A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CF cards apparently not dead yet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 30th 17, 06:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
photography, unless you are a photo journalist.


It can be, especaily if you've come back from a holiday with umpteen cards
that need putting on a computer, it's amazing just how slow USB2 is compared
to USB3 once you're used to USB3.


no ****.
..
Tonight I'll be off-loading ~8GB from card to computer, it usually takes a
couple of minutes on USB3 with USB2 it's more like 15mins+


now multiply that by 32 for a 256 gig card.
  #12  
Old November 30th 17, 09:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

On 11/30/2017 12:54 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
photography, unless you are a photo journalist.

maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.

that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
out.


Uh huh!


I must not be part of "the rest of the world".


very true.

The time it takes for
a card to transfer the photos to the computer is of no concern to me
at all. Cutting that time in half would not be of any advantage. My
usual routine is to remove the card, insert it in the reader, and
start the upload.


While the photos are being uploaded, I remove the battery from the
camera and put it in the charger. By the time I finish doing that,
and return to the computer, all the images have been uploaded.


you must not shoot very many images at a time.

Because I upload using Import in Lightroom, the time consuming part is
waiting for LR to generate the Smart Previews. I know I can set LR to
generate Minimal previews, or one of the other faster options, but I
don't mind the wait for Smart Previews.


that has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the card.

It's not like I have something terribly urgent or important to do in
those extra minutes. I just Alt-Tab to a different window and check
my email or a newsgroup.


i have an older 64 gig uhs card (the fastest available at the time)
which takes around 15 minutes to copy when it's full (very easy to do
with video).


Nobody realized what a busy person you are.




a 256 gig card of similar speed would be in the 1 hour range.

newer and faster cards could reduce that to 20-30 minutes.



--
PeterN
  #13  
Old December 1st 17, 01:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

So we have two people with anecdotal versions. One says he's not
concerned with the amount of time it takes to upload photos from a
card, and the other is concerned that it takes 15 minutes to upload
his videos.


since the transfer is local, it's called copying.

upload or download would be when it involves a remote system (i.e., the
cloud), which it does not.

If you extrapolate that to the "rest of the world", then 50% of the
rest of the world aren't concerned, thus disproving your claim.


math fail.

the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
hour for their photos and videos to copy.

you always argue against productivity and efficiency.

actually, you always argue no matter what anyone says.
  #14  
Old December 1st 17, 03:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

So we have two people with anecdotal versions. One says he's not
concerned with the amount of time it takes to upload photos from a
card, and the other is concerned that it takes 15 minutes to upload
his videos.


since the transfer is local, it's called copying.


The process is called many things...upload, download, import, copy,
transfer, etc.


some of which are incorrect.

Adobe uses two terms on this page:

https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using...os-bridge.html

The top line says "import photos" and #2 says to "Click Download
Images".


download is incorrect, although it's sometimes used for
camera-computer.

SanDisk uses "transfer" and "transfer speed":


transfer is equivalent to copy.

they didn't say upload or download.

https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/d...oducts-transfe
r-speed

The different card readers that came up in a search also use
"Transfer".

In Lightroom, the word "Copy" is used. but they also use "import" when
they say refer to getting images from a card to Lightroom.


importing is much more than a simple copy.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/he...m-basic-workfl
ow.html

I agree that "upload" or "download" are the least applicable terms,


not only least applicable, but wrong.

but you can't say that "it's called copying" as if it's the *right*
term because "copy" is used less than "transfer" any of the other
terms including "upload" and "download" by the general user.


i never said copy was the *only* term, and it's used *far* more often
than transfer.

a common (yet inefficient) way to copy a file in windows is choose copy
from the edit menu (or ctrl-c). not transfer.

move is another, although move means deleting the originals.

import is specific to asset managers, since it's a lot more than just
copying.

the point is that upload and download are incorrect.

I like precise use of the correct words in any situation, but there is
no precise term in this case. The *function* is a copy function
since the files remain on the original medium and are replicated in a
new location, but the term "copy" has not achieved any standard
status.


copying does not mean deleting the original.

if the original is deleted after a copy, it's a move.

upload or download would be when it involves a remote system (i.e., the
cloud), which it does not.

For that matter, an upload or a download is also a copy function. The
uploaded or downloaded files are replicated in another location, but
we don't use "copy" to describe uploading or downloading.


sometimes copy is used in that context and may be acceptable.

examples: copy to the cloud. copy to the server.

"Transfer" - a widely used term - is sorta incorrect since the files
are not transferred from one place to another.


yes they most certainly are transferred.

once again, you're *well* out of your league.
  #15  
Old December 1st 17, 03:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:46:27 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

So we have two people with anecdotal versions. One says he's not
concerned with the amount of time it takes to upload photos from a
card, and the other is concerned that it takes 15 minutes to upload
his videos.


since the transfer is local, it's called copying.

upload or download would be when it involves a remote system (i.e., the
cloud), which it does not.

If you extrapolate that to the "rest of the world", then 50% of the
rest of the world aren't concerned, thus disproving your claim.


math fail.

the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
hour for their photos and videos to copy.


Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
copy.

you always argue against productivity and efficiency.

actually, you always argue no matter what anyone says.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #16  
Old December 1st 17, 03:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
hour for their photos and videos to copy.


Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
copy.


they do if they bought slow cards, possibly much longer than that.
  #17  
Old December 1st 17, 07:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


So we have two people with anecdotal versions. One says he's not
concerned with the amount of time it takes to upload photos from a
card, and the other is concerned that it takes 15 minutes to upload
his videos.

since the transfer is local, it's called copying.

The process is called many things...upload, download, import, copy,
transfer, etc.


some of which are incorrect.


No, not at all. Common usage over time determines correctness of
usage. For example, a "computer" was once the correct term to
describe the people who calculate as an occupation. Common usage over
time has made "computer" the correct term to describe the device. We
no longer call the people who calculate "computers".


attempt at moving goalposts detected.

Since using any of those terms are commonly used to describe the
process, none are incorrect.


some are.

Adobe uses two terms on this page:

https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using...os-bridge.html

The top line says "import photos" and #2 says to "Click Download
Images".


download is incorrect, although it's sometimes used for
camera-computer.


Well, see, that's your problem. Adobe uses "download" to mean "copy",
and anyone who uses the Adobe program understands this. So, you can't
really say it is incorrect.


yes i can, and it is.

adobe has it wrong. they can (and do) make mistakes.

SanDisk uses "transfer" and "transfer speed":


transfer is equivalent to copy.


In SanDisk's terminology, yes,


not just sandisk, but computer terminology in general

but not in the correct meaning of the
word. Copy creates a new instance but the old instance remains.
Transfer moves the instance from one location to another.


nope. transfer means copying data. whether the original is deleted is
separate.

windows had a tool called windows easy transfer which copies files from
one computer to another, leaving the originals.

go tell microsoft they're wrong. let us know how well that works out.

they didn't say upload or download.


No, and that's my point. Many terms are used, and understood, to
describe the process. No one of them is correct or incorrect.


just because people can figure out what is meant doesn't change
incorrect usage into correct usage.


https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/d...-products-tran
sfe
r-speed

The different card readers that came up in a search also use
"Transfer".

In Lightroom, the word "Copy" is used. but they also use "import" when
they say refer to getting images from a card to Lightroom.


importing is much more than a simple copy.


Immaterial.


nope. it's a *very* *significant* difference.

you haven't any clue about this stuff.

The process of importing replicates the image on the card
to a location on the computer. It copies it. What else happens is
immaterial to this discussion.


absolutely wrong.

the 'what else' is *why* it's called import and not copy.

you haven't any clue about this stuff.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/he...room-basic-wor
kfl
ow.html

I agree that "upload" or "download" are the least applicable terms,


not only least applicable, but wrong.


No, not "wrong".


yes. wrong.

As long as there is an established and common
understanding of what is being done, the usage is not wrong.


and that common understanding is that upload/download is to/from a
remote system (sometimes from/to an embedded device), which is not the
case between multiple volumes on a single computer.

but you can't say that "it's called copying" as if it's the *right*
term because "copy" is used less than "transfer" any of the other
terms including "upload" and "download" by the general user.


i never said copy was the *only* term,


That's a typical nospam weasel. You have said "it's called copying"
and I have replied that it's called many other things. And you've
argued with that. Make up your mind.


nothing weasel about it. once again, you haven't a clue.

i never said it's only called copying. you came up with that just to
argue, the usual idiocy we can expect from you.

and it's used *far* more often than transfer.


By whom? Where? You just make up "facts".


i do not make up *anything*. ever.

It's not used far more
often in the context of the process of replicating files on card to
the computer, and that is the subject of this discussion.


copying absolutely is used more often than transfer. without question.

a common (yet inefficient) way to copy a file in windows is choose copy
from the edit menu (or ctrl-c). not transfer.


What has that to do with anything?


because it proves you wrong.

The discussion has been about the
replication of files on a card to another location. Control-c copies
but does not copy anything *to* anywhere.


actually, it does copy something to somewhere.

you haven't a clue how it works.

What it copies is
basically in computer Limbo - which we call the clipboard - until
"Paste" (control-v) is invoked.


contradicting yourself so quickly?

first you say it doesn't copy anything to anywhere then you say it
does. you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

the point you miss is that the term copy is more widely used than
transfer. simple as that.

Why introduce a completely different concept into this?


it's not a completely different concept.

you clearly don't understand what you're talking about, as usual.

move is another, although move means deleting the originals.


No, the original is not deleted. It is relocated.

Try to think of this in simple terms. You have an apple in your left
hand. You move it, or transfer it, to your right hand. The apple has
been relocated, but it has not been deleted.


proof you have zero understanding of how file systems work.

in simple terms: with a move, you end up with one apple. with a copy
you end up with two apples.

import is specific to asset managers, since it's a lot more than just
copying.

the point is that upload and download are incorrect.

I like precise use of the correct words in any situation, but there is
no precise term in this case. The *function* is a copy function
since the files remain on the original medium and are replicated in a
new location, but the term "copy" has not achieved any standard
status.


copying does not mean deleting the original.


Right, but I have not said or implied that it does. Quite the
opposite, in fact.

if the original is deleted after a copy, it's a move.


Incorrect since the original is not deleted, it's just relocated. If
the file has been copied, and the file which was copied is deleted
from where it was copied from, that's a separate and discrete
function. It's not part of the copy or transfer function.


moving files is a *single* function.

in unix: mv foo bar

under the hood, it will copy and then delete the original, but the user
still sees it as a single function.

when the move is across volumes, the files *must* be copied and then
the originals deleted.

when the move is within the same volume, it may be possible (but not
always) to simply update the directory (what you're erroneously calling
relocation), but that's just an implementation detail.

on some file systems, copying a file only copies data if the file later
changes. until that point (which may never occur), all copies point to
the same blocks on the volume.

you're digging yourself a deeper hole, as usual.

upload or download would be when it involves a remote system (i.e., the
cloud), which it does not.

For that matter, an upload or a download is also a copy function. The
uploaded or downloaded files are replicated in another location, but
we don't use "copy" to describe uploading or downloading.


sometimes copy is used in that context and may be acceptable.

examples: copy to the cloud. copy to the server.


More to my point that there are not standardized and specific terms
and that there are - instead - a number of terms that are
understandable, widely and commonly used, and therefore correct.


just because people can figure out what's meant doesn't mean it's
correct.

"Transfer" - a widely used term - is sorta incorrect since the files
are not transferred from one place to another.


yes they most certainly are transferred.


To "transfer" is to move from one location to another. SanDisk is
using the word to mean "copy" or replicate somewhere else.


transfer is a perfectly acceptable word to mean copy files.

it's also used as a performance metric, i.e, transfer speed.

The files
are not transferred; they never move. They stay on the card with a
copy placed elsewhere. What is being transferred is a copy, not the
file.


you *really* don't understand how this works.

Again, it's one more validation of my original point: we have several
terms that are understood to have the same meaning, and none of the
several common terms can be said to be incorrect.


yes they can.

once again, you're *well* out of your league.


I love it when you come up that one. If it's my league, I can't be
out of it. The actual saying for what you mean is "You're well out of
my league". You can't even use a bog-standard ad holmium correctly.


it's common usage, so by your own definition, it's correct.
  #18  
Old December 1st 17, 04:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

On 11/30/2017 9:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

So we have two people with anecdotal versions. One says he's not
concerned with the amount of time it takes to upload photos from a
card, and the other is concerned that it takes 15 minutes to upload
his videos.

since the transfer is local, it's called copying.


