Do photography applications need higher capacities than 64MB? I think color film has 2000x2000 pixel per inch resolution. In thousands of colors. That is equal to approx 8MB/frame. With compression let's say 1 MB/picture. Does that make sense?" That makes a lot of sense. Right now a 2.1 megapixel camera with mild compression creates files of 600kb or less. I think the problem with a 1MB or larger file is getting your PC to digest it. Also, the file becomes unmanageable for e-mail applications (or photo hosting sites) unless the sender and recipient have broadband access. Where will digital camera resolution peak out? I am not sure, but at some point I think there will be diminishing returns once resolution exceeds monitor resolution, photo developing resolution, and the perception of the human eye. There is also a growing number of higher end digital cameras that allow video clips with audio. I see digital cameras and digital video applications overlapping. Thus, storage capacity will become more and more crucial as time passes Aus