10,000x7,500 as pathetically small Ok, that's 75 megapixels. Ken Rockwell estimates that 35mm film is about 175 mp (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resol

10,000x7,500 as pathetically small Ok, that's 75 megapixels. Ken Rockwell estimates that 35mm film is about 175 mp (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm), so that is a technically realistic number. But you need an outstanding camera and photographer to make all those megapixels matter, and most people won't pay for and won't even notice the extra detail. Resolution bigger than the biggest computer doesn't matter much for mainstream users, and even a 6.1mp image from my DSLR looks good printed out at 8x10". Now a hard drive full of HD movies would take up tons of space, but do you want to carry that around with you? Not to mention that movie studios will do whatever than can to prevent persistent files from being the digital format of choice. They would much rather stream on demand and charge per viewing or per rental. We've always wanted more space, but computers are getting to the point where they're fast enough and big enough to satisfy common users. The fact that you're here on HN means that you're by definition not a common user.