Do you think technology will advance enough for... (low light; noise reduction)

rufus5150 · Mar 5, 2009

I think your view is a bit cynical, however.

Jerry, Cynical?

bjorkfiend · Mar 5, 2009

JerryPH · Mar 5, 2009

Well, I was in Dallas and I did see where Kennedy was shot... and I say it was aliens... communist aliens.

Make of that what you will... lol.

bjorkfiend · Mar 5, 2009

prodigy2k7 · Mar 6, 2009

JerryPH said:
My point was that the time to do similar tasks 15 years ago vs today is the same. It still takes 2 minutes to boot a PC, it takes MUCH LONGER today to turn off a PC, it still takes 5-10 seconds to load a word processing application and it still takes 5 seconds to send a 5-page print job to a printer. These are approximates, of course, but this is the point I was making. Where are the improvements you speak of?

Actually, i would like to point out there are plenty of advancements...
My 7 year old computer, 1.8GHZ intel celeron was a piece of crap, it took 2 full minutes to load CS4, i just recently got a new computer, it loads CS4 in 2 seconds flat

I have seen just in the last few months, prices drop in memory... 4 gigs of DDR2 memory is cheap these days...

The prices certainly have dropped a lot...

Besides prices, hardware is going very well too, Intel took off pretty well since the core 2 family came out. a computer today for $1,000 cost about $1500 probably a year ago, and even more a year before that..

Edit: my boot time is also really fast

JerryPH · Mar 6, 2009

prodigy2k7 said:
My 7 year old computer, 1.8GHZ intel celeron was a piece of crap, it took 2 full minutes to load CS4, i just recently got a new computer, it loads CS4 in 2 seconds flat

That's funny, becuase my XT loaded Corel Draw 1 in 1.5 seconds... and that was "state of the art" in it's time too, so... nope, try again.

prodigy2k7 said:
I have seen just in the last few months, prices drop in memory... 4 gigs of DDR2 memory is cheap these days...

But back then, all we needed was 640k, not 4 or 8 or 16 gigs of RAM, so, how much did 640k (the maximum amount installable at the time) of RAM cost vs the 16gig of RAM that is the maximum on my current PC? I'd be ahead about $125 in the "old days". See what I mean?

prodigy2k7 said:
Besides prices, hardware is going very well too, Intel took off pretty well since the core 2 family came out. a computer today for $1,000 cost about $1500 probably a year ago, and even more a year before that.

Trust me, you will need each byte of RAM and every penny for that quad core for the next big software release, becuase it will make your current speed demon into one huge sludge-fest.

prodigy2k7 said:
Edit: my boot time is also really fast

Is it less than 1.5 seconds? Thats all it took to boot DOS on a bad day.

...oh, did you notice that it takes longer to get through the POST today than it did back in the 80s?

Now the BIOS has to enumerate all the hardware for PnP, and since that did not exist in the old days, thats a good 5-10 seconds saved right there.

Shut down... a joke. With an XT, if there is no app running, flip the switch...DONE.

Software functionality, OS functionality have increased, technical specifications keep rising, but I sure do not see anyone completing ANY of the tasks faster today than they took 20 years ago.

Hardware and software bloating keeps things status quo.

Early · Mar 6, 2009

JerryPH said:
Like *EVERY* technology out there, they release it out in trickles and small spurts so that they can sell more units to more people over a longer time. If they released a 100mp camera tomorrow that could take ISO 256,000 as clean as a D3x at ISO 100... they would sell TONS fewer than if they released 20 interim models over 5 years, each slowly leading up to this.

They even go so far as to take away, then charge you to put it back. I'm talking about how much sharper TV reception was back in the 80's and 90's, but now you have to pay extra for HD. :grumpy:

bjorkfiend · Mar 6, 2009

JerryPH · Mar 6, 2009

I am near done with this thread, but Ithink that the people who aren't afraid to open their eyes and see a healthy dose of reality know that I was not only correct, but correct on many levels.

I don't say that bjorkfiend is wrong, but I will say that she sees only one small (maybe 5-6 year?) time segment of the process, whereas I've been in this game since the late 70's. When I started, there was no public internet (heck our school had NOT ONE computer, we were taught to type on IBM typewritters!!), we sent messages from one side of the world to the other via teams of relayed computers connected via 300 baud modems. It took about a week to 10 days to get a message from Montreal Canada to Munich Germany.

