I have a friend who’s a singer. He showed me how much storage 1 4 min music video took. 40 min per camera, 3 cameras, 4K. Unedited raw footage came out at ~2.5TB. It’s just insane to me. My PC has 1TB of storage.
I have a friend who’s a singer. He showed me how much storage 1 4 min music video took. 40 min per camera, 3 cameras, 4K. Unedited raw footage came out at ~2.5TB. It’s just insane to me. My PC has 1TB of storage.
Well, TB, GB, MB are decimal (powers of 10). TiB, GiB, MiB are binary (powers of 2). So that’s correct.
Yeah but that’s a BS measure they created decades later. We never used MiB in the 80s and 90s.
To clarify, it was always powers of 2 in the old days.
Kilo and mega prefixes have been used for far far longer than computers have been around and they mean 1000 and 1000000. It’s only in computing where these prefixes were corrupted because they were deemed “closed enough” and caused confusion because people expect the terminology they use everywhere else to also apply to their computer.
You’re not wrong- but when the change happened, it seemed to be around the time HDD manufacturers started taking flak for selling high capacity drives that didn’t match formatted capacity by larger and larger margins. OS level files sizes were always 2^n - it was a real PitA when Apple switched to base 10 for gui size reporting. I believe terminal utilities still measure file size in 1024 bytes.
Formatted size will always be smaller than raw size as you are storing a file system and there are lots of different ones with different space requirements.
Storage is measured in binary base. All other measurements are marketing.
Except the marketing in this case is actually more accurate. Using ‘kilo-’ to refer to 1024 of something is a straight up misnomer. The Ancient hackers really cursed us with an ambiguous convention for counting bytes.
Thanks, I was too lazy to explain that haha