4Gb CF Card Announced

An anonymous reader writes "Lexar has today announced that it now shipping a 4 GB 40x Compact Flash card. The card's claim to fame is the ability to store 600 RAW images taken with a 6 megapixel digital camera. This card also features Lexar's WA (Write Acceleration) technology which can improve performance further with WA enabled cameras. Because this card is larger than 2 GB, you will need a camera which is FAT32 compliant. This card is available now at the heady price of $1,499 ($0.37/MB). It looks like Lexar has managed to be faster then Hitachi (Former IBM storage division) with their 4Gb Microdrive."

Comments

4Gb or 4GB

[insulator]

The title says 4 gigabits, but the text says 4 giga bytes. 4 GB is impressive, 4Gb is not (512 MB).

Re:4Gb or 4GB

[UWC]

The mention of the need for FAT32 to access the card seems to indicate that it's larger than 2 gigabytes. It would be nice to see some consistency, though, rather than having to guess based on context.

But the chokepoint...

[kmak]

is still the time it takes for a camera to transfer from on-memory to the card... no matter how big the card is, until this time is reduced, it'll still be hard for some applications ..

But it's definitely good.. I use a CF-Reader on my laptop instead of a diskdrive, and obviously, a 4 GB CF card would definitely be nice.. now I can easily transfer data between machines!

Of course, again, though, bandwidth is still an issue..

Why?

[afidel]

You are never going to be able to take that many pic's without changing batteries so why not have a couple of cheaper 1GB cards and swap em out with the batteries? 1GB CF cards are as cheap as $228 you are paying a more than 50% premium for the denser storage.

Re:Why?

[foxtrot]

You are never going to be able to take that many pic's without changing batteries so why not have a couple of cheaper 1GB cards and swap em out with the batteries? 1GB CF cards are as cheap as $228 you are paying a more than 50% premium for the denser storage.

Won't I? I already can almost fill my 1GB microdrive using just one BP-511 battery pack on my Canon G1.

The new SLR Canon cameras have an optional side-grip that holds two more BP-511s. And they're shooting much larger images. And when you're a professional (or semi-professional), which is what this product is aimed at, you're probably not shooting .jpg anymore. Plus, since this thing is CF and not a Microdrive, it sucks less power, as well. I'd bet you can darned near fill one of these things easily.

Add in the fact that this thing has some new technology write-to-it-faster-stuff, and there's plenty of reason for this product to exist.

-JDF

Re:Why?

[afidel]

Very wrong, at least for Canon cameras, Canon's raw format captures the data as it is coming off the image censor. By saving this information post processing can be done on the raw data rather than the interpretation of the processing chip and the JPEG engine. For instance I have seen images had contrast improved without upsetting the shadow details which just isn't possible with normal post processing on a regular image, if you've ever see it you will know how superior to dumb Photoshop filters it is.

Re:Why?

[Mozo]

The "Real Story" link on JPEGs is quite amusing, to say the least. Saying "look at these images in your web browser -- you can't tell the difference" hardly leads to the conclusion "people never need to use uncompressed images, since there never are visible differences."

I *do* work for a professional imaging company, and here are some of my opinions on "the real story":

- JPEG is designed to compress images in ways that degrade the visibility of compression artifacts as much as possible. It works particularly well for photographic images, since that's what it's designed for.
- JPEG compression is often very appropriate for web images. Uncompressed images are often inappropriate for web images, due to their size.
- JPEG does produce artifacts, and many are objectionable at high compression levels.
- Even mild JPEG compression does visible damage to things like crisp text or sharp lines. This is a function of the compression scheme's photographic emphasis. (And, specifically, a function of the 8x8 pixel blocks and discrete cosine transforms used....)
- JPEG2000 (.JP2 or .JPX) is a more sophisticated technique employing wavelets. To my eyes, the artifacts (especially localized ones) are significantly less noticable than standard JPEG at similar compression levels. A technology to watch...
- Digital SLR "RAW" files are different than standard uncompressed tiff's. Usually, they represent raw sensor data at higher than 8-bit color depth. As such, they are the digital equivalent of the negative, and various different kinds of post-processing is often applied to the same image, based on situation.
- Compression isn't free (as in clock cycles). It takes a lot less time to write the larger RAW file from a DSLR to a CF card than it does to compress it in-camera to a smaller JPG file. This effects burst rate image capture as well as battery life.

