Is there a model identfier for SD memory?
GavinB
something similar to the way a hard disk drive has a model number.
I'm hoping I can insert my SD card into a memory reader on my PC and
read off its exact model number.
I want to get some more memory with a similar speed spec to a card I
once bought. My SD card is labelled "2GB Transcend x150" but that's
all the info I can see.
I'm aware that speed ratings such as "x150" can be an inaccurate
indicator of actual read/write performance.
--
Posted to relevant groups: hardware, photo and storage
Arno
> Does an SD memory card contain a unique identifier? Maybe it has
> something similar to the way a hard disk drive has a model number.
A model number is not unique. a) it applies to a set of drives
and b) these drives can have different construction even with the
same model number. HDD manufacturers have been known to even have
different numbers of platters in disks with the same model number.
> I'm hoping I can insert my SD card into a memory reader on my PC and
> read off its exact model number.
> I want to get some more memory with a similar speed spec to a card I
> once bought. My SD card is labelled "2GB Transcend x150" but that's
> all the info I can see.
> I'm aware that speed ratings such as "x150" can be an inaccurate
> indicator of actual read/write performance.
The model number will not help either, see above.
Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: ar...@wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
Fred McKenzie
GavinB <inv...@nomail.com> wrote:
> I want to get some more memory with a similar speed spec to a card I
> once bought. My SD card is labelled "2GB Transcend x150" but that's
> all the info I can see.
Gavin-
There is a "class" of SDHC card related to speed. Some have a number
printed on the label, like 3 or 4.
Be sure your camera can handle the high capacity SDHC cards. Older
cameras were limited to about 2 GB. If yours is limited, you may
benefit from a faster card, but not a bigger one.
Fred
kony
<inv...@nomail.com> wrote:
>Does an SD memory card contain a unique identifier? Maybe it has
>something similar to the way a hard disk drive has a model number.
A manufacturer may, or may not, continue to use the same
controller and flash chip in their same model #. All they
typically guarantee is that it meets "up to" the max read
speed listed with SD, or at least that speed with SDHC.
However, many cards have very light/small ink printing on
the plastic that can tell you exactly what the card is...
but, that doesn't help you buy another of the same unless
you have the physical card in your hand to read off the
markings on it too.
>I'm hoping I can insert my SD card into a memory reader on my PC and
>read off its exact model number.
Not going to happen.
>I want to get some more memory with a similar speed spec to a card I
>once bought. My SD card is labelled "2GB Transcend x150" but that's
>all the info I can see.
The easiest answer would be buy another Transcent 150X card,
but that is no guarantee it is identical. Another option is
buy any other reputable brand of 150X or better card, since
there are faster than 150X SD cards.
>
>I'm aware that speed ratings such as "x150" can be an inaccurate
>indicator of actual read/write performance.
... true, but it could also mean there is some other 150X
card even faster than the Transcend you have.
Your best bet is reading reviews, the more recent the better
(though today, most would be focusing on SDHC rather than SD
you seem to be seeking), and buy what benched best if it's
worth any possible price difference.
Beyond that, the only highly likely way to get the exact
same pair of cards is buy both at the same time from the
same place.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
GavinB <inv...@nomail.com> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I doubt you have permission from infoUSA to use their domain
"nomail.com". Please do not misuse other peoples' domains.
> I want to get some more memory with a similar speed spec to a card I
> once bought. My SD card is labelled "2GB Transcend x150" but that's
> all the info I can see.
Buy a x150 or faster card from a reputable flash memory
maker. There, you are done.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
The slime, or, as this nameshifting troll is also known, the
"P&S troll" again mangles truth when it does not spews forth
complete lies. It starts with the stolen, fake email adress ...
Corrections Officer <corre...@officer.info> wrote:
> Not completely true. There is a "hybrid" type of SD card that is still
> being sold by a few providers, targeted at people with older SD-ONLY
> cameras. It is 4GB in size.
