«

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
>>>>
>>>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
>>>>
>>>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
>>>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)
>>>
>>> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
>>> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
>>> ???
>>
>> If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
>> assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously. RE-viewing
>> images (after the initial rendering view) will be decent
>> on the 2000/4000, but that's hardly a help when you want to quickly
>> view newly-shot images in the field.. I'm clicking on a
>> newly-created thumbnail of a full-quality 5D jpeg or RAW image for
>> the *first* time.
>> My numbers are accurate, and very closely reflect the numbers claimed
>> by Epson (actually better than Epson's claims).
>
> Can you verify that it's a cache issue on your device?

I just snapped off five shots, dowloaded them to the P-2000, and went
through them one at a time. The first time through, each image displayed in
under 2 seconds, the second time a bit faster. So there does seem to be a
cache phenomenon. And who knows how long it would take per image if there
were 150 images in the directory.

My P-2000 was purchased in Japan, and may be different from overseas models.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:53:45 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

> I just snapped off five shots, dowloaded them to the P-2000, and went
> through them one at a time. The first time through, each image displayed in
> under 2 seconds, the second time a bit faster. So there does seem to be a
> cache phenomenon. And who knows how long it would take per image if there
> were 150 images in the directory.

If the P-2000 can fully power off (instead of just faking it), you
might try sending another set of five shots to it, powering off,
powering on and then displaying them to try to eliminate any
possible caching. I don't know how much memory the P-2000 has, but
presumably it wouldn't have enough to effectively cache copied files
if you tried displaying them after copying 100 files to the P-2000.
Another thought. If the P-2000 creates any kind of thumbnails on
the fly, are they created as the files are being downloaded, or as
they're being displayed for the first time? I wouldn't think that
this would take very much time per shot, but it might be noticeable
if the goal of the P-2000's designers was to first get it out the
door and then optimize the code for future versions. If they're
created prior to first display, that could also explain the slightly
longer first display time you noticed.

> ernie clyma wrote:
>
> While I still have not tried the P-5000 yet, I have run across a Wolverine
> ESP 100GB at Costco.com
> Are any of you familiar with this viewer/storage device??

I have a year-old Wolverine, don't know the model # (not sure if ESP is
the newer one with a preview screen) but it's 100 GB and cost about 1/3
as much as the Epson P-4000 but had more storage space. It was on sale
recently at Fry's for $99. We also have the older P-4000.

If the one you mention has the preview screen to view images it's
different than mine as mine just has an LCD for instructions ... the
advantages of this over the Epson are lower cost, less bulk, more
storage space, can download via USB from a laptop without AC power,
more downloads per battery charge, and I *think* it downloaded from the
CF card faster than the Epson P-4000, but may need to check my notes on
that.

The advantages of the Epson P-4000 are the viewing screen and it's
faster to move files via USB to the desktop computer ... it also plays
slide shows and music etc, but it's more bulky and more expensive.

We take a laptop, the P-4000 and the Wolverine on long trips, like to
Africa, downloading to the laptop and deleting about 1/3 pretty quick,
then making backups on both the Epson and Wolverine before reformatting
the CF cards ... if we can't take the laptop due to space or other
reasons the P-4000 is more adequate as a backup than the Wolverine, but
really nothing I've used thus far is as good as a laptop. The download
speeds Mark mentions, while a great improvement over the P-4000, are
still less than half as fast as we get on an old laptop with multiple
readers, for example.

Bill

"ASAAR" <> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:53:45 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> I just snapped off five shots, dowloaded them to the P-2000, and went
>> through them one at a time. The first time through, each image displayed
>> in
>> under 2 seconds, the second time a bit faster. So there does seem to be a
>> cache phenomenon. And who knows how long it would take per image if there
>> were 150 images in the directory.
>
> If the P-2000 can fully power off (instead of just faking it), you
> might try sending another set of five shots to it, powering off,
> powering on and then displaying them to try to eliminate any
> possible caching. I don't know how much memory the P-2000 has, but
> presumably it wouldn't have enough to effectively cache copied files
> if you tried displaying them after copying 100 files to the P-2000.

I don't ever remember my P-2000 being painful to actually display an image.
(I only save RAW, so it's displaying the tiny jpeg embedded in the RAW,
which it won't zoom.)

The thing my P-2000 is painful for is displaying the thumbnails. It shows 12
per screenful, and does seem to cache them, but the cache size is limited,
and as soon as it gets to the next page, it gets glacial.

> Another thought. If the P-2000 creates any kind of thumbnails on
> the fly, are they created as the files are being downloaded, or as
> they're being displayed for the first time? I wouldn't think that
> this would take very much time per shot, but it might be noticeable
> if the goal of the P-2000's designers was to first get it out the
> door and then optimize the code for future versions. If they're
> created prior to first display, that could also explain the slightly
> longer first display time you noticed.

Again, there seems to be a cache, and they may be caching the first page of
thumbnails for each directory, but by the time you get to the second page,
it gets slow. But displaying an image full screen isn't bad at all, even if
you ask it to display an image it hasn't displayed the thumbnail for.

Again, this P-2000 was purchased in Japan, and may act different from those
purchased outside Japan.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "ASAAR" <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:53:45 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>>> I just snapped off five shots, dowloaded them to the P-2000, and
>>> went through them one at a time. The first time through, each image
>>> displayed in
>>> under 2 seconds, the second time a bit faster. So there does seem
>>> to be a cache phenomenon. And who knows how long it would take per
>>> image if there were 150 images in the directory.
>>
>> If the P-2000 can fully power off (instead of just faking it), you
>> might try sending another set of five shots to it, powering off,
>> powering on and then displaying them to try to eliminate any
>> possible caching. I don't know how much memory the P-2000 has, but
>> presumably it wouldn't have enough to effectively cache copied files
>> if you tried displaying them after copying 100 files to the P-2000.
>
> I don't ever remember my P-2000 being painful to actually display an
> image. (I only save RAW, so it's displaying the tiny jpeg embedded in
> the RAW, which it won't zoom.)
>
> The thing my P-2000 is painful for is displaying the thumbnails. It
> shows 12 per screenful, and does seem to cache them, but the cache
> size is limited, and as soon as it gets to the next page, it gets
> glacial.
>> Another thought. If the P-2000 creates any kind of thumbnails on
>> the fly, are they created as the files are being downloaded, or as
>> they're being displayed for the first time? I wouldn't think that
>> this would take very much time per shot, but it might be noticeable
>> if the goal of the P-2000's designers was to first get it out the
>> door and then optimize the code for future versions. If they're
>> created prior to first display, that could also explain the slightly
>> longer first display time you noticed.
>
> Again, there seems to be a cache, and they may be caching the first
> page of thumbnails for each directory, but by the time you get to the
> second page, it gets slow. But displaying an image full screen isn't
> bad at all, even if you ask it to display an image it hasn't
> displayed the thumbnail for.
> Again, this P-2000 was purchased in Japan, and may act different from
> those purchased outside Japan.

Perhaps that's true, though I can't imagine Japan would use two different
processors.
If what you're saying is correct, then you're also differing greatly from
dpreview's unit.
Hmmm...

In any event...the 5000 is miles ahead of *my* 2000.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:ei3r5l$rpc$...
SNIP
> I don't ever remember my P-2000 being painful to actually display an
> image. (I only save RAW, so it's displaying the tiny jpeg embedded
> in the RAW, which it won't zoom.)

Maybe Raw+JPEG is different (perhaps it could try to downsample the
JPEG instead of extracting the Raw thumbnail)?

--
Bart

"Bart van der Wolf" <> writes:

> "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
> news:ei3r5l$rpc$...
> SNIP
>> I don't ever remember my P-2000 being painful to actually display an
>> image. (I only save RAW, so it's displaying the tiny jpeg embedded
>> in the RAW, which it won't zoom.)

> Maybe Raw+JPEG is different (perhaps it could try to downsample the
> JPEG instead of extracting the Raw thumbnail)?

Canon RAW images have 2 jpegs in them already. One is a thumb, the other is
larger. Are you sure it is *CONVERTING* the raw and not just showing the
larger preview jpg?

Note, this is with JUST raw files, not with raw+jpg.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (0 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

>> ernie clyma wrote:
>>
>> While I still have not tried the P-5000 yet, I have run across a Wolverine
>> ESP 100GB at Costco.com
>> Are any of you familiar with this viewer/storage device??
-
> Bill Hilton wrote:
>
> I have a year-old Wolverine, don't know the model # (not sure if ESP is
> the newer one with a preview screen) but it's 100 GB and cost about 1/3
> as much as the Epson P-4000 but had more storage space. It was on sale
> recently at Fry's for $99. We also have the older P-4000.
> ...
> advantages of (Wooly) over the Epson are lower cost, less bulk, more
> storage space, can download via USB from a laptop without AC power,
> more downloads per battery charge, and I *think* it downloaded from the
> CF card faster than the Epson P-4000, but may need to check my notes on
> that.

Ernie, if you're still out there and haven't bought a Wolverine yet
here are some actual speed tests numbers ... the Wolverine I have
(about 16 months old now) is very slow compared to the Epson P-4000 and
even slower compared to the new P-3000/5000 models, per Mark's tests.

Here are three different tests, downloading CF cards, xfering from
Epson or Wolverine to computer, xfering from computer to Epson or
Wolverine.

Downloading CF card tests ...
Wolverine
Extreme IV 4 GB card (3.79 GB or 4,072,034,913 bytes)
* 45 minutes, 10 sec (wow, that's slow)
* 1.4 MB/sec

Slower CF card was slightly slower but not much, implying the reader is
the weak link.

P-4000 downloading the same Extreme IV card ...
* 26:32 or 2.4 MB/sec

My P-4000 times agree with what Mark saw for his P-2000 (26:34), so not
quite twice as fast.

So the P-5000 test Mark ran, taking 9:27, indicates the P-5000 is
almost 500% faster than the Wolverine for downloading CF cards.

Reading files from external drive to computer:
Wolverine 7.0 MB/sec
P-4000 13.0 MB/sec

Writing files from computer to external drive:
Wolverine 7.4 MB/sec
P-4000 12.3 MB/sec

Bill