Phew. That was long. The conclusion that "there's really no reason to use raws over jpegs" was wrong on so many levels that I had to clear some misconceptions up, I suppose!

Hooray

[stratjakt]

How long until solid state technology replaces hard drives outright, or at least supplements them?

And, only slightly offtopic, why must PCs have pagefiles created on a hard drive? Why not have a bunch of SDRAM slots, even on a PCI card, and have 4 gigs of uber-cheap PC133, then create a 4 gig swap file in RAM (if not natively supported).

I hate having to swap to HDD, and my only option being super-pricey DDR or RDRAM upgrades.

A machine would do just fine with 256 Megs of Dual-DDR400, and 4 gigs or so of PC133. Then HDD as an absolute last resort. It plugs right in to the tiered-memory architecture, so why would this not work?

Re:Hooray

[khaine]

There is already a solid state hard drive for PCs called the QikDrive:

http://www.platypus.net/products/qikdrive.asp

Its based on standard RAM and luckily it has its own UPS connection :-)

Re:Hooray

[AlecC]

People have been predicting that solid state will replace hard drives for at least a decade now, probably more. But HDDs have kept ahead in large capacity throughout that time, and manufacturers still hav3e quite a lot of technology up their sleeves. The only way that flash is going to catch up with HDD in the nect 5 years (I predict no futher) is if the need for space is satisfied. And when you have got video and broadbabd, people will carry on filling HDD space with downloads, or more software or... This gadget said $0.37/Mbyte. The last disk I bought ran about $0.015/Mbyte, and that was a while back.

And using flash for a swap drive... Remeber that flash as a limited number of write cycles - perhaps 1 million. For picture storasge - no problem. For file storage - not likely to be a problem, becauss eht file space will eventually find its way into a long-lived firl. But for swap space, you might run out of write cycles sooner than you hope.

Re:$1500?

[Mindwarp]

IBM has been producing Compact Flash Type 2 form-factor micro drives for some time now.

Here's one:

Clicky!

Al though

[frodo from middle ea]

This is good news for most professional photographers, Use amatures would rather have a cheaper portable 20GB+ backup OPtion.
Plus what is a typical life of a CF card ? I sure hope its more than 5 years If I am putting 1000$+ in it.

Plus the very though of loosing those 600 RAW images , if i loose the CF card is disturbing.

I would rather have a portable labtop with 20GB+ memory and a 1GB flash card.

Re:Al though

[Ominous Coward]

Then don't loose the card. Besides, even if you open its cage, a card's not going to go very far. It's not nearly the same as loosing dogs, lions, or some other animal.

Wait, you meant "lose", didn't you?

Cool, but...

[LordYUK]

a quick google search reveals that a 1 GB version is about 170... 170 * 4 = 680. At 1500 bucks, I think I'd rather just keep three other 1 gb sticks in my pocket/camera bag/whatever... granted, if you're a professional photgrapher you might think otherwise, but I recall something that we used a few years back that had to be changed every X number of pictures, what was it, oh yes... film.

I'd say it has to be easier to pop a flash card in and out of a digital camera as opposed to a roll of film... but thats just me.

Just get 4 1GB Microdrives

[BoomerSooner]

That takes care of a single point of failure and it's $500 cheaper.

Re:Just get 4 1GB Microdrives

[pHDNgell]

That takes care of a single point of failure

Only if your camera has built-in RAID support and will take more than one of them at a time.

best quote

[paradesign]

"It would be refreshing to see someone talk about something other than the pursuit of big numbers. " in reference to the expanding storage of CF cards and mega pixel ratings. Seems to apply to more than just cameras. I took it to mean that there should be more of a focus on cost/performance ratio, rather than bleeding edge.

unrelated note... I wish all PCs would come with CF slots on them standard. i think its the best alternative to the floppy. ive even started carrying arround a card reader so i can use CF to replace my stacks of zip disks.