It's not hybrid, it is an "SD card" that does not comply to the
specs (unless you read them very creatively). It works by pure
chance in some cameras, but noone sane would bet on it.
-Wolfgang
D Johnson
Proving that you've never even used any camera that takes SD cards, nor
used any of the 4GB SD cards. Talking out of your ass again. Proving to all
the world again that all you know is what you can imagine and invent about
photography, with no real-life experience with any of the equipment nor
methods.
Thanks again for proving to everyone what a know-nothing
pretend-photographer troll that you truly are.
NameHere
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Here you will find a list with SD-only cameras that are using the 4GB SD
cards, with benchmark tests done on FAT16 and FAT32 formatted cards to
show the speed improvements when formatted in FAT16.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Benchmarks
All of the information there proving you to be nothing but a total idiot
and just another pretend-photographer role-playing troll who has never been
near any camera nor any SD cards of any type in your lifetime.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Hello, sliume, liar, idiot. Plonk another sock puppet.
You're sooo easy to see through, any stupid P&S camera can do that.
-Wolfgang
John Turco
<heavily edited for brevity>
> Here you will find a list with SD-only cameras that are using the 4GB SD
> cards, with benchmark tests done on FAT16 and FAT32 formatted cards to
> show the speed improvements when formatted in FAT16.
>
> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Benchmarks
<edited>
Could one quicken >any< memory card, merely by formatting it in FAT16?
(That is, possibly sacrificing capacity, in favor of speed?)
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
David J Taylor
> (That is, possibly sacrificing capacity, in favor of speed?)
>
> --
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
In principle, yes, but let's see the tests (a) showing exactly what the
speed difference is, and whether it favours FAT16 or FAT 32, and (b)
exactly what improvements you would get in camera usage where the the
camera normally buffers the data itself, before trying to write it to the
card.
My suspicion is that the difference for typical in-camera use would be
negligible, and for video you would likely want the higher capacity in any
case.
(Note that in the URL given, the instruction given is to run the test
twice, thus enabling any caching along the path. In actual camera usage,
you don't normally write the same image to the card twice over).
David
NameHere
>NameHere wrote:
>
><heavily edited for brevity>
>
>> Here you will find a list with SD-only cameras that are using the 4GB SD
>> cards, with benchmark tests done on FAT16 and FAT32 formatted cards to
>> show the speed improvements when formatted in FAT16.
>>
>> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Benchmarks
>
><edited>
>
>Could one quicken >any< memory card, merely by formatting it in FAT16?
>(That is, possibly sacrificing capacity, in favor of speed?)
Test it, let us know. I only know it works on SD cards in most all cameras
that support a FAT16 formatted card.
NameHere
<david-...@blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
>> Could one quicken >any< memory card, merely by formatting it in FAT16?
>> (That is, possibly sacrificing capacity, in favor of speed?)
>>
>> --
>> Cordially,
>> John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
>
>In principle, yes, but let's see the tests (a) showing exactly what the
>speed difference is, and whether it favours FAT16 or FAT 32, and (b)
>exactly what improvements you would get in camera usage where the the
>camera normally buffers the data itself, before trying to write it to the
>card.
>
>My suspicion is that the difference for typical in-camera use would be
>negligible, and for video you would likely want the higher capacity in any
>case.
Not true. In the CHDK capable cameras in question, it allows for you to
increase the video quality far beyond the default built into the camera.
Unless you have an exceptionally fast card the camera's buffer cannot keep
up and you will see this reported as a buffer error in the EVF/LCD display
when used with SD cards not capable of the required write-speed. In
instances where people require the very best in video quality from their
cameras, they will opt for the fastest card speeds in lieu of capacity. You
are aware too, aren't you, that card capacity is only affected on FAT16
format with many smaller files that fail to fill in each FAT16 space
requirement (rounding up for each file smaller than that required by a
FAT16 cluster) than one large one. A large file, as in the case of videos,
is hardly effected at all by using a FAT16 format. Do go study up what on
FAT really means, it might surprise you, and you won't make such foolish
comments in the future.
