Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes, 0.1mm would be much better, that's 254 DPI. You'd also want 24 bits (3 bytes) per pixel instead of 1 bit. That gives you 0.43x0.43 miles, which is still mighty impressive.


a follow up thought experiment:

how long to walk that distance, VS how long to read the image from the SD card......

answer:

walking the perimeter (aprox 2 miles): aprox 30min

reading 1tb (assuming sustained speed of 20mb/sec): 14.5hrs

next: consider WRITE speed...


> Of the two cards, Western Digital is claiming a performance advantage by citing up to 160MB/s read speed

so, 1h 44 minutes, which is not that bad


That is assuredly their best-case-scenario "burst" speed.

The sd cards I have always list some performance like "up to 80mb/sec" but never seem to get close in reality.


I agree with you that 3/762 of an inch would be much better pitch, as that works out to be around 700 x 700 metres ( 49 hectares).


Or head towards 72 DPI and get document quality resolution over a square mile.


72 DPI, document quality?

Ahh, the days before "retina displays", yes.

;-)


72 DPI hasn't been current since well before retina displays, you might have to go all the way back to the original Macintosh. Even an old 14" 1024x768 display was 91 DPI.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: