DescentBB

Ympakt wrote:Could you imagine the horde of programmers that would be needed to input such massive amounts of data to fill a single terabyte CDR? That'd be a whopper of a game! It'd employ every single programmer on this board for months or years sitting in front of the keyboard coding away!

Yeah... and we'd still beat the game in a day or two

Don't forget that compression technology is still in its infancy. As CPU power and speed ramps rapidly over the next 10 years, so will the ability to process massively compressed video and audio.

I anticipate compressed HDTV at 1-5% of it's current disk space.

Also, data tends to expand to fill the space available, regardless of how much space there is, so a 100 terabyte drive isn't *that* big.

Data doesnt fill disks as fast as exepnses fill income

this thread still lives???WTF??,

When I start taking geritol we might have it on the store shelves

Ympakt wrote:Could you imagine the horde of programmers that would be needed to input such massive amounts of data to fill a single terabyte CDR? That'd be a whopper of a game! It'd employ every single programmer on this board for months or years sitting in front of the keyboard coding away!

most games' data is taken up by textures/sounds/videos.

i mean, i just installed over a gigabyte of texture data into Celestia, and i'm getting more
the celestia program though, is very small. with only the low resolution textures included it's only 4.5meg.


take some kickass planetary textures, mixed with some kickass complete situational textures (citys/villages/nature), and you would quickly get to a few terrabytes.

Texture and geography mapping information that NASA it gains from each individual mission often breaks a few terrabytes. i think the complete (10m accuracy) topography information of earth from a recent mission was around 20 terrabytes.

Krom wrote:Data doesnt fill disks as fast as exepnses fill income

confusious say: "i was just about to say that"

BUBBALOU wrote:this thread still lives???WTF??,

When I start taking geritol we might have it on the store shelves

So? I don't see you contributing to the discussion. Just because you call it "vaporware" doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

Well, my point still stands:
Movies won't be taking up 100TB even in they're purest form.

A few hundreg gigs maybe, but certainly not 100TB.

Defender wrote:Well, my point still stands:
Movies won't be taking up 100TB even in they're purest form.

A few hundreg gigs maybe, but certainly not 100TB.

With current technology, but you should know better than to assume that technology will remain stagnant.

I'm not reffering to technology.
I don't believe that movies can get much more detailed then they are/will be.

A human just can't process it.

Defender wrote:I'm not reffering to technology.
I don't believe that movies can get much more detailed then they are/will be.

A human just can't process it.

Thats where you're wrong. Try watching regular TV on something smaller than 30", and then compare it to a big screen TV. You'll notice a shitload of pixelation on the bigscreen, yet it'll look just fine on the smaller TV. You can only stretch a picture so far ya know. Now if you look at a bigscreen watching an HD stream compared to a normal analog stream on a smaller TV, you'll notice a HUGE difference in visual quality.

Now, I've already proven that an HD stream set to your typical movie length (1h 30m) is just over 170GB in size as an upper limit. Thats totally ignoring any extra material whatsoever. When you tally all of that up, that could be nearly as large as a TB (if they go to the length of the LOTR DVDs). Now, thats not anywhere near a the capacity of a 100TB disk, I agree. However, when you have people that will take their movie collection and stick it onto one convenient storage medium, it starts adding up pretty quick.

TV looks like @ss, I'm talking about a dvd on a plasma TV. It doesn't get much better than that unless you stretch the resolution, which with HDTV you don't really need to do.

Defender wrote:Well, my point still stands:
Movies won't be taking up 100TB even in they're purest form.

A few hundreg gigs maybe, but certainly not 100TB.

Famous last words. Ask Bill Gates how statements of this sort in regards to data storage needs tend to bite one on the butt

While I tend to agree that two hours of high quality video (as we know it) will not likely ever need 100 TB of storage, it's "as we know it" part that makes this statement fairly foolish.

For example, if it became possible to somehow beam the video stream directly to the optic nerve, perhaps 100 TB is only enough storage for "low quality" or perhaps it's simply completely inadequate, like trying to put a 2 hour movie on a VCD?

Storage needs tend to increase geometrically, even logarithmically, rather than linearly.

Have you been hanging around with Mobius, WarAdvocate?

720x540 TGA = 1 MB. * 30 frames/sec = 30 MB/sec.. 30*60 = 1.8 GB/min. *120 min = 216 GB. But say we have a 2000x1400 resolution screen.... or mebbe if holo technology gets invented.. that would be a whole other dimension. It'd be hard to fill

Yes, all that's well and good, but that's all future technology.
I'm talking stuff that's here today.

100 terabyte hard drive will come around sooner or later. I don't care about that. Work on my damned flying car.

Defender wrote:Yes, all that's well and good, but that's all future technology.
I'm talking stuff that's here today.

You're missing the point. What do you think this whole thread is about? When someone releases big ass storage like this, they aren't concerned with current technology, but how it can be used for the future.

By that logic, we shouldn't really bother with 64-bit processors because there isn't a whole lot of software to take advantage of them.

Defender, 3D holoscreens arn't future technology, we have them in many forms today, even factory mass produced.

it's the 100TB HDDs that we are waiting for.
there's not too many research prototype 100TB HDDs, and i don't think there's ANY in mass production.