Searching \ for 'Longterm backup ..was USB power in parallel' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/power/batterys.htm?key=power
Search entire site for: 'Longterm backup ..was USB power in parallel'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Longterm backup ..was USB power in parallel'
2008\07\08@083540 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 7/8/08, Alan B. Pearce <spam_OUTA.B.PearceTakeThisOuTspamrl.ac.uk> wrote:
> Unfortunately I just cannot get my mind around storing a 10MB picture from a
> digital camera on punched tape .... The storage and retrieval times would be
> something to behold, even with a high speed reader ... to say nothing of the
> tape volume ...

If you store it with the right format and encoding then you don't even
need a computer - just take the tape, cut it into even lengths
(depending on the width of the image) tape them up on a dark wall
(light tape with darkened holes) and you'll be able to view the image.

With a good encoding scheme you may be able to do this and still store
the high resolution, color version in the data punched.  Assuming you
made a paper tape that stores a byte in 1.125" x 0.125" area of
0.0032" thick paper tape, your 10MB file would be 19.7 miles (31KM)
long, and would take a volume of 2.6 cubic feet (0.07 M^3).  Which
doesn't seem like a lot until you realize you have thousands of these
pictures.

A good 8x10 blowup on archival quality media (film or ink and paper)
would likely be adequate, and cheaper/faster/easier to use.

-Adam

--
EARTH DAY 2008
Tuesday April 22
Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet
http://www.driveslowly.org

2008\07\08@092825 by Peter Todd

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 08:35:16AM -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Cheap $100 scanners are easilly capable of scanning at 4800dpi. Cheap
laser printers can print at 1200dpi. I'd guess you could probably
reliably store about 100 bits per inch with error correction, or 100^2
bits per square inch. So for each standard 8.5x11 sheet of paper you'll
get a little over 100k of data using off the shelf hardware. Use
archival paper and inks and you're set, so long as future generations
can figure out how to actually decode it...

Been done before too, I've seen ads in old issues of Byte magazine for
hardware devices to do just that in conjunction with dot-matrix
printers. Don't remember the capacities off the top of my head, but
probably within an order of magnitude.

- --
http://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIc2s73bMhDbI9xWQRAiKjAJ42gG0CGjOarKBlIUo7+qX8eHEpegCgjA5y
HfqJpW7H0zU5cRoclOJjROs=
=XK/I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...