3 ms·
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 mi
by mark-r 8y ago
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.
- batbomb 8y agoOr head towards 72 DPI and get document quality resolution over a square mile.
- novaleaf 8y agoa 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...
- tandr 8y ago> 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
- novaleaf 8y agoThat 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.
- Jedd 8y agoI 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).