scyrene said:LovePhotography said:jrista said:AcutancePhotography said:210mb files? Yikes! Those terabyte(s) hard drives are looking pretty weak all of a sudden. ;D
That's a whole heapin' helpin' of megabytes!
LOL
You guys should get into astrophotography. Then a 210mb data file will seem like nothing. I regularly work with 250-750 megabyte 32-bit or 64-bit floating point FITS files. My average project size on disk is 50-70 gigabytes. I usually have a variety of active projects taking up disk space at any given point. I've filled up a 3TB drive with astro work on multiple occasions. I periodically delete intermediate working files and archive the rest to BluRay disk to free up space.
But yeah. This is the trend. Higher and higher resolution. In a few years, I wouldn't be surprised if 80-100mp cameras become the norm.
+1
You are usually the most rational poster in this forum.
Yeah, some areas of photography already involve that sort of data throughput. I do a lot of focus stacking and panorama stitching these days and again, the files can get huge - 60-150MP images can amount to well over a gigabyte if exported as psd files, and a hundred or more megabytes as a tiff. I only have a middling MacBook but it can handle it, albeit slowly sometimes. We'll manage!
The main issue I have with 'big' files, over 2GB, is that LR can't see them. Once you go over 2GB .psd's have to change to .psb's, LR doesn't recognise them which is very annoying for DAM.
Upvote
0