If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:
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 MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:
"Bart van der Wolf" writes:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... 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 (08) 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Widepan test roll results | RolandRB | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 10 | April 22nd 05 07:37 AM |
To Epson 4000 or not to Epson 4000? | nobody | Digital Photography | 28 | April 17th 05 05:40 PM |
The film won't die first | Quest0029 | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 77 | November 3rd 04 09:58 AM |
New test results! | David J. Littleboy | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 16 | May 1st 04 05:51 AM |
Fix bath test | piterengel | In The Darkroom | 8 | February 9th 04 12:42 AM |