100 HD movies on a stamp-size chip

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

100 HD movies on a stamp-size chip

Post by xan_user » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:38 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28581014/
LAS VEGAS - Imagine storing 100 movies in glorious high-definition on a card the size of a postage stamp, then calling them up instantaneously for viewing on your cellphone whenever and wherever you like.

That could happen within five years, according to the SD Association, a trade group that brings together more than 1,100 technology companies from SanDisk Corp to Hewlett-Packard Co and sets interoperable memory card standards.

Consumers will be able to store as many as 100 high-definition movies on a stamp-sized memory card and retrieve them with devices such as mobile phones and digital cameras, according to the promoters of the next-generation SD card technology.

The first of a new series of "extended capacity" cards, dubbed "SDXC," will be available toward the end of this year en route to an eventual 2 terabytes of onboard storage capacity in less than five years, James Taylor, president of the SD Association, said at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

A terabyte equals 1,000 gigabytes. The SD group also encompasses such powerhouses as Panasonic Corp, Toshiba Corp , Nikon Corp and Canon Inc.

The SDXC specification, developed by the association, "leapfrogs memory card interface speeds" while retaining the popular SD interface, the association said. Specifications for the open standard will be released in the first quarter of 2009.

The first such cards are likely to provide 64 gigabytes of storage, twice the maximum in existing SDHC memory cards, Taylor said in an interview.

Even at early capacity levels, he said the SDXC standard would enhance the operation of digital cameras and camcorders. The association says the cards ultimately will turn mobile phones into full-fledged media centers, thanks to faster transfer speeds and huge capacity.

At its maximum 2 terabyte capacity, an SDXC memory card will store an estimated 100 high-definition movies, 480 hours of professional quality audio recording or 136,000 fine-mode photos, the trade group said.

SD cards account for nearly 80 percent of the memory card market, according to the association, which predicts the so-called "flash" memory markets will grow tremendously in coming years. Such storage devices use no moving parts, curbing the drain on batteries in handheld gizmos.

"The SD interface already has proven itself valuable in mobile phones. Now, SDXC memory card capabilities will spur further handset sophistication and boost consumer content demand," Taylor said.

Shigeto Kanda, general manager at Canon, said in a statement that the new specification, which retains the existing shape and size of SD memory cards, will help consumers realize the full potential of Canon cameras.

"Improvements in interface speed allow further increases in continuous shooting speed and higher resolution movie recordings," Kanda said.
And totally silent. 8)

antivenom
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:14 pm
Location: UK

Post by antivenom » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:13 am

Damn, technology gets faster and faster!

My current 10.2x14.7x2.5cm HDD only stores 500GB and in less than 5 years they think we'll have 2 TB on a postage stamp?! That's incredible! :o
[size=75]Intel Q6600 @2.4GHz | Xigmatek HDT-S1283 CPU cooler | Gigabyte GA-P31-DS3L | 2x OCZ 2GB DDR2 800Mhz | XFX 9800GT with Accelero Twin Turbo | Corsair HX520W PSU | Antec 300 | 2x AF 12025 PWM fans[/size]

spookmineer
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm

Post by spookmineer » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:03 pm

HD on a cell phone? :?

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:50 pm

gee and i thought SPCR's could read though the lines and see that this means tiny sized silent solid state storage, not just movies on a cell phone.


:(

Shaman
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Portugal

Post by Shaman » Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:32 am

spookmineer wrote:HD on a cell phone? :?
If the cellphone has an hdmi port and is capable of decoding hd material, then it won't be so bad. :lol:

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:50 am

Shaman wrote:
spookmineer wrote:HD on a cell phone? :?
If the cellphone has an hdmi port and is capable of decoding hd material, then it won't be so bad. :lol:
The issue isn't the port or the decoding, it's the battery life. For HD on cell phones, major advances in processor or batter efficiency are needed, not so much storage. After all, you can already get 32GB µSD cards and use them on phones that support SDHC and that is enough to store several hours of HD video. Unfortunately, your battery is not going to make it through several hours -- several minutes is more like it. By the way, there is such a thing as a µHDMI port that is thin enough to go on cell phones and I believe it is starting to appear on some Asian market smart phones. Despite the potential bandwidth of such a port, I doubt these devices are outputting anything close to real HD (due to processor and battery limitations).

Shaman
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Portugal

Post by Shaman » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:50 am

All valid points, though I was referring to cellphones 5 years from now. Who knows what the battery life and processing power of cellphones will be like then..