There is also a healthy amount of marketing that I've been involved in, and indeed a part of (I was one of the first original Canadian team members who introduced Lotus 1-2-3 to Canada about 3 months after it came out in the USA). I was part of the marketing team that introduced "Hydra" (now known as Terminal Server to all you more up to date people) across Canada in the late 1990s. I also have a passion for cars... I mentioned Corvettes... I've been to the Corvette museum and then been on private tours of the Corvette plant in Bowling Green (KY not MO), no less than 6 times, and have a few connections at GM in the marketing departments that "share" choice tidbits with me from time to time.

This is part of what I know what I know and why I can tell you, that it is a naive person (not a lack of intelligence, mind you, just someone that's lacking experience and insight into the "real" way things work behind closed doors), that thinks that things are just made up and sold on the same day in today's markets.

Someone mentioned Black Silicone. I wonder how many camera manufacturers are already deep in research preparing the foundation for a camera that can take pictures as bright as day without noise at 0-1 lux? The smart money is saying that ALL the big ones are at the very least doing so very serious looking into this technology... just as car manufacturers are planning 2-3 generations ahead. The "Mako Shark" 'Vette of the mid 60s came out as the Sting Ray of 1970s (yet another example of advanced planning).

I could go on and on and on, but in the end, it doesn't matter... one just believes what they want... very few *really* know... unless they've been there. I've been there and back... a few times and am not afraid to play the same game to my advantage that the marketing teams are playing with the general "buying" public.

Early said:
They even go so far as to take away, then charge you to put it back. I'm talking about how much sharper TV reception was back in the 80's and 90's, but now you have to pay extra for HD.

Meh... thats easy. Here is a better one... how many US available cars in 1982-1988 did 50MPG or higher? 47 (winner being the deisle Rabbit at 50mpg city, 67mpg highway). How many cars in 2009 can do 50MPG or higher? 4... and the 2008 Jetta deisel is struggling to make 37mpg on the highway!

Why could the hybrid cars of 3 years ago do 63MPG yet today those SAME MODELS barely eek out 38MPG? Because they are already planning and controlling the markets getting ready for... raised prices and increased profits.

It's all about the holy dollar, and the faster people realize that, the sooner they won't get played as easily.

I'm outta here... nice convo!

rufus5150 · Mar 6, 2009

Why could the hybrid cars of 3 years ago do 63MPG yet today those SAME MODELS barely eek out 38MPG?

Actually, I read somewhere (fairly) recently that they had gone back and re-rated many of the hybrids because the system and assumptions they used to rate the MPG incredibly unrealistic.

Here it is, but doesn't quite explain a 63-38 gap:

New MPG Ratings Hurt Hybrids | Autopia from Wired.com

MikeBcos · Mar 6, 2009

JerryPH said:
Meh... thats easy. Here is a better one... how many US available cars in 1982-1988 did 50MPG or higher? 47 (winner being the deisle Rabbit at 50mpg city, 67mpg highway). How many cars in 2009 can do 50MPG or higher? 4... and the 2008 Jetta deisel is struggling to make 37mpg on the highway!

Why could the hybrid cars of 3 years ago do 63MPG yet today those SAME MODELS barely eek out 38MPG? Because they are already planning and controlling the markets getting ready for... raised prices and increased profits.

It's all about the holy dollar, and the faster people realize that, the sooner they won't get played as easily.

I'm outta here... nice convo!

This is due more to the fact that fuel economy is measured differently now, in 1984 the EPA adjusted its method of testing which reduced reported figures by 22%. In 2008 and did the same thing, taking another 12% off those figures. I doubt that many cars from 1982 could actually do 50mpg.

The 2009 Jetta TDI is rated 41mpg, using the methods the EPA used to calculate economy in 1982 that would have been rated at about 54mpg.

Regulatory Announcement: EPA Proposes New Test Methods for Fuel Economy Window Stickers | Fuel Economy | US EPA

MikeBcos · Mar 6, 2009

rufus5150 said:
Actually, I read somewhere (fairly) recently that they had gone back and re-rated many of the hybrids because the system and assumptions they used to rate the MPG incredibly unrealistic.

Here it is, but doesn't quite explain a 63-38 gap:

New MPG Ratings Hurt Hybrids | Autopia from Wired.com

The Prius has been rated 45mpg since 2006, I have yet to find a vehicle that was rated 63mpg three years ago that is now rated 38mpg. The closest I have come is the Honda Insight ar 58mpg in 2006 but that is no longer manufactured.

TimothyHughes · Mar 6, 2009

Slaphead said:
I dunno guys, give it 8-10 years then I think the entry level DSLR's will at least equal, if not better, the D3 in terms of hi ISO image quality. Look how far things have come in the last 10 years.

Sooner than 8 years. I just read an article on the micro 4/3rds system which is coming along nicely. Low noise, high pixel density sensors are getting exponentially better every year due to the r&d funds going into the compact point and shoot market segment.