Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Does faster CF card make significant difference for D70s?

Reply
Thread Tools

Does faster CF card make significant difference for D70s?

 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2006

>> On 20 Sep 2006 11:57:15 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:
>>
>> That's because 5.4 MB is half the size of the 10 MB I used in my
> > guesstimate ... half the file size writes twice as fast ...


>ASAAR wrote:
>
> You just blew it, bub. Your "guesstimate" was off by the amount
> that I stated, which is why the D70 writes twice as fast as you gave
> it credit for.


Taking 2 sec to write 10 MB (my example) and taking 1 sec to write 5 MB
(your example) means the transfer rate is the same, 5 MB/sec. Dunno
why you can't grasp that ...

Bill

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2006
On 21 Sep 2006 07:35:46 -0700, Bill Hilton, fighting a clearly lost
battle, wrote:

>> You just blew it, bub. Your "guesstimate" was off by the amount
>> that I stated, which is why the D70 writes twice as fast as you gave
>> it credit for.

>
> Taking 2 sec to write 10 MB (my example) and taking 1 sec to write 5 MB
> (your example) means the transfer rate is the same, 5 MB/sec. Dunno
> why you can't grasp that ...


Playing the fool again, are you? (and this is no exaggeration or
hyperbole - it's literally true). You're working overtime trying to
misunderstand. Of course the transfer rate is 5MB/sec. But your
completely off-base guesstimate allowed you to make the similarly
erroneous claim that after the buffer filled, the D70 would continue
saving RAW files at the rate of one shot every 2 seconds, when in
fact RAW shots could continue at double that rate, one shot per
second. But I stated this already, and for one who previously said:

> But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses
> work with it? What a moron ...


you appear to value high frame rates, so if you can't grasp the
difference between 1 second per shot and 2 seconds per shot, we can
only assume that you also have no clue as to where the moron sits.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
ASAAR wrote:

> On 21 Sep 2006 07:35:46 -0700, Bill Hilton, fighting a clearly lost
> battle, wrote:
>
>
>>> You just blew it, bub. Your "guesstimate" was off by the amount
>>>that I stated, which is why the D70 writes twice as fast as you gave
>>>it credit for.

>>
>>Taking 2 sec to write 10 MB (my example) and taking 1 sec to write 5 MB
>>(your example) means the transfer rate is the same, 5 MB/sec. Dunno
>>why you can't grasp that ...

>
>
> Playing the fool again, are you? (and this is no exaggeration or
> hyperbole - it's literally true). You're working overtime trying to
> misunderstand. Of course the transfer rate is 5MB/sec. But your
> completely off-base guesstimate allowed you to make the similarly
> erroneous claim that after the buffer filled, the D70 would continue
> saving RAW files at the rate of one shot every 2 seconds, when in
> fact RAW shots could continue at double that rate, one shot per
> second. But I stated this already, and for one who previously said:


There is a simple solution to understanding this problem, and that
is what are the ranges of D70S raw file sizes? I have some
D70s NEF, but all are of a uniformly lit blank wall (for
testing sensor noise) and dark frames. The sizes range up
to 5.6 MBytes. Real scenes would be larger. The fastest write
rate on the Galbraith site for the D70s is 5.272 MB/sec, so it is
simple computation. Perhaps some other D70s users can say how
big their NEF files are, including the OP. My Canon raw files
also range be a factor of several in size depending on content.
The upper limit would be uncompressed, so for a D70s camera,
at 12 bits/pixel, one would get
3008 * 2000 *12/8 = 9.02 MBytes + exif data

>>But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses
>>work with it? What a moron ...

>
> you appear to value high frame rates, so if you can't grasp the
> difference between 1 second per shot and 2 seconds per shot, we can
> only assume that you also have no clue as to where the moron sits.


I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:35:56 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark) wrote:

>> You're working overtime trying to
>> misunderstand. Of course the transfer rate is 5MB/sec. But your
>> completely off-base guesstimate allowed you to make the similarly
>> erroneous claim that after the buffer filled, the D70 would continue
>> saving RAW files at the rate of one shot every 2 seconds, when in
>> fact RAW shots could continue at double that rate, one shot per
>> second. But I stated this already, and for one who previously said:

>
> There is a simple solution to understanding this problem, and that
> is what are the ranges of D70S raw file sizes? I have some
> D70s NEF, but all are of a uniformly lit blank wall (for
> testing sensor noise) and dark frames. The sizes range up
> to 5.6 MBytes. Real scenes would be larger.


Really? Would the D70 and D70s have significantly different file
sizes? According to a dpreview table for the D70, the approximate
RAW+JPEG file sizes are 6,100KB and the RAW file sizes come to about
5,400KB. As 5,400KB is about 5.27MB, and these are approximate file
sizes for typical files, the D70 might be expected to produce files
smaller than 5.0MB for shots of a uniformly lit blank wall. Would
you care to specify the other end of the range that you got? The
smallest file sizes would be of interest too, you know.


> The fastest write
> rate on the Galbraith site for the D70s is 5.272 MB/sec, so it is
> simple computation. Perhaps some other D70s users can say how
> big their NEF files are, including the OP. My Canon raw files
> also range be a factor of several in size depending on content.
> The upper limit would be uncompressed, so for a D70s camera,
> at 12 bits/pixel, one would get
> 3008 * 2000 *12/8 = 9.02 MBytes + exif data


Are you serious? Do you actually think that the D70 sometimes
saves compressed RAW files and sometimes saves uncompressed RAW
files? If not, what were you trying to show here? In my first
reply to Bill I presented the information that is provided in
dpreview's review of the D70 (on the Timings & File Sizes page).
And the table clearly shows that the D70 saves the first 4 frames at
a 2.9 fps rate, and slows down to 1.0 fps for the remaining RAW
files, until the CF card is filled. You can play with formulas all
you want, but the D70 is not a Canon, and as far as I can see it
never saves RAW files that are over 9.02 MB in size. The rate given
by dpreview is entirely consistent with the fastest rate shown on
Galbraith's web site, and doesn't contradict anything I can see on
dpreview's pages.


>>>But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses
>>>work with it? What a moron ...

>>
>> you appear to value high frame rates, so if you can't grasp the
>> difference between 1 second per shot and 2 seconds per shot, we can
>> only assume that you also have no clue as to where the moron sits.

>
> I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
> and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
> newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.


I agree. And as he's already stated to me, you're both friends
and he evidently sticks up for you just as you stick up for him.
And you both are good photographers that are willing to share
pictures and your experiences. But sometimes you can't see the
forest for the trees, or put another way, can't see the solution for
the formulas. Formulas don't lie, unless they're based on false
data, such as when he stated:

> if your NEF files are say 10 MB that means you wait about 3 sec
> between shots after the buffer is filled. The fastest cards they tested
> are transferring a bit faster than 5 MB/sec so would take about 2 sec
> between shots ...


and then it was easy to see where his mistake was. He seems to
have assumed that since some RAW files are about 10MB, that that's
what he'd use for the D70s's file size. I don't know where the 10MB
came from though. His own 1D Mark II has an 8mp sensor and produces
8MB RAW files, so if he was to guess at the size of the 6mp D70's
RAW file size, you'd think that 6MB would come to mind before 10MB.
But since the RAW files are 1/2 the size that he guessed (which Bill
admitted - "That's because 5.4 MB is half the size of the 10 MB I
used in my guesstimate"), his calculation of capturing RAW images at
2 seconds per frame was off. The rate should have been one second
per frame. No big deal, but when anyone provides a bogus rate that
erroneously states that a camera is twice as slow as it really is,
it deserves to be corrected. I'd do the same if it was a Canon that
was made to look worse than it really is.

I don't know why you seem to be trying to resurrect Bill's bogus
file write rate, unless the D70s actually saves uncompressed RAW
files that are nearly twice as large as those saved by the D70. If
that's the case, then you and Bill would be correct. But I haven't
heard that the D70s made that change, and it would seem that if the
improved version of the D70 took twice as long to write RAW files,
more than one person would have complained long and loudly.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:35:56 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark) wrote:
>
>
>>>You're working overtime trying to
>>>misunderstand. Of course the transfer rate is 5MB/sec. But your
>>>completely off-base guesstimate allowed you to make the similarly
>>>erroneous claim that after the buffer filled, the D70 would continue
>>>saving RAW files at the rate of one shot every 2 seconds, when in
>>>fact RAW shots could continue at double that rate, one shot per
>>>second. But I stated this already, and for one who previously said:

>>
>>There is a simple solution to understanding this problem, and that
>>is what are the ranges of D70S raw file sizes? I have some
>>D70s NEF, but all are of a uniformly lit blank wall (for
>>testing sensor noise) and dark frames. The sizes range up
>>to 5.6 MBytes. Real scenes would be larger.

>
>
> Really? Would the D70 and D70s have significantly different file
> sizes? According to a dpreview table for the D70, the approximate
> RAW+JPEG file sizes are 6,100KB and the RAW file sizes come to about
> 5,400KB. As 5,400KB is about 5.27MB, and these are approximate file
> sizes for typical files, the D70 might be expected to produce files
> smaller than 5.0MB for shots of a uniformly lit blank wall. Would
> you care to specify the other end of the range that you got? The
> smallest file sizes would be of interest too, you know.
>
>
>
>> The fastest write
>>rate on the Galbraith site for the D70s is 5.272 MB/sec, so it is
>>simple computation. Perhaps some other D70s users can say how
>>big their NEF files are, including the OP. My Canon raw files
>>also range be a factor of several in size depending on content.
>>The upper limit would be uncompressed, so for a D70s camera,
>>at 12 bits/pixel, one would get
>> 3008 * 2000 *12/8 = 9.02 MBytes + exif data

>
>
> Are you serious? Do you actually think that the D70 sometimes
> saves compressed RAW files and sometimes saves uncompressed RAW
> files? If not, what were you trying to show here? In my first
> reply to Bill I presented the information that is provided in
> dpreview's review of the D70 (on the Timings & File Sizes page).
> And the table clearly shows that the D70 saves the first 4 frames at
> a 2.9 fps rate, and slows down to 1.0 fps for the remaining RAW
> files, until the CF card is filled. You can play with formulas all
> you want, but the D70 is not a Canon, and as far as I can see it
> never saves RAW files that are over 9.02 MB in size. The rate given
> by dpreview is entirely consistent with the fastest rate shown on
> Galbraith's web site, and doesn't contradict anything I can see on
> dpreview's pages.
>
>
>
>>>>But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses
>>>>work with it? What a moron ...
>>>
>>> you appear to value high frame rates, so if you can't grasp the
>>>difference between 1 second per shot and 2 seconds per shot, we can
>>>only assume that you also have no clue as to where the moron sits.

>>
>>I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
>>and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
>>newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.

>
>
> I agree. And as he's already stated to me, you're both friends
> and he evidently sticks up for you just as you stick up for him.
> And you both are good photographers that are willing to share
> pictures and your experiences. But sometimes you can't see the
> forest for the trees, or put another way, can't see the solution for
> the formulas. Formulas don't lie, unless they're based on false
> data, such as when he stated:
>
>
>>if your NEF files are say 10 MB that means you wait about 3 sec
>>between shots after the buffer is filled. The fastest cards they tested
>>are transferring a bit faster than 5 MB/sec so would take about 2 sec
>>between shots ...