I imagine the charger could be used to power the cellphone while screening movies to save the battery, like it's done with laptops. If you're using a cell to feed a big screen tv, you should have a wall socket nearby.

lm
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:14 am
Location: Finland

Post by lm » Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:33 pm

Why on earth are all you guys just talking about HD on a cellphone? This technology can probably be used on PCs also, replacing hard drives. Or at least we can assume the storage density of this device can also be achieved in some technology that can be used in a PC, if not exactly this technology itself.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:34 am

lm wrote:Why on earth are all you guys just talking about HD on a cellphone?
Why not? Cell phone is already arguably the most ubiquitous computing device. It is already the predominant way to get Internet access in the world. The rise of netbooks adds more fuel to the argument that the era of the PC is nearing its end. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but hey it's something to talk about.

blackworx
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Location: UK

Post by blackworx » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:18 am

For what it's worth I'm definitely on the silent computing side, as I can barely tolerate my cellphone as it is, never mind hook one up to someone else's HD display for a bit of on-the-go movie watching.

But talking about it in those terms is almost beside the point. You might as well ask: why is everyone even talking about either of these things when this news has far greater implications than silent computing vs HD on cellphones? Copyright, or to be more precise the remuneration from its licensing, is in a shambles already. Such a huge crisis in the entertainment industry is only going to be accelerated by the availability of such ultra high density storage. As far as music, books and movies go, this really does change everything. Not overnight, but it has massive consequences. The kind of densities they are talking about is the stuff of science fiction.

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:24 am

Cell phone ... is already the predominant way to get Internet access in the world.
I really doubt that that is true. Most individuals, corporates and governments still access the internet through good old-fashioned cables. As a percentage of connections I would have though 3G or similar would be much less than 10%.
[size=75]JFK:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean...someone who looks ahead, who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,who cares about the welfare of the people, who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad...then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."[/size]

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 am

xan_user wrote:gee and i thought SPCR's could read though the lines and see that this means tiny sized silent solid state storage, not just movies on a cell phone.
Well, it seems to me like there's promises of some revolutionary, tiny, fast, spacious, cost efficient, achillesheelless form of solid state storage right around the corner so often that we're completely desensitized to it.

I for one don't see it happening. Hell, something sort of close is already possible with battery backed and/or flash mirrored ram. But there isn't even a DDR2 version of the I-RAM, let alone a good selection of what's actually possible.

Which is a bit of a shame; an ATA adapter with room for four or so SD cards, with the option of running some of them in JBOD mode and maybe two ram slots, which would not use battery backup, instead just copy themselves to one of the SD cards upon shutdown and maybe also periodically; I don't see why that couldn't actually be cheaper than an I-RAM, and it should work really nicely for some applications.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:09 am

jaganath wrote:
Cell phone ... is already the predominant way to get Internet access in the world.
I really doubt that that is true. Most individuals, corporates and governments still access the internet through good old-fashioned cables. As a percentage of connections I would have though 3G or similar would be much less than 10%.
You are completely wrong. The statistics are well established. Notice I didn't say access the Web, but access the Internet. This means e-mail and you don't need 3G for e-mail. Worldwide, the number of e-mail capable phones in use far exceeds the number of Internet connected PCs. There are hundreds of millions of people in Asia that use cell phones for e-mail and have no other Internet connection. There are hundreds of millions more who have a traditional PC with Internet access, but still use their phone as their primary e-mail device. There are tens of millions of people in Africa who have used a cell phone to send e-mail but never a PC. Now, with the emergence of 3G and beyond, Internet access on the cell phone is starting to mean access to the Web and that is what I mean about traditional PCs possibly becoming obsolete.

croddie
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 pm

Post by croddie » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:30 am

jessekopelman wrote:
Shaman wrote:
spookmineer wrote:HD on a cell phone? :?
If the cellphone has an hdmi port and is capable of decoding hd material, then it won't be so bad. :lol:
The issue isn't the port or the decoding, it's the battery life... Despite the potential bandwidth of such a port, I doubt these devices are outputting anything close to real HD (due to processor and battery limitations).
"Nvidia demonstrated this chip (Tegra 600 + HDMI, USB, stereo jacks) consuming 1 watt while running 720p video decode through HDMI."
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37729/135/

Take-up has been a bit delayed but phones should be coming out in 2H 2009.
http://www.slashgear.com/htc-to-use-nvi ... s-1630752/

Personally I don't see a huge point to smartphones with hdmi but welcome more powerful processing and graphics and video decoding.

lm
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:14 am
Location: Finland

Post by lm » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:05 am

mathias wrote:I for one don't see it happening. Hell, something sort of close is already possible with battery backed and/or flash mirrored ram. But there isn't even a DDR2 version of the I-RAM, let alone a good selection of what's actually possible.
Wrong on both.


