Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Film vs. Analog - interesting read

Subject: [OM] Re: Film vs. Analog - interesting read
From: Manuel Viet <oly@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:36:15 +0200
Le mardi 12 Septembre 2006 01:54, Moose a écrit :
> Philippe Le Zuikomane wrote:
> > I can't wait for a solution offering long-life photochemical archiving of
> > high-resolution digital pictures. - Phil
>
> How about a return to punched paper tape? With archival paper and
> optical readers, they might outlast film. I know there are lots of paper
> piano rolls from getting on to a century ago that still work fine.

You'd want mylar cards instead of paper for archival purposes. It's impervious 
to almost everything except fire, and has been used widely for that reason, 
at a premium. There are rumors that the NSA is still punching them to record 
some secrets for posterity - and then they store them in a safe, dug out of a 
hollowed mountain, next to some scrap remains of a flying saucer. 

> Lets see now, how much paper to record 12 mp x three colors...... :-)

standard card = 80 words of 12 bits (about worth a single line in a book)

That's 120 bytes if you read it sideway (can be dangerous because EBCDIC was 
twisted for a reason : you need the center of the card to be as solid as 
possible to survive the feeders ; use ASCII8, and you might end with some 
delicate aprons of mostly holes that are sure to jam the reader).

12 Mp is ± 12 000 000 bytes (and I don't think it's 'time 3 colors') so you'd 
need 100 000 cards for a pictures. For context, the bomb A computations 
sprayed over 1 000 000 cards at Los Alamos. But 100 000 is already going to 
make a decent pile ; a little truckload, more accurately.

-- 
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz