RMweb Premium JDW Posted March 27, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 27, 2017 I was looking at an advert today for various limited edition models, and wondered something I've often wondered: Why 512 models? Many limited editions are "Limited to 512 models", why not a round 500, or 525, why such a specific 512? Obviously, I get that the retailer needs a minimum quantity to break even and make a profit, and allow for any returns, faulty examples, and all that kind of thing, but as far back as I can remember (who remembers a well-known Crewe-based company's Lima limited editions?) they have been limited to 512. Is it some kind of magic number that guarantees a profit - regardless of manufacturer, promoter, seller, type of model, profit margin?! Or witchcraft? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 It's all about how many boxes fit in a carton and how many cartons fit on a pallet in volumetric terms to make a stable cuboid shipping package. Clue - 8 cubed equals 512. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted March 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2017 Because that's how many Brush 4s were built Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSG Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 It's all about how many boxes fit in a carton and how many cartons fit on a pallet in volumetric terms to make a stable cuboid shipping package. Clue - 8 cubed equals 512. Yes; the natural human tendency to think of things in round numbers can sometimes blind us to the fact that, particularly when it comes to physical items, what matters more are square numbers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Because that's how many Brush 4s were built Andi They built that many to fit nicely on a pallet But weren't there at least 10 47555s? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Popplewell Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 It's all about how many boxes fit in a carton and how many cartons fit on a pallet in volumetric terms to make a stable cuboid shipping package. Clue - 8 cubed equals 512. So a limited edition of 512 is really a limited edition of one box. Amazing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted March 27, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 27, 2017 It's all about how many boxes fit in a carton and how many cartons fit on a pallet in volumetric terms to make a stable cuboid shipping package. Clue - 8 cubed equals 512. But some limited editions have 504. So are they slightly longer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanders Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 For someone who's worked in IT his entire adult life, 512 is a round number! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted March 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2017 But some limited editions have 504. So are they slightly longer? Perhaps 8 spares for returns. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold phil_sutters Posted March 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2017 .....and it's half 1024, which is a recommended number of pixels width, when uploading to the net - or so I am led to believe. Perhaps some knowledgeable person can say whether there is a correlation between the 512 and the 1024 and why the latter is a good image width for use on the net. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSG Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 .....and it's half 1024, which is a recommended number of pixels width, when uploading to the net - or so I am led to believe. Perhaps some knowledgeable person can say whether there is a correlation between the 512 and the 1024 and why the latter is a good image width for use on the net. Traditionally, screen resolutions used to be measured in multiples of 8, because that makes them a round number of bytes in terms of dimensions (there are 8 bits to a byte) and hence minimises "wasted" memory. 1024 x 768 pixels (128 x 96 bytes) used to be very common 9and the colour depth itself was also measured in multiples of 8: typically, 8, 16 or 32 bit colour). So the "ideal" maximum size for an image was considered to be the most common screen resolution. These days, that's all way out of date, and screen sizes are determined more by what looks good than squeezing maximum performance out of every last byte of memory. So you can now safely disregard this particular old computer wives' tale, and upload your images in whatever resolution makes them look best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JDW Posted March 27, 2017 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 27, 2017 Interesting, thanks for the answers! A totally pointless question really to most of us, but interesting to know there's some reasoning behind it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted March 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2017 In my profession 512 is a full universe.... Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Popplewell Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 But some limited editions have 504. So are they slightly longer? The limited editions of 504 are definitely smaller I don't know if they're slightly longer. What happens to the missing eight? Perhaps it's evaporation on route from China. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 For someone who's worked in IT his entire adult life, 512 is a round number! And there are 10 kinds of people, those that understand binary and those that don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 2mmMark Posted March 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2017 The 504 is far from rare. They're all over North Africa, doing sterling service as long distance desert taxis. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Baron Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Actually, it's more about downloading those images from the web to view in your browser. Yes, you can upload a 4k image (which means a 2048x2048 pix image) but it'll take ages to get in a browser, as it's about 13MB (or more!) in size. Whereas a 1024x768 image is usually well under 1MB and thus loads much quicker, plus it saves on data allowance. Nah, that's not your problem, as you have broadband, right? Well, not everyone has broadband So, uploading your raw images as you can't be @rsed resizing them is at least inconsiderate, or frankly downright rude! NOTE: that last isn't aimed at MarkSG, but those who actually do this. He who fits the glove, etc... @Phil: there actually is a correlation between 512 and 1024, which is the power of 2. Get a calculator out and compute: 29=512, 210=1024. Why 2? It's the base of binary counting, as alluded to before. except a 4K image is in modern parlance is in fact 3840pixels by 2160pixels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 It started with Bachmann, and an order for 500 was normally charged as 504 which covered the cost of the livery samples etc. Of course, if you then sold the samples, you spread the total cost over all the models and could reduce your unit price slightly, otherwise you're spreading the cost of an extra 4 (or later an extra 12) across your 500 models, and its another few pence on the cost that you really don't need. Box sizes don't have much to do with it - Bachmann is quite capable of packing a part-carton to supply the correct number. (CJL) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 except a 4K image is in modern parlance is in fact 3840pixels by 2160pixels Marketing drivel, dear chap! Back in the mists of time, when we first got color* computer graphics, IBM started the naming convention for graphics dimensions: 320x240 = CGA = Color Graphics Adaptor (Original IBM PC, 1981) 640x350 = EGA = Enhanced Graphics Adaptor (IBM PC AT, 1984) 640x480 = VGA = Video Graphics Array (IBM PS/2, as well as the following two,1987) 800x600 = SVGA = Super VGA 1024x786= XGA = Extended Graphics Array then IBM gave up on PCs more or less, but the graphics card manufacturers and display manufacturers vied with each other to produce all sorts of resolutions with strange acronyms and no one really worries about screen dimensions nowadays. Unless you're Apple and want to differentiate your handset from all the Android ones. "Retina Display", anyone? And, as I said, we're back to marketing drivel! * Its really a medieval French word from Heraldry, I believe. Although for some reason, we don't use the associated color names..... Quick spelin cheque then outski........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MJI Posted April 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 3, 2017 47 reasons of course, 1 per class member Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Baron Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Marketing drivel, dear chap! Back in the mists of time, when we first got color* computer graphics, IBM started the naming convention for graphics dimensions: 320x240 = CGA = Color Graphics Adaptor (Original IBM PC, 1981) 640x350 = EGA = Enhanced Graphics Adaptor (IBM PC AT, 1984) 640x480 = VGA = Video Graphics Array (IBM PS/2, as well as the following two,1987) 800x600 = SVGA = Super VGA 1024x786= XGA = Extended Graphics Array then IBM gave up on PCs more or less, but the graphics card manufacturers and display manufacturers vied with each other to produce all sorts of resolutions with strange acronyms and no one really worries about screen dimensions nowadays. Unless you're Apple and want to differentiate your handset from all the Android ones. "Retina Display", anyone? And, as I said, we're back to marketing drivel! * Its really a medieval French word from Heraldry, I believe. Although for some reason, we don't use the associated color names..... Quick spelin cheque then outski........ Except you miss out a lot of "standards" there.... the simple fact is that marketing drivel or not 4k refers to the video screens of 3840x2160 - 2160P may well be a more correct term for it.. but what 4K does NOT refer to is a 4Mega pixel image. which in widescreen is 2688x1520 - and is more of a IP Camera standard than anything else now. Crazy isnt it.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.