Page 1 of 3

A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:35 pm
by AnotherFairportfan
Image

Yep - 512 Gig.

Four hours of 4K video.

Ultra 3 speed.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:03 pm
by TazManiac
dude....

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:14 pm
by Jabberwonky
My first SD was 126k...

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:15 pm
by AnotherFairportfan
Jabberwonky wrote:My first SD was 126k...
And what did it cost?

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:45 pm
by jwhouk
Heh... I've got a 16 MB SD sitting around here somewhere... used it for my old PocketPC.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:03 pm
by scantrontb
AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Jabberwonky wrote:My first SD was 126k...
And what did it cost?
i don't know what that one cost way back then, but this one today will set you back 800 bucks... ouch... now the question is: how long do you think it will take to the price down to the merely costly, rather than the currently arm-and-a-leg, prohibitively expensive?

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:45 pm
by shadowinthelight
I remember buying a Lexar 1GB flash drive for >$90. At least it still works.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:42 am
by AnotherFairportfan
scantrontb wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Jabberwonky wrote:My first SD was 126k...
And what did it cost?
i don't know what that one cost way back then, but this one today will set you back 800 bucks... ouch... now the question is: how long do you think it will take to the price down to the merely costly, rather than the currently arm-and-a-leg, prohibitively expensive?
Quoting myself from another forum:
n 2003 Sandisk introduced a 512 meg SD card, at $169 (2003 dollars), and a 1 gig card at $329, and people were lining up to buy them. If you think people who were willing to pay $329/gig ($423 in 2014 dollars) wouldn't be willing to pay $1.56/gig for a card with orders of magnitude higher performance, you haven't met many photographers or cinematographers.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:23 am
by Atomic
Think of the professional photogs who, back in the day, jumped at autodrive 35mm SLRs, and 60-100 frame magazines. Is there a market? Oh, yeah!

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:09 pm
by AnotherFairportfan
My Nikon shoots 24 megapixel images.

I would be able to get somewhat more than thirty thousand of the largest, highest-quality JPEGs it produces - or 9000 RAW images.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:30 pm
by Jabberwonky
Jabberwonky wrote:My first SD was 126k...
I want to say it was $80 to $90 at a PX in one of the furthest backwaters of Afghanistan 9 or 10 years ago...

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:55 pm
by AnotherFairportfan

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:52 am
by Catawampus
The first digital camera I used (it was work-related) was a big clunky one that stored images on CDs. The first one that I actually owned was a big clunky one that had a card and stored something like 600 kilobytes because I went all-out and got the top of the line at the time. The pace at which these things are going, by the time you've waited for the price to drop down to reasonable levels the product will be obsolete anyway.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:12 pm
by Warrl
Over the years - starting with 8" floppies - I have watched the trend of the capacity of a new removable-storage medium when it's first released to the retail market.

I came to the conclusion that they will eventually release a storage medium that measures precisely 0" in all directions and will have infinite storage capacity.

(The only problem with such a medium - and in fact a problem that's already pretty bad with, for example, MicroSD cards - is: where do you put a human-readable label so the users can tell them apart?)

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:41 pm
by Dave
Warrl wrote:(The only problem with such a medium - and in fact a problem that's already pretty bad with, for example, MicroSD cards - is: where do you put a human-readable label so the users can tell them apart?)
There's always the "data indexing" problem - with huge amounts of storage, how do you find the tidbit you want within the immense heap of gravel that you've stowed away "because I might want to look at it someday"?

Asimov (I think) wrote a great story, decades ago, about the problems a star-going civilization developed as their data-storage density got higher and higher over time. By the time they got to the "nudged quark" stage of bit-storage, things were really getting out of hand.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:46 pm
by Catawampus
Warrl wrote:(The only problem with such a medium - and in fact a problem that's already pretty bad with, for example, MicroSD cards - is: where do you put a human-readable label so the users can tell them apart?)
You're assuming that the computers will leave any humans alive to do the reading. . .

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:45 pm
by TazManiac
OK, lets recollect:

8 inch floppies, they where huge across but seemed like 'a good thing'... [Apple IIs could upgrade to saving data to cassette tapes...]

- 5 and a quarter inch, they came in single sided, double sided, hard index and soft sectored, just to name the most common.

- 3.5 inch 'floppies', now no longer floppy became 'Diskettes' by default, and they too had single and double flavors. 720k, 1.44Meg. MEGs! of capacity, on a single diskette! (and there where super-disks...)

This was during a transitional period where Full Height MFM based Hard Drives where loosing ground to the Seagate Half Height (with Full Height Face Plate!, (just like ol tyme western town store fronts!),

Lisa Desktop workstations, hand populating IBM motherboards with an additional (256k - 64k =) One Hundred and Ninety Two 'K' of memory chips, often manufactured in Barbados...

Hmmm..., I haven't even gotten out of the Eighties of last Century yet.

Addendum; AST Multifunction card with a Battery to keep the time & date when you turned the system off for the night,
plus it had a serial port (second serial port optional)<-- there was a kit wit two chips that populated the otherwise empty 2nd socket on the card..., a Parallel Port, and room for more RAM (An additional 384 'KAY' for a total of Six Hundred and Forty 'K' of active memory. Not MEGs, not Gigs, 'Kay'. (It wasn't enough to even spell phonetically; it was just 'K'...)

PS- plz 'scuse my use of 'deeze and dozze' during my current situation of three Sierra Nevada Torpedoes, or is it four? (Well, I ain't rummaging through the recycle bin, not even for you'ze guys...)
(edit- somebody raised this thread back to living status so I had a chance to correct some typos...) 13Jul2015

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:43 pm
by jwhouk
The first actual computer that I had in the "modern" era (ones that could run more than just BASIC) was a Mac SE/30 which I had added a 160 MB LaCie hard drive.

That LaCie hard drive went along with the Mac LC and the Performa 6360 that followed.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:41 pm
by AnotherFairportfan
Heh - when i was working at AMI a forty-meg drive was huge and IDE drives were just becoming available.

Re: A bloody big new SD card from Sandisk

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:32 pm
by Aed
One of the first PC that I owned was built by Telex Computer products using technology licensed from MAD Computer. It looked a lot like this but with Telex Computer Products logos and color schemes.
Image
There was also an option for a module with one 5.25 floppy drive and a 10 MB hard drive. I asked an engineer working on the project what the next size up in hard drive was and he opined that users would probably never fill up a 10 MB hard drive so there was no need for anything larger. :lol: