Slashdot Mirror


256GB Geometrically Encoded Paper Storage Device

jrieth50 noted that a method of using geometric shapes combined with color to store up to 256GB of data on a sheet of paper or plastic. The article says "Files such as text, images, sounds and video clips are encoded in 'rainbow format' as colored circles, triangles, squares and so on, and printed as dense graphics on paper at a density of 2.7GB per square inch. The paper can then be read through a specially developed scanner and the contents decoded into their original digital format and viewed or played."

9 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. Robustness & Feasibility by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The Rainbow technology is feasible because printed text, readable by the human eye is a very wasteful use of the potential capacity of paper to store data.
    And I'm sure this "Rainbow Technology" is also very wasteful if you would devise a way to encode data on electrons & lay them on the sheet of paper and then read them. The obvious problem being that just exposing the paper to the natural elements would probably render some of the data useless. Now I know that compact disc drives in computers use a form of error correcting codes (I can't recall if it's cyclic redundancy checks or some other form of parity) and I assume that the scheme of this paper technology uses the same (most likely at the cost of a fraction of space). Judging by the word 'rainbow' I'm guessing it uses colorized shapes to encode the data which is a novel idea but what quality must the paper & ink be? Can the paper in my printer be used to encode this data?

    My question would be how much wear & tear can a sample of this medium stand before it is rendered unreadable? I would highly doubt one would be able to fold it--however it would be interesting to see whether creating a diagonal read/write scheme would protect from vertical & horizontal folds with the proper ECC. I think the plastic sheets could potentially be as robust as discs but would you be able to bend them? I doubt it though if they allowed it, it'd probably end up being more expensive than a disc.

    Interesting technology but I'd sure like to hear a lot more of the details of how it works & how it performs before I make a solid judgment on its feasibility.
    --
    My work here is dung.
  2. Must be a very good scanner. by Utopia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would love to know which scanner has the ability to scan with such high fidelity.

  3. hmmm... by leehwtsohg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    600dpi times 8*11 inches makes 32M dots. To get 26GB you need 6500 bits per dot. This gives either an amazing resolution in color separation (as opposed to, say, 32 bits on a screen - maybe 700 different frequencies, each with 10bit separation), or much higher dot density - something like 50000dpi!

  4. Re:Simpler way to debunk the claim by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless he is doing something really novel, like relying on computational power elsewhere to do the compression.

    I have seen articles about algorithms that allow you to calculate the value of any decimal place in Pi.

    Plus, additional ones that allow you to prove (in a mathematical way) that any given string of characters you care to wish for are present in some location somewhere in the Pi decimal string.

    SO the first point allows you to decompress knowing the beginning and ending values, and the second point allows you to pick some pretty long strings.

    That would not really be compression, but more of a lookup table or code that allows anybody to have the table (or recompute it as necessary).

    I agree, completely bogus. For one, you would need to pay lots of attention to the quality of the paper and resolution of the printer to the point it would BE the point of this method of data storage. Paper, is a piss poor medium for really precise images. Plastic or foil would be much better. But this guy mentions that only in passing.

    I recall lots of talk of holographic storage and how a cube of some size stores X. So far real practical data storage has not come of that either.

    Send your investment checks elsewhere, in other words.

  5. Who else here remembers... by solitas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...the old 'softstrip'(?) barcodes from BYTE Magazine? And wasn't there something in NIBBLE too? Did anyone else here ever use them, and what stories do you have about them?

    I remember _finally_ finding an HP barcode wand at a show and hooking it up to my Apple][+. I wrote-up a reader and had a lot of fun doing it and used it to load their programs (ASCII BASIC) - I was surprised at how efficient it was (for the times). It beat the daylights out of cassette storage (couldn't afford a disk drive at that time) and it led me to writing an output application so I could barcode all my work to the printer for storage. Most of those pages are still legible after all these years.

    Good times.

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  6. Re:dots per inch,, color resolution by imroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AFAIK, a CMYK printer can still squirt multiple colours onto one point. Since it's pointless to mix with black, and mixing all three gives you a dark brown that's pretty close to black, that leaves eight reliable colours: white (no ink), cyan, magenta, yellow, red, green, blue, black. So that's basically three bits per dot. For a piece of 8.5x11" paper at 1440dpi, I figure only about 69MiB of storage. Not looking very plausible...

  7. Re:Simpler way to debunk the claim by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In other word, this person is claiming a way to compress arbitrary 250GB into 5GB, losslessly. That is impossible theoretically.

    No, the person made no such claims. You have created a strawman. In a computer, when you read a "1" what is the chance that the following bit will be a "1"? I'm not sure what the real probablility is, but I'm guessing somewhere around 50%. Why? Because the bits are not dependent on the previous bits. However, this guy is using shapes and patterns. Perhaps there is some manner of differential information stored in there. The pixel below is blue and the pixel above is red? Then add green to the blue pixel. I'm not saying that I think he is correct. I'm saying let him prove it before all the people here say it is impossible because they can't think of how it works.

  8. Re:Back of the mental envelope... by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Resolving 16 bits of color for a typical four-color (CMYK) laser printer or even a digital press won't improve things, because you always have exactly four colors plus the medium color (most typically white). Increasing color depth can improve with dye sublimation and similar technologies, but the ink and paper quality (especially absorption rate) need to be strictly controlled.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  9. Re:Related prior art by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem is, all you guys who posted above me aren't thinking inside the box.

    1. Rather than looking at individual dots, group them together into 3x3 matrices. On the paper you are talking about, at 300dpi resolution, there are 85,000 such boxes.
    2. Each matrix can hold an image painted in one of 256 colors on a background painted in one of 255 remaining colors. We've now got 55,488,000,000 bits of storage, or 6,615 MB.
    3. We'll sacrifice the first 256 boxes as a registration area that displays the 256 unique colors as they appear on that particular paper. We'll sacrifice the rest of the top two rows for similar registrations showing matrix boundaries, etc, all done in triple redundancy (and repeated a couple of times, too). I won't bother adjusting the calculations that follow though: as far as the math is concerned, this is an insignificant overhead.
    4. Now consider the shape of the image. If we use an "L" shape of the left column and bottom row of the matrix, we can rotate that into 4 distinct positions, increasing our storage to 26,460 MB.
    5. By dropping the top cell from our original "L", we've got a new figure that can be taken through the same transforms, and we've doubled our storage again. By adding the center dot to all the figures we have made so far, we double the storage yet again. We've now got more than 103 GB of data on that sheet of paper.
    6. And we don't have to be confined to "L" based images, either.

    I expect something a bit more sophisticated than this is being done. A bigger matrix would allow more distinctive shapes and probably be more robust against dust motes, etc. I have no doubt that the technique can be made to work, and it is really appealing! It sounds like the software being developed will work with many of the printers and scanners that are already in common use. And we've got centuries of experience in handling paper. A four drawer filing cabinet could be tomorrow's petabyte archival storage.