On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > > Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> > >
> > > > I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
> > > > via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> > > of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
> >
> > But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> > Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
> Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
> that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
> capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.

True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the fastest speed possible
than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.

> How does one
> choose to manage / mitigate that type of risk? Moving to a new home is
> going to be more expensive than buying an internal 8TB SSD.

Some people move home more times than some people buy a new computer.
Price doesn't come into it.

> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >> In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
> > > >> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
> > > >> simply absurdly small nowadays.
> > > >
> > > > Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
> > > > documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
> > > > seem to manage.
> > >
> > > With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
> > > quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
> > > and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
> >
> > But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
> > My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...
>
> But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
> so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
> this far in its useful lifespan.

yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos, music on my internal drive,
even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.
I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.
When I fist had a Macplus I had no idea just one of my picvtures of a cat would take up more space
than I had on a floppy drive ;-)

>
> > ... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per
> > track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
> Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.

Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;t help but think
I'd liike to create content for it.

> > I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like
> > it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies
> > one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
> Is your plan for your next machine that it is never going to process anything
> more than 4K video, or do you anticipate a desire for 8K video processing in
> the future that you also want the next machine to be able to handle?

Handle in what context my 2014 can handle 4K it has a 5k screen too.

> Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.

I try futureproofing for the foreseeable, and that doens't including keeping everything I do on the internal drive.

> For me 10 years is just too far into the future.
Just going to one music gig a month is about 40GB per month.
So a 1TB would last me about 2 years if I did nothing else.
So there's no way I plan to keep all my videos on the internal SSD.
My .ACC music is about 40GB but I don;t buy that much music now, photos
take up about 80GB

> > My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing
> > from SD > HD > 4k 6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm
> > by 1am they were all on youtube which hadn't fully processed them by 3am
> > so I went to bed.
> I've looked at such calculations similarly too, for the prospects of using a
> Cloud service for an off-site data backup. The challenge with that is that
> even with a decent fiber connection, if a catastrophic crash occurs, the
> amount of time required to pull down a complete backup can start to get
> measured in days instead of just hours. Case in point, 5TB on a 300Mbps
> fiber at 80% bandwidth utilization is 46 hours (~2 days), assuming no
> additional problems encountered (throttling from ISP, Cloud service, etc).

Well I haven't had such a crash in over 20+ years but then I use a Mac and don't run windows

What I do after copying my files to the internal drive from the SD card from my camera.
I usually then send the files to youtube.
I then listen to them or get the setlist from the band and edit the track names.
I can have the video open and rename it at the same time. (but not whiloe it;s uploading to yuotube as youtube
loses the 'link' but the Mac is OK with it.
Then copying/archive the files to an external HD which takes on average about 20-30mins per gig (concert )
There's no way I'd use a cloud backup for such things except as an extreme emergency or last resort,
something I've never had to do since my first Mac computer in about 1995.

If your computer & software is that unrealible I'd find something to do about it.
Just how often to you need to do such a thing ?

> >
> > I've enough free space on my SSD ~100 GB for over an hours video and
> > that's without having to delete the last few gigs (as in concerts) I went to
> > so that about 70mins worth or more of 4k video, the battery in my camera
> > only lasts 80mins and I haven;t an SD card that can store 70 mins of video
> > anyway, which would mean a 128+GB SD card.
> Overall, it seems that much of this conversation is a casualty of newer Mac
> designs consolidating down to a single local drive, resulting in an effective
> comingling of the discrete 'scratch' vs 'storage' requirements. It hasn't helped
> how some of their 'easy to use' Apps assume a single local repository,
> which is where things break down when the total capacity requirement stacks
> up to be greater than what's available. It seems that Apple's solution has been
> for them to sell you their Cloud storage.

Never caused me any problems.
But some people must have every movie they watch on a DVD or on a HD
I had most of start trek on VHS but after buying it and wathing it a couple of times they all sat on shelves taking up space.
No I have most of it on an external drive. Within 5 mins I can have almost any episode
from an external drive onto a USB stick in my TV .
I don't need them on my internal drive.
You sound like a women who wants to take all her 100 pairs of shoes in a suitcase for a weekend away !

> > Presently I can live without such a card having a few 64GB is enough.
> > I didn;t expect my camera to have a battery life of 3 or more hours when
> > recording video, I was happy enough to be able to use another battery(s)
> > if I needed to.
> The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!

Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
One of the main reasons for going from my canon EOS M3 to M6 mkII was for 4k video
I doubt I'll be able to by any gadget that will convert my M6 mk2 to 8K video.
If I really want 8k I'll have to buy a new camera than that is that.

> > > > Why not buy one with the correct size ?
> > >
> > > It may be cheaper to buy a PC with a small SSD and put a large one into it.
> >
> > That's always the case and I've found it even cheaper to use flikr ~$50 a year
> > for unlimited storage and more convenient as I don't have to carry my computer
> > to a friends house to show them my photos.
> Every approach has trades, of course.
> > Remmber the good old days when a few people at most could flick through your
> > photo album and you check to make sure their hands weren't dirty.
> My memory was more along the lines of gagging them & tying them into a chair
> while getting the slide projector & screen set up. /s

Yes I bored people with that too, especially expecting them to come up with titles for my slides for entering
into compitions at my camera club.

> > When it comes to sharing/showing I'd have to work out how much it would cost
> > me and the PC to go to Australia so my ex flatmate could copy some of my photos,
> > as hers got stolen after he house was broken into.
> And thus, the loss of a plausible excuse to take a week's holiday in Oz...

A week wouldn't be enough for me to recover from jet lag, and TBH she can be a real pain
being French and Female is my diagnosis of her problems, afterc sharing a flat with her for 4 years
Sydney was about the furthers place I could find to recomend as a new home.
>
>
> -hh