>
>
> and then it was easy to see where his mistake was. He seems to
> have assumed that since some RAW files are about 10MB, that that's
> what he'd use for the D70s's file size. I don't know where the 10MB
> came from though. His own 1D Mark II has an 8mp sensor and produces
> 8MB RAW files, so if he was to guess at the size of the 6mp D70's
> RAW file size, you'd think that 6MB would come to mind before 10MB.
> But since the RAW files are 1/2 the size that he guessed (which Bill
> admitted - "That's because 5.4 MB is half the size of the 10 MB I
> used in my guesstimate"), his calculation of capturing RAW images at
> 2 seconds per frame was off. The rate should have been one second
> per frame. No big deal, but when anyone provides a bogus rate that
> erroneously states that a camera is twice as slow as it really is,
> it deserves to be corrected. I'd do the same if it was a Canon that
> was made to look worse than it really is.
>
> I don't know why you seem to be trying to resurrect Bill's bogus
> file write rate, unless the D70s actually saves uncompressed RAW
> files that are nearly twice as large as those saved by the D70. If
> that's the case, then you and Bill would be correct. But I haven't
> heard that the D70s made that change, and it would seem that if the
> improved version of the D70 took twice as long to write RAW files,
> more than one person would have complained long and loudly.
>


You accuse people of having reading comprehension problems; how ironic.
Go back and look what I wrote. I computed the UPPER LIMIT to the
file size. Then I gave real data for flat test scenes of
5.4 mbytes/raw file, so a lower limit for normally exposed scenes
(dark frames are lower yet). Reality is likely in between flat test
scenes and the upper limit. The D70s is what the OP has.

Get a life, and stop foaming at the mouth!
Over some simple math you turn this thread into a major attack on people.
The mark of a troll.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
>ASAAR wrote:
>
> then it was easy to see where his (Bill's) mistake was. He seems to
> have assumed that since some RAW files are about 10MB, that that's
> what he'd use for the D70s's file size. I don't know where the 10MB
> came from though.


Jeez guys, this isn't a big deal ... let me explain where the 10 MB
number came from (it's not a Canon conspiracy to make Nikon look slow)
.... the OP asked whether he'll see a big speed up if he switches from
his Kingston card to a faster one for this camera ... the Galbraith
data says the closest Kingston he tested has a 3.2 MB/sec xfer rate,
the fastest other cards a bit faster than 5 MB/sec.

You might look at that and say "Wow, gotta get a faster card" but if
you look at actual times it might not seem so appealing, so I made up
an example for the OP ... I plucked 10 MB out of the air solely because
it's easily divisible by 5 and 3.2, giving near-integer numbers. The
actual file size will vary based on ISO and subject and I assumed
anyone with the camera would look at their average file size and do the
math for themselves. If the average file is actually only 5 MB then my
point was that the difference between 1 sec and 1.6 sec for the fastest
card vs what he already owns might not be enough to warrant speeding
down to Fry's and buying new cards.

What a waste of bandwidth ...

Bill

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:44:17 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark) wrote:

>> I don't know why you seem to be trying to resurrect Bill's bogus
>> file write rate, unless the D70s actually saves uncompressed RAW
>> files that are nearly twice as large as those saved by the D70. If
>> that's the case, then you and Bill would be correct. But I haven't
>> heard that the D70s made that change, and it would seem that if the
>> improved version of the D70 took twice as long to write RAW files,
>> more than one person would have complained long and loudly.

>
> You accuse people of having reading comprehension problems; how ironic.
> Go back and look what I wrote. I computed the UPPER LIMIT to the
> file size. Then I gave real data for flat test scenes of
> 5.4 mbytes/raw file, so a lower limit for normally exposed scenes
> (dark frames are lower yet). Reality is likely in between flat test
> scenes and the upper limit. The D70s is what the OP has.


Sorry, but all you've done with your inappropriate calculations is
turn yourself into a sorry parody of yourself. You didn't just
calculate an UPPER LIMIT, you also attempted to show that the
published values for the compressed file sizes were wrong, because
your sizes for what should be highly compressed files (of your
uniformly lit blank wall NEFs) were larger that the size I mentioned
for the D70. You then added "Real scenes would be larger". The
upper limit that you tried to estimate would happen how often in
real life? There aren't very many available scenes that would
create the kind of random image which would maximize the file size.
Most people are aware that their image files aren't all the same
size, but they vary over a pretty consistent, fairly small range.
Your purpose in trying to calculate an upper size limit (that
probably will never be approached by most photographers), while at
the same time never stating typical file size (which are given by
review web sites and by manufacturers in their manuals) makes it
pretty obvious what your purpose was. Once again you value
calculations made in the service of obfuscation over clarity.

The entire point of this branch of the thread was to correct a
simple mistake. Namely, that the rate at which the D70 (or D70s)
can take and save RAW files is twice as fast as the estimate Bill
gave. It's true that it might be possible to photograph some scene
that is so highly random that the D70 couldn't manage to compress
its RAW files and would then double its writing speed. But you need
a reality check. Nobody in their right mind (excepting the late
Andy Warhol) would have any desire to take a sustained burst of such
images. I also asked if there was any difference between the file
sizes of the D70's and D70s's RAW files (which I doubt) and that's
another of the questions that you've ignored. Typical. That's very
strange, since if the D70s produces larger files it would help make
your case. If not, though, it raises the question of why your D70s
NEFs of the uniformly blank wall are larger than the published size
of typical D70 NEFs. Perhaps you weren't as careful in your tests
as you thought you were? Perhaps the NEFs included an additional
JPG image that you weren't aware of?


> Get a life, and stop foaming at the mouth!
> Over some simple math you turn this thread into a major attack on people.
> The mark of a troll.


<g> You're so obviously describing yourself that it's amusing,
yet at the same time sad. I'll conclude with one more quote snippet
from my previous message that gives the lie to this statement of
yours. Far from foaming at the mouth, or writing in a trollish
manner, I replied calmly and accurately, and even complimented you
and Bill at one point. Yet all you can see is a major attack.
Well, yes, I suppose it might seem that way if you base your entire
worth on your abilities as a researcher and yet so often produce
overly complex calculations that make implications leading to false
conclusions. Then yes, I can understand why you're getting so
perturbed. But I'm not attacking *you*, I'm just questioning your
calculations and what you use them to imply.

>> I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
>> and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
>> newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.

>
> I agree. And as he's already stated to me, you're both friends
> and he evidently sticks up for you just as you stick up for him.
> And you both are good photographers that are willing to share
> pictures and your experiences.


 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
On 23 Sep 2006 08:16:58 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:

>> then it was easy to see where his (Bill's) mistake was. He seems to
>> have assumed that since some RAW files are about 10MB, that that's
>> what he'd use for the D70s's file size. I don't know where the 10MB
>> came from though.

>
> Jeez guys, this isn't a big deal ... let me explain where the 10 MB
> number came from


Then we agree about something (at last). If you look a little
farther down in the paragraph that you quoted, above, you'll see
that I also said that it wasn't a big deal. Here it is:

> No big deal, but when anyone provides a bogus rate that
> erroneously states that a camera is twice as slow as it really is,
> it deserves to be corrected. I'd do the same if it was a Canon that
> was made to look worse than it really is.


Don't you think that if you simply said "Oops, you're right. The
Nikon does write RAW files twice a fast as I assumed" this thread
would have been much shorter? Didn't happen, though. An now we
have your buddy trying to demonstrate that it's theoretically
possible for a D70s to produce RAW files twice their typical size,
which in his mind produces a loophole justifying your mistaken
assumption. There's no need to explain where the 10MB number came
from. We both agree that it was "no big deal".


> You might look at that and say "Wow, gotta get a faster card" but if
> you look at actual times it might not seem so appealing, so I made up
> an example for the OP ... I plucked 10 MB out of the air solely because
> it's easily divisible by 5 and 3.2, giving near-integer numbers. The
> actual file size will vary based on ISO and subject and I assumed
> anyone with the camera would look at their average file size and do the
> math for themselves. If the average file is actually only 5 MB then my
> point was that the difference between 1 sec and 1.6 sec for the fastest
> card vs what he already owns might not be enough to warrant speeding
> down to Fry's and buying new cards.


That's the problem, don't you see? If he agreed and based his
purchasing decision (or lack of purchasing) based on what you told
him, it may not have been what he would have done had he known that
a faster card would have allowed his camera to write up to 100%
faster than your assumption predicted. I'll even grant that you
made an honest mistake and were trying to help the OP. But he would
have been helped even more by being aware of actual test results,
rather than reading a bad prediction that was due to a "guesstimate"
which was way off the mark.


