DrAjao

Data storage capacity will keep tending to infinity just as storage units keep tending to zero in physical size. The compact flash card has essentially not increased in physical size since its introduction but the size of data it can hold has steadily but surely doubled over these few years. In the vain hopes of keeping this write-up up to date over the years, I won’t specify the current maximum size a CF card can hold. If there is a linear progression towards infinity in the capacity of data storage, the internet’s capacity to store data should leap in exponential bounds. I suppose it’s based on a neatly calculated version of this trend that the likes of Google can offer unlimited email storage…and counting. Given these trends in memory storage and access time, I guess we can safely assume that in the near future, cameras won’t even be fitted with memory cards any more. They’ll have a ‘temporary’ buffer space measurable in exabytes and loads more in wirelessly upgradeable permanent me

CBS and Pepsi bring video ads to printed page According to the article linked to above, there’s a marketing experiment in progress that will lead to video ads featuring in print media. These wafer-thin videos will start when the reader turns to the appropriate page. This is in an attempt to reach consumers who are moving to digital media to avoid print ads. Sounds a bit counterintuitive in my own opinion. It will be a nice fad/craze for a few years (or months). Though the revenue from the ads may justify the expense, if it doesn't eventually bring life back to the dying print medium (as we know it), then it's a waste of money in the long run if attempts are made to sustain it. My prediction is that people will buy the magazines in question not for their content but to see the fancy ads. When the novelty wears off, they'll go back to their iPods, Kindles, and internet browsers...these are the media where they need creative ways to reach people who have found easier ways to b

I have a few questions: 1. when is a photograph really a photograph? 2. is it when it's a true/unaltered representation of what the imaging technology/device originally captured?... 3. ...or is it when it's a true representation of what the human eye agrees to be 'realistic'? 4. if question 2 above is true, will a crisp, colorful 21 megapixel raw file of a beautiful bride with great bokeh be any less of a photograph than a blurry, noisy black and white image gotten from an ancient pin-hole camera? 5. is blending 3 captures (with different points of focus) to simulate a large depth of field really less photography than closing up the aperture (in-camera) to get a larger depth of field? (or the converse...blurring parts of an image to simulate great bokeh as opposed to opening up the shutter) 6. if question 3 is true, shouldn't blending 3 bracketed captures with the aim of nearer approximating human-perceived dynamic range be the goal? 7. if the i