[Guardian]

The next future is embedding music into our brains. We shall take it with us everywhere.

Ah, yeah, that goes along with downloading our minds to the cloud so we live forever right? 

[Darth-Apple]

It does indeed.

[SpookyZalost]

honestly I wouldn't mind downloading my mind onto a crystal based quantum computer, because that's the only way you're going to be able to store that which is I the great Zalost! muahahahahaha computers of the future.

Crystal storage. Crystal/Carbon Lattice with industrial diamond/Fullerine hybrid 3D/4D Circuits.

4D because quantumly entangled crystal latice circuits are massively FTL which means that it computes so many numbers in seconds we can't even begin to comprehend it's limits... I don't think petahertz would begin to quantify the measurement.

until then though I'm content with a pringles tin sized package Containing the sum of all human knowledge, entertainment, and invention.

after all the internet is estimated to be about 5 petabytes in size, 1 petabyte is 1024 Terabytes, and one of those crystals holds over 300 TB of data.... it'd have to be compressed and I'd have to separate out the porn but after that I'd probably end up with something about that size.

there is a catch though, I do believe the crystals are ROM not R/W so you can only write to them once...

on the other hand... OGG Vorbis original copies of audio recordings from the music studio on crystal discs played on a cyberdeck? hells to the yes.

[Darth-Apple]

If you had that much storage we wouldn't be using OGG vorbis for one second! WAV or FLAC for the win

[SpookyZalost]

If you had that much storage we wouldn't be using OGG vorbis for one second! WAV or FLAC for the win

man I haven't heard of people using WAV format files in years!

[Guardian]

Old WAV(e) of technology.

[Darth-Apple]

WAV is just uncompressed lossless digital audio. People use FLAC nowadays because it's still lossless but it's compressed. If you really have that much storage, i doubt compression would ever become an issue.

[Guardian]

WAV is just uncompressed lossless digital audio. People use FLAC nowadays because it's still lossless but it's compressed. If you really have that much storage, i doubt compression would ever become an issue.

It will be needed when we get lossless video....

[Darth-Apple]

WAV is just uncompressed lossless digital audio. People use FLAC nowadays because it's still lossless but it's compressed. If you really have that much storage, i doubt compression would ever become an issue.

It will be needed when we get lossless video....

Good lord that's a thing? 

[SpookyZalost]

WAV is just uncompressed lossless digital audio. People use FLAC nowadays because it's still lossless but it's compressed. If you really have that much storage, i doubt compression would ever become an issue.

It will be needed when we get lossless video....

Good lord that's a thing? 

wait what?! how's that possible? unless you happen to have a 120fps analog 4K camera or something to record it with I don't think that's really possible... and even then our eyes probably aren't sensitive enough to appreciate lossless video at the resolutions we have now...

but I could be mistaken?

[Darth-Apple]

I mean I suppose it's possible... Just take 30 PNG images per second!

[SpookyZalost]

I mean I suppose it's possible... Just take 30 PNG images per second!

I mean I guess, but lossless video hasn't really existed ever, it's more of an issue of Dimensions and physics than it is one of capability.

you're limited by your recording equipment, and to get lossless video the way resolutions are... let's put this another way, define lossless video.

because for me that's requiring a 3D camera, capable of imaging fast enough without any image loss, to match up to what the human eye can see perfectly.

and then feeding that to a screen that's compatible.

sound is one thing, audio has no visual dimension so you can accurately reproduce something without loss and without artifacts showing up that weren't in the original recording.

but video is far more complex.

if we're just talking compression-less video there's serious limitations depending on what you're recording, the original source would be huge, we're talking 15 maybe 20 gigabytes, and that comes from my experience editing video for youtube videos, I'm sure movies are far larger than that before they're compressed into whatever format.

Blu-Ray get's close with it's formats but there's still compression.

basically it's the equivalent of taking the highest quality film available, and perfectly reproducing it in a digital form, without compression, or video artifacts, and they don't make analog film for movies anymore.

[Darth-Apple]

Video compression relies heavily on the fact that there are major elements of each individual frame that are persistent from one frame to the next, and the compression algorithms are based on a good understanding of what the eye will catch going from one frame to the next. There isn't really a video format that isn't heavily compressed. Some just look better to the eye than others.

The standard for WAV is 44.1 KHZ per second. Still not an anolog tape recording, but it's still defined as lossless. You can get anolog audio recording if you really want to be technical, but there's no such thing for video.

[Guardian]

I've never heard of such a thing. Didn't realize it would spur such deep thought.

Personally, any lossless video would have to include the real 3d that people see and even feel.

In the end, if it ever does 'exist,' then it is what is accepted/defined.

[Darth-Apple]

Any lossless audio would then have to include realistic infinite-surround, being able to identify precisely where the sound came from. Not for six speakers. For infinite speakers. Would have to capture every single facet of audio from every single angle.

Don't think true lossless even exists.

[Guardian]

Any lossless audio would then have to include realistic infinite-surround, being able to identify precisely where the sound came from. Not for six speakers. For infinite speakers. Would have to capture every single facet of audio from every single angle.

Don't think true lossless even exists.

Yeah. I agree with that. But, any 'lossless' anything is defined by acceptance. 

[SpookyZalost]

Video compression relies heavily on the fact that there are major elements of each individual frame that are persistent from one frame to the next, and the compression algorithms are based on a good understanding of what the eye will catch going from one frame to the next. There isn't really a video format that isn't heavily compressed. Some just look better to the eye than others.

The standard for WAV is 44.1 KHZ per second. Still not an anolog tape recording, but it's still defined as lossless. You can get anolog audio recording if you really want to be technical, but there's no such thing for video.

there's laserdisc.
there's also 35mm film

[Darth-Apple]

Yeah but those films are still taken with digital cameras