> What a waste of bandwidth ...


I agree here too. Where we differ is in who we think is most
responsible for wasting the bandwidth.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
ASAAR wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:44:17 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark) wrote:
>
>
>>> I don't know why you seem to be trying to resurrect Bill's bogus
>>>file write rate, unless the D70s actually saves uncompressed RAW
>>>files that are nearly twice as large as those saved by the D70. If
>>>that's the case, then you and Bill would be correct. But I haven't
>>>heard that the D70s made that change, and it would seem that if the
>>>improved version of the D70 took twice as long to write RAW files,
>>>more than one person would have complained long and loudly.

>>
>>
>>You accuse people of having reading comprehension problems; how ironic.
>>Go back and look what I wrote. I computed the UPPER LIMIT to the
>>file size. Then I gave real data for flat test scenes of
>>5.4 mbytes/raw file, so a lower limit for normally exposed scenes
>>(dark frames are lower yet). Reality is likely in between flat test
>>scenes and the upper limit. The D70s is what the OP has.

>
>
> Sorry, but all you've done with your inappropriate calculations is
> turn yourself into a sorry parody of yourself. You didn't just
> calculate an UPPER LIMIT, you also attempted to show that the
> published values for the compressed file sizes were wrong, because
> your sizes for what should be highly compressed files (of your
> uniformly lit blank wall NEFs) were larger that the size I mentioned
> for the D70. You then added "Real scenes would be larger". The
> upper limit that you tried to estimate would happen how often in
> real life? There aren't very many available scenes that would
> create the kind of random image which would maximize the file size.
> Most people are aware that their image files aren't all the same
> size, but they vary over a pretty consistent, fairly small range.
> Your purpose in trying to calculate an upper size limit (that
> probably will never be approached by most photographers), while at
> the same time never stating typical file size (which are given by
> review web sites and by manufacturers in their manuals) makes it
> pretty obvious what your purpose was. Once again you value
> calculations made in the service of obfuscation over clarity.
>
> The entire point of this branch of the thread was to correct a
> simple mistake. Namely, that the rate at which the D70 (or D70s)
> can take and save RAW files is twice as fast as the estimate Bill
> gave. It's true that it might be possible to photograph some scene
> that is so highly random that the D70 couldn't manage to compress
> its RAW files and would then double its writing speed. But you need
> a reality check. Nobody in their right mind (excepting the late
> Andy Warhol) would have any desire to take a sustained burst of such
> images. I also asked if there was any difference between the file
> sizes of the D70's and D70s's RAW files (which I doubt) and that's
> another of the questions that you've ignored. Typical. That's very
> strange, since if the D70s produces larger files it would help make
> your case. If not, though, it raises the question of why your D70s
> NEFs of the uniformly blank wall are larger than the published size
> of typical D70 NEFs. Perhaps you weren't as careful in your tests
> as you thought you were? Perhaps the NEFs included an additional
> JPG image that you weren't aware of?
>
>
>
>>Get a life, and stop foaming at the mouth!
>>Over some simple math you turn this thread into a major attack on people.
>>The mark of a troll.

>
>
> <g> You're so obviously describing yourself that it's amusing,
> yet at the same time sad. I'll conclude with one more quote snippet
> from my previous message that gives the lie to this statement of
> yours. Far from foaming at the mouth, or writing in a trollish
> manner, I replied calmly and accurately, and even complimented you
> and Bill at one point. Yet all you can see is a major attack.
> Well, yes, I suppose it might seem that way if you base your entire
> worth on your abilities as a researcher and yet so often produce
> overly complex calculations that make implications leading to false
> conclusions. Then yes, I can understand why you're getting so
> perturbed. But I'm not attacking *you*, I'm just questioning your
> calculations and what you use them to imply.
>
>
>>>I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
>>>and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
>>>newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.

>>
>> I agree. And as he's already stated to me, you're both friends
>>and he evidently sticks up for you just as you stick up for him.
>>And you both are good photographers that are willing to share
>>pictures and your experiences.


If you go back and READ, you will see I did not take
sides. I simply stated my observations from the data
I had and that the answer was likely in between the two bounds.