The process is called many things...upload, download, import, copy,
transfer, etc.


some of which are incorrect.

Adobe uses two terms on this page:

https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using...os-bridge.html

The top line says "import photos" and #2 says to "Click Download
Images".


download is incorrect, although it's sometimes used for
camera-computer.

SanDisk uses "transfer" and "transfer speed":


transfer is equivalent to copy.

they didn't say upload or download.

https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/d...oducts-transfe
r-speed

The different card readers that came up in a search also use
"Transfer".

In Lightroom, the word "Copy" is used. but they also use "import" when
they say refer to getting images from a card to Lightroom.


importing is much more than a simple copy.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/he...m-basic-workfl
ow.html

I agree that "upload" or "download" are the least applicable terms,


not only least applicable, but wrong.

but you can't say that "it's called copying" as if it's the *right*
term because "copy" is used less than "transfer" any of the other
terms including "upload" and "download" by the general user.


i never said copy was the *only* term, and it's used *far* more often
than transfer.

a common (yet inefficient) way to copy a file in windows is choose copy
from the edit menu (or ctrl-c). not transfer.

move is another, although move means deleting the originals.

import is specific to asset managers, since it's a lot more than just
copying.

the point is that upload and download are incorrect.

I like precise use of the correct words in any situation, but there is
no precise term in this case. The *function* is a copy function
since the files remain on the original medium and are replicated in a
new location, but the term "copy" has not achieved any standard
status.


copying does not mean deleting the original.

if the original is deleted after a copy, it's a move.

upload or download would be when it involves a remote system (i.e., the
cloud), which it does not.

For that matter, an upload or a download is also a copy function. The
uploaded or downloaded files are replicated in another location, but
we don't use "copy" to describe uploading or downloading.


sometimes copy is used in that context and may be acceptable.

examples: copy to the cloud. copy to the server.

"Transfer" - a widely used term - is sorta incorrect since the files
are not transferred from one place to another.


yes they most certainly are transferred.

once again, you're *well* out of your league.

True. He stopped using Kindergarten arguments a long time ago.
It is noted that once more, you twisted my plain statement, that the
speed of copying images from a card is not the most important element of
photography, into a meaningless blather.
--
PeterN
  #19  
Old December 1st 17, 07:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 01:23:31 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


nospam is now floundering around trying to defend his mistakes by
using "you haven't a clue" defense instead of facts. You can always
tell when nospam has realized he's lost the argument when he starts
peppering his replies with that and other insinuations that the other
person doesn't know what he's talking about.


i'm not floundering *at* *all*. you are well over your head, you made
*numerous* fundamental errors, just like you did in the dcc thread, and
worse, you flat out refuse to admit or even discuss it.

tl;dr you do *not* know what you're talking about, which is why you
snipped everything.
  #20  
Old December 1st 17, 08:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default CF cards apparently not dead yet

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

nospam is now floundering around trying to defend his mistakes by
using "you haven't a clue" defense instead of facts. You can always
tell when nospam has realized he's lost the argument when he starts
peppering his replies with that and other insinuations that the other
person doesn't know what he's talking about.


i'm not floundering *at* *all*. you are well over your head, you made
*numerous* fundamental errors, just like you did in the dcc thread, and
worse, you flat out refuse to admit or even discuss it.

tl;dr you do *not* know what you're talking about, which is why you
snipped everything.


More floundering.


nope.

Anyone who writes, as you did, "move is another, although move means
deleting the originals" should never accuse anyone else of being over
their head in a topic.


that's *exactly* what move means.

you're *well* over your head and sinking *fast*.

as with the dcc thread, you refuse to admit you haven't a clue or show
any interest in learning something.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dpreview apparently declares Nikon's forlorn System 1 DEAD!(Mercy killing?) android Digital Photography 17 August 22nd 16 04:04 PM
Shutterbug pronounces editorial sports photography as DEAD, dead, dead Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 3 October 12th 15 01:12 AM
Shutterbug pronounces editorial sports photography as DEAD, dead,dead George Kerby Digital Photography 0 October 10th 15 04:03 PM
Sony's FF is small!! Apparently Me Digital SLR Cameras 52 September 13th 08 04:15 PM
Apparently someone doesn't like something I said... Larry Digital Photography 31 April 21st 05 02:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.