the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / Technical / Photographic computing: some good news

Photographic computing: some good news

April 26, 2008 JimK Leave a Comment

[Another technical post. I promise to get back to art next month.]

My last post, the one on multicore processors, ended on a down note. I don’t feel great about the future of multicore computing. However, there’s something else on the near horizon that’s going to dramatically increase the performance of photographic computer systems– the gradual replacement of disk storage with nonvolatile semiconductor memory.

Before we discuss what’s happening today, let’s get a little perspective. I’m not going to take you back to Babbage’s Difference Engine, but only about fifty years. In the mid 1950s, the standard technology for main memory was magnetic cores. Core memory provided access times on the order of the computing cycle times, was nonvolatile (you could power down the computer and it wouldn’t lose its program or main memory data, and was expensive. In 1956, IBM shipped the first disk memory system, the RAMAC 350. Designed in San Jose, and operated by vacuum tubes, the one-ton machine stored less than five megabytes (Yes, megabytes; but that was a lot; computer main memories were a few tens of kilobytes in those days). The RA stood for random access, and compared to tape, it lived up to the name, but it still had the usual disk behavior where, on a read, there’s a delay waiting for the first part of the desired data to rotate under the head, and then the data comes off fairly rapidly. The disk memory provided a storage medium midway between magnetic tape and core memory in both cost and access time. Before the disk, there was rotating magnetic memory in the form of magnetic drums, but cost per byte was much higher than for disks, and capacity was limited.

The magnetic disk was an instant success, and changed the architecture of computer systems. Large-scale transaction processing applications such as airline reservation systems were suddenly possible. IBM introduced faster, bigger, and cheaper models; competitors appeared in droves. Fast forward twenty years, to the dawn of the personal computer era. By that time, semiconductor memory had replaced magnetic cores, and that memory was volatile, that is, it forgot everything it had stored when the power went off (and whenever a cosmic ray happened by, but that’s another story). At first, magnetic disks were too expensive for personal computers, and we made do with cassette tapes (excruciating) and floppy disks (better, but still painful to someone used to minicomputers). Finally, in the early eighties, magnetic disks came to the PC, with IBM’s PC/XT, introduced in 1983 with a 10 MB disk, one of the earliest successes.

Since the RAM had become volatile, the disk offered two advantages to the personal computer: it provided a way to store data when the machine was off and automatically return it to main memory when power was restored, and it offered cheaper and more capacious, although slower, storage than the semiconductor D-RAM used for main memory. At the end of the eighties, conventional wisdom was that disks had about another ten years of life before they were supplanted by nonvolatile semiconductor memory, probably based on flash technology.

It didn’t happen that way. Giant magnetostriction, thin-film heads, perpendicular recording, and other technologies accelerated the evolution of the magnetic disk and kept it ahead of the steady advance of semiconductor memory. But it looks like time is running out for the hard disk. Already flash-based nonvolatile disk replacements are appearing in high-end laptops. In that application, their advantages are speed, ruggedness, reliability, power consumption, weight and size. In the Lenovo X300, the semiconductor “disk” can deliver up to five times better performance than the real thing. As prices come down, we’ll see much greater penetration into the portable market, until only low-end machines have hard disks.

The next step is the desktop, which doesn’t value ruggedness, weight, size, and power consumption as much as the portable market, but surely cares about speed and reliability. The advantages of semiconductor “disks” over desktop magnetic storage aren’t as great as their benefits over laptop disks, since desktop platters spin faster and their arms move more quickly. We’ll first see flash buffers on magnetic disks, then small flash memories for program swapping and access to often-used data, and then desktop computers with no rotating storage at all. Eventually, solid state storage devices will drop the interface that makes them look like magnetic disks in favor of one that is more suited to their internal structure.

We’re not talking about small performance improvements here. Using a Lenovo X300 is a startling experience. Programs load faster than you think they will. Going into and coming out of sleep state is dramatically rapid. Lightroom imports from “disk” are downright snappy. If the same level of improvement occurs when nonvolatile semiconductor memory hits desktop computing, it may be enough for us to forgive the fact that CPU utilization on our 16-processor system hardly ever gets over 30%.

Technical, The Last Word

← Multicore chips: clever or cop-out? Creating inside the box →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

January 2023
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality
  • JimK on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • Darrel Crilley on Fuji 100-200/5.6 on GFX, Nikon 70-200/@2.8E, Apo-Sonnar 135 on Z7, revisited

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.