Is there a model identfier for SD memory?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by GavinB, Dec 23, 2009.

  1. GavinB

    GavinB Guest

    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.

    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
    GavinB, Dec 23, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. GavinB

    Arno Guest

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage GavinB <> 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 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:
    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
    Arno, Dec 23, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <-september.org>,
    GavinB <> 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
    Fred McKenzie, Dec 23, 2009
    #3
  4. [Followup-To: rec.photo.digital]

    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 <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 25, 2009
    #4
  5. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]

    GavinB <> 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, Dec 25, 2009
    #5
  6. GavinB

    D Johnson Guest

    On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:12:38 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >[Followup-To: rec.photo.digital]
    >
    >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 <> 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


    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.
    D Johnson, Dec 25, 2009
    #6
  7. GavinB

    NameHere Guest

    On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:12:38 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >[Followup-To: rec.photo.digital]
    >
    >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 <> 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


    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.
    NameHere, Dec 25, 2009
    #7
  8. D Johnson <> wrote:

    Hello, sliume, liar, idiot. Plonk another sock puppet.
    You're sooo easy to see through, any stupid P&S camera can do that.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 26, 2009
    #8
  9. GavinB

    John Turco Guest

    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?)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Dec 30, 2009
    #9
  10. > Could one quicken >any< memory card, merely by formatting it in FAT16?
    > (That is, possibly sacrificing capacity, in favor of speed?)
    >
    > --
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    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
    David J Taylor, Dec 30, 2009
    #10
  11. GavinB

    NameHere Guest

    On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:16:56 -0600, John Turco <> 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.
    NameHere, Dec 31, 2009
    #11
  12. GavinB

    NameHere Guest

    On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:50 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-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 <>

    >
    >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%.
    NameHere, Dec 31, 2009
    #12
  13. GavinB

    John Turco Guest

    NameHere wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:16:56 -0600, John Turco <> 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.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Jan 14, 2010
    #13
  14. GavinB

    NameHere Guest

    On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:49:05 -0600, John Turco <> wrote:

    >NameHere wrote:
    >>
    >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:16:56 -0600, John Turco <> 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.
    NameHere, Jan 15, 2010
    #14
  15. GavinB

    John Turco Guest

    NameHere wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:49:05 -0600, John Turco <> wrote:


    <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).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Jan 30, 2010
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. lbbss
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    339
    lbbss
    Jul 14, 2004
  2. zxcvar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    867
    Joe Hotchkiss
    Nov 28, 2004
  3. the messenjah

    Why is there a fat black chick on America's Next Top Model?

    the messenjah, Apr 10, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    828
    Agent Smith
    May 12, 2007
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    838
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Peabody
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    337
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 22, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page