Rather than multiplying by 256 colors/dot, I think you should be multiplying by 8 bits/dot (same as 256 colors). Also, 1,800,000 bytes is a MB, not a GB.
So it really should look something like this:
300 dot/in * 300 dot/in * 8 bits/dot * 8.5 in * 11 in = 67,320,000 bits per page = 8,415,000 MB
First, don't most color scanners scan in true 32-bit color?
Second, he's not just using a single dot of color to represent the 32-bits, he's using the color in shapes, which will take many dots (and is probably less efficient than using just a single dot), so I would imagine he's using an even higher DPI printer (my really really cheap printer at home is 1200x1200 dpi).
Perhaps the purpose of the shapes is to make the data readable after some damage has been done (imagine a square being recognizable after part of it has been destroyed, a single dot wouldn't be recoverable).
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than multiplying by 256 colors/dot, I think you should be multiplying by 8 bits/dot (same as 256 colors). Also, 1,800,000 bytes is a MB, not a GB. So it really should look something like this: 300 dot/in * 300 dot/in * 8 bits/dot * 8.5 in * 11 in = 67,320,000 bits per page = 8,415,000 MB
First, don't most color scanners scan in true 32-bit color? Second, he's not just using a single dot of color to represent the 32-bits, he's using the color in shapes, which will take many dots (and is probably less efficient than using just a single dot), so I would imagine he's using an even higher DPI printer (my really really cheap printer at home is 1200x1200 dpi). Perhaps the purpose of the shapes is to make the data readable after some damage has been done (imagine a square being recognizable after part of it has been destroyed, a single dot wouldn't be recoverable).
I'd take 0.27 or even 0.027 million for that matter.