First, there is a spiritual successor to I-RAM by another company, that has space for 8 DDR2 slots. Just recently reviewed by some popular tech site, but I can't remember the name of either the site or the product. I'm sure someone here can fill the gaps. The bottom line was that Intel's ssd is actually often much better.

Second, RAM is not very dense. SSDs and hard drives have higher storage densities.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:30 pm

croddie wrote:
jessekopelman wrote:
Shaman wrote: If the cellphone has an hdmi port and is capable of decoding hd material, then it won't be so bad. :lol:
The issue isn't the port or the decoding, it's the battery life... Despite the potential bandwidth of such a port, I doubt these devices are outputting anything close to real HD (due to processor and battery limitations).
"Nvidia demonstrated this chip (Tegra 600 + HDMI, USB, stereo jacks) consuming 1 watt while running 720p video decode through HDMI."
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37729/135/
1W is a lot for current battery tech. That is more than your phone will use in most circumstances for talking or surfing the web. Smart phones already tend to have the dilemma that you can have several hours of web surfing or several hours of talking, but not both on the same charge. Now you're just throwing in another competitor. Maybe these HD output phones will start shipping with fuel cells instead of batteries -- that should at least guaranty you some decent up time, regardless of use.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:38 pm

lm wrote:Wrong on both.

First, there is a spiritual successor to I-RAM by another company, that has space for 8 DDR2 slots. Just recently reviewed by some popular tech site, but I can't remember the name of either the site or the product. I'm sure someone here can fill the gaps. The bottom line was that Intel's ssd is actually often much better.

Second, RAM is not very dense. SSDs and hard drives have higher storage densities.
I CTRL+F'd "ram" on the first three, and now ten, pages of Silent Storage and found nothing.

Yeah, ram isn't very dense, so? Hard drives can fail, especially if subject to a lot of force, heat and maybe other things like humidity, flash has a limited number of write cycles, they all have their down sides. Nothing available today is perfect like all these futuristic storage methods claim they will be. That's why I said it would be good to use it together with flash in one device; that way, if they were both in one hard drive shell, it would be easy to fit them in a laptop or such.

And a ram drive is a type of SSD.

I'm guessing this might be what you've been referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperOs_HyperDrive
http://www.custompc.co.uk/labs/115565/h ... -16gb.html

hillkitler
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:36 pm
Location: The 208.

Post by hillkitler » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:33 am

jessekopelman wrote:
jaganath wrote:
Cell phone ... is already the predominant way to get Internet access in the world.
I really doubt that that is true. Most individuals, corporates and governments still access the internet through good old-fashioned cables. As a percentage of connections I would have though 3G or similar would be much less than 10%.
You are completely wrong. The statistics are well established. Notice I didn't say access the Web, but access the Internet. This means e-mail and you don't need 3G for e-mail. Worldwide, the number of e-mail capable phones in use far exceeds the number of Internet connected PCs. There are hundreds of millions of people in Asia that use cell phones for e-mail and have no other Internet connection. There are hundreds of millions more who have a traditional PC with Internet access, but still use their phone as their primary e-mail device. There are tens of millions of people in Africa who have used a cell phone to send e-mail but never a PC. Now, with the emergence of 3G and beyond, Internet access on the cell phone is starting to mean access to the Web and that is what I mean about traditional PCs possibly becoming obsolete.
Assuming that EVERYONE uses a traditional PC for the sole purpose of accessing the internet.

mentawl
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:29 pm
Location: Glasgow, UK

Post by mentawl » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:31 am


lm
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:14 am
Location: Finland

Post by lm » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:25 am

Mentawl found exactly the article I meant. The product seems cool at first, since it can take 8 sticks of DDR2 and has dual SATA ports (it's physically single device but it can appear logically as either 1 or 2 hard drives for more speed using RAID), also it's not totally ridiculously priced even though it is indeed expensive, but it appears that their controller is slow and wastes most of the potential. Intel SSDs are better in most use cases.

Post Reply