If only you foolish trolls would comment on what you really knew, the post
quota of usenet would drop by 99%.
John Turco
No, thanks; I was merely curious. Speed doesn't concern me very much, as I
so rarely shoot video.
NameHere
>NameHere wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:16:56 -0600, John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>> >NameHere wrote:
>> >
>> ><heavily edited for brevity>
>> >
>> >> Here you will find a list with SD-only cameras that are using the 4GB SD
>> >> cards, with benchmark tests done on FAT16 and FAT32 formatted cards to
>> >> show the speed improvements when formatted in FAT16.
>> >>
>> >> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Benchmarks
>> >
>> ><edited>
>> >
>> >Could one quicken >any< memory card, merely by formatting it in FAT16?
>> >(That is, possibly sacrificing capacity, in favor of speed?)
>>
>> Test it, let us know. I only know it works on SD cards in most all cameras
>> that support a FAT16 formatted card.
>
>
>No, thanks; I was merely curious. Speed doesn't concern me very much, as I
>so rarely shoot video.
Do you ever shoot your images to save them in the larger file-size RAW
format? Or use the high-speed burst modes when shooting for JPG images (or
RAW)? Then speed of the card will be important to you. The faster the
camera can write a file to the card then the faster your camera is ready
for another photo. I can get by just fine using the slowest cards for video
on my cameras, but I can't get the performance needed when shooting still
frame images in any of the aforementioned circumstance. A slow SD card is
always more of a bottleneck for RAW files or burst still-frame modes than
it will ever be for video. When shooting hand-held shots in burst exposure
or focus bracketing modes then you need as little time as possible between
those hand-held shots to try to ensure all frames will still line up as
much as possible when stacked later, without a lot of time spent in
realigning them. The less you have to do later, the better.
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> >> >Could one quicken >any< memory card, merely by formatting it in FAT16?
> >> >(That is, possibly sacrificing capacity, in favor of speed?)
> >>
> >> Test it, let us know. I only know it works on SD cards in most all cameras
> >> that support a FAT16 formatted card.
> >
> >
> >No, thanks; I was merely curious. Speed doesn't concern me very much, as
> >I so rarely shoot video.
>
> Do you ever shoot your images to save them in the larger file-size RAW
> format? Or use the high-speed burst modes when shooting for JPG images (or
> RAW)? Then speed of the card will be important to you. The faster the
> camera can write a file to the card then the faster your camera is ready
> for another photo. I can get by just fine using the slowest cards for video
> on my cameras, but I can't get the performance needed when shooting still
> frame images in any of the aforementioned circumstance. A slow SD card is
> always more of a bottleneck for RAW files or burst still-frame modes than
> it will ever be for video. When shooting hand-held shots in burst exposure
> or focus bracketing modes then you need as little time as possible between
> those hand-held shots to try to ensure all frames will still line up as
> much as possible when stacked later, without a lot of time spent in
> realigning them. The less you have to do later, the better.
I own two RAW-capable cameras, a Kodak P850 (5 megapixels, 12x "super zoom")
and a Pentax K100D (6 MP DSLR). Due to software issues, I've only taken a
handful of RAW shots, with the P850 (and none, using the Pentax).
Kodak's "EasyShare" program is a bit of a resource hog, and the K100D's
bundled Silkypix-based stuff (Pentax "PHOTO Browser 3" and Pentax "PHOTO
Laboratory 3") is quite sluggish, on my aged, home-built Pentium III PC
(1GHz/1GB RAM/Windows XP).
In the upcoming months, I intend to assemble a much better computer (Intel
"Core 2 Quad"/4GB RAM/Vista 64-bit); then, the aforementioned applications
should run far more smoothly.
As for "burst modes" of any type, I almost never employ them, regardless
of the digicam in question (and I have many P&S models, predominated by
Kodak).