I would think the OP would see the simple differences
in published card speeds and calculate for the types of images
he makes, what the speed difference would be.

My D70s test data show:

iso200, uniformly lit wall, all pixels saturated giving one value:
nef file = 4,081,448 bytes (the jpeg is only 127 kbytes)

iso200, uniformly lit wall unsaturated exposure: 5,496,832 bytes
(jpeg = 804 kbytes)

iso1600 1/8000 second dark frame: 5,742,592 bytes
(jpeg = 779 kbytes) Note this frame looks black when displayed.

The maximum uncompressed file slightly more than 9 mbytes.

Normal images would likely fall between the the ~5.5 mbytes and 9 mbytes.
That is all I said. I made no implications as to which end I thought
images come out at.

But again, you seem to feel a need to go off the deep end.
Perhaps if you approached people differently, you might get
better reactions.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:22:59 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark) wrote:

> If you go back and READ, you will see I did not take
> sides. I simply stated my observations from the data
> I had and that the answer was likely in between the two bounds.
>
> I would think the OP would see the simple differences
> in published card speeds and calculate for the types of images
> he makes, what the speed difference would be.
>
> My D70s test data show:
>
> iso200, uniformly lit wall, all pixels saturated giving one value:
> nef file = 4,081,448 bytes (the jpeg is only 127 kbytes)
>
> iso200, uniformly lit wall unsaturated exposure: 5,496,832 bytes
> (jpeg = 804 kbytes)
>
> iso1600 1/8000 second dark frame: 5,742,592 bytes
> (jpeg = 779 kbytes) Note this frame looks black when displayed.
>
> The maximum uncompressed file slightly more than 9 mbytes.
>
> Normal images would likely fall between the the ~5.5 mbytes and 9 mbytes.
> That is all I said. I made no implications as to which end I thought
> images come out at.
>
> But again, you seem to feel a need to go off the deep end.
> Perhaps if you approached people differently, you might get
> better reactions.


No, you're quite wrong. I didn't go off the deep end anywhere.
It's you that resorted to the ranting that you once tried to accuse
me of doing. You still don't have a clear understanding of what
Bill and I were discussing. It was only about how long it would
take for the D70s to write RAW image files to the flash card in the
camera. Determining how large the images would be in the computer's
memory when expanded is completely irrelevant and adds nothing to
the discussion, other than to show that you have some experience
performing tests and measuring things. Thank you for this time
adding that these test shots included bundled jpeg images. When
they're subtracted from the total NEF file size, the *all* are
noticeably smaller than the 5.4MB size I got from dpreview. (Note:
dpreview may have actually used 5,400kb which is smaller still, but
still larger than your results).

If getting a better reaction from you was of any concern to me I
might ignore your irrelevant and misleading replies. But it's not.
Your overreaction just makes you look bad and does little for your
reputation. Why you think it's important to show that a compressed
RAW file will be expanded in the computer's memory is a mystery that
only you can explain. It may be an interesting factoid, but it's
nothing that we didn't already know, and it did nothing to support
the mistaken claim that the D70s would take 2 seconds to write its
RAW files. You may say that you didn't intend to support the claim
that way, but if you didn't, then what was the purpose of that bit
of irrelevancy? Anyone reading this thread with an open mind can
come to their own conclusions, and they probably already have.
Maybe to stir the pot and hope that I'd overreact the way you have?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
most significant and less significant address a01lida VHDL 2 11-16-2008 12:28 PM
Significant performance difference of function in and outside of WebServices - Can't explain Greg Sohl ASP .Net Web Services 0 03-14-2007 09:44 PM
Significant Digits (Significant Figures) SMH Javascript 0 01-07-2007 09:52 AM
Q: how exactly is a 40x flash card "faster" than a 4x flash card? Paul Bennett Digital Photography 3 06-26-2004 09:32 PM
Which is faster - USB-enabled Lexar card with Jumpshot, or conventional USB2 card reader? Alan F Cross Digital Photography 4 07-15-2003 08:52 PM



Advertisments