No Words
38,045 topics in this forum
-
- 22 replies
- 640 views
-
- 7 replies
- 358 views
-
- 12 replies
- 420 views
-
- 19 replies
- 494 views
-
- 6 replies
- 349 views
-
- 18 replies
- 568 views
-
- 18 replies
- 465 views
-
- 4 replies
- 212 views
-
- 22 replies
- 620 views
-
- 12 replies
- 380 views
-
- 18 replies
- 497 views
-
- 18 replies
- 604 views
-
- 26 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 16 replies
- 604 views
-
- 12 replies
- 402 views
-
- 16 replies
- 571 views
-
- 29 replies
- 839 views
-
- 6 replies
- 272 views
-
- 20 replies
- 575 views
-
- 18 replies
- 509 views
-
- 7 replies
- 296 views
-
- 25 replies
- 970 views
-
- 23 replies
- 781 views
-
- 6 replies
- 350 views
-
- 18 replies
- 488 views
-
Who's Online 17 Members, 1 Anonymous, 738 Guests (See full list)
-
Recent Gallery Images
-
Recent Forum Wide Posts
-
-
-
By rodeo_joe1 · Posted
I (accidentally) got into the old chestnut digital vs film argument with a comparative stranger today. I pointed out that if all the pictures posted on the Web were to be shot on film, it would use several football pitches worth of film area every day, and use approximately a quarter of the world's mining output of silver per annum. They countered with imagining the amount of electricity it takes to store all those pictures - while pointedly ignoring the fact that all those film pictures would have to be digitised anyway, in order to be posted on the Web. All this got me trying to (gu)estimate the yearly energy and financial cost of storing digital pictures. I had to make a few assumptions to arrive at any sort of figure. So feel free to correct or amend those assumptions. I Googled the wattage consumed by a 10 Terabyte HDD - 6.8 Watts during read/write cycles says Google, and about 5 Watts idling. That's 6.8*24*365/1000 = 59.57 KWH per annum maximum, and costing around GB £14.90p at current prices. However, that disc could be holding 10 million 1 megabyte JPEG files, and only costing less than 1/6000th of a UK penny per picture per annum. That seems to me like a very small cost; compared, say, to archiving 10 million 35mm negatives in a climate-controlled environment. OK, those figures and costs get multiplied manifold when considering the number of pictures uploaded to the Internet yearly, but surely the digital archiving/storage solution still has to be more cost-effective and therefore less ecologically damaging, than the film alternative? -
-
-