CF

[dodell]

As far as I can tell, this thing is only useful for professional photographers. When getting my picture taken for the cover of Pro. PHP4 MM Programming, I saw that the photographer had several 1GB CF cards strewn over his desk. Digital photos are becoming more popular because people can get them reprinted and such. There's not really a loss in quality either, since the photos are 5-7 megapixels. But you end up getting 27MB TIFF files (in B/W)! I'm sure there are other uses for this sort of storage, but this is the best example I could think of.

I think that the price to pay for CF is way too heavy for this card to fit into general use. CF cards don't have the longest lifespan in the world either. Until these prices go down, I don't think CF will become a really hot item. I mean, look at iPods. 20GB of storage at less than half the price (and it'll play your MP3s).

The other disappointment regarding the price is that it's too high to push the prices down on 1GB models, so we won't see these being shoved into consumer electronics anytime soon either.

I think that by the time CF gets to be reasonably priced, other devices of similar size and much higher capacity will be available. I don't have a good feeling about the lifespan of CF.

On the other hand, I'd like to know some of the uses that this card may see. I may be completely oblivious to its practical usage. Feel free to enlighten me as to where this could be used, what it will replace, and whether or not the price is right for that application.

Re:$1500?

[afidel]

That is what the submitter was talking about with Hitachi, Hitachi bought IBM's HDD assets including the Microdrive line. Hitachi is supposed to unveil a 4GB Microdrive this fall. The Microdrive is less shock resistant, eats up to 4X the battery life, and has slower transfer rates than the high speed flash products out there, initially the 4GB Microdrive may be cheaper, but within probably 9-18 months the flash will almost certainly be cheaper, that's the way it happened with the origional Microdrive (actually there wasn't any 1GB CF card at the time that I could find, but there was soon after).

Re:Too big

[mekkab]

But if you only have 1 card- its in your camera. If you lose that card, you have FAR greater problems on your hands!

Conversely- if you are juggling 4 different little pieces of plastic, the ability to lose one is a lot easier!

6GB CF from Pretec

[Eugene]

A while ago Pretec announced 3GB and 6GB CF card, while 3GB is out, 6GB capacity CF is still no where in sight yet. but the competition from 4GB card surely will start driving the price down.

Do the math...

[Kjella]

600 RAW * 6M pixels = 3,6G pixels or 3,6gigabit. At a minimum of 8 bits color resolution per pixel, it'll be 3,6 gigabytes.

Kjella

When The Price Drops

[mustangsal66]

Think about it... 6 Divx movies in the palm of your hand...

Now to create a card reader/decoder for my DVD player...

Re:When The Price Drops

[stratjakt]

And whats in the palm of your other hand?

Re:Is 40x worth it?

[cetan]

CompactFlash Performance Database http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?ci d=6007

Failure rates and mirrored arrays

[tinrobot]

What's the MTBF on these things? I've had CF cards go bad on me before, and it's always a bummer when you lose photos. I personally think it's best to go with several mid-sized cards rather than one gargantuan one. That way, if a single card goes bad, you don't lose everything. Even for pro-tographers who take zillions of pictures, it's a good idea. Changing a CF card takes less time than changing a roll of film, so it won't interrupt the workflow all that much. Plus it might save you a major headache should you lose everything.

On the same lines, I think someone should come out with a redundant flash card. Instead of a single 4GB card, perhaps two 2GB cards in one, with the storage mirrored as in a RAID. I know some people might pay extra for the added security/redundancy.

Re:So fucking what

[demastri]

that $1500 could feed a lot of starving children.

Or better yet, store the pictures of up to 600 of them without having to change memory sticks!

The *real* boon in high-capacity CF (etc.) cards

[tambo]

...will be the elimination of the MP3 player market.

It frustrates me to no end that I carry around a rather remarkably-specced PDA that could handily play MP3s... but I'm hampered by limited storage. It's like being unable to drive your Corvette because you can't buy enough gas.

The high-capacity portable-medium format will obsolesce one device from my gadget arsenal. One less battery to recharge; one less file store to maintain; one less device for firmware, driver updates, and connectors.

David Stein, Esq.

Wow! Closing In On Mechanical HDs

[istartedi]

My primary drive is 8 GB. Windows uses only half of it (other half is BSD). Yes, I have another drive in there too. Obviously, I don't store a lot of music and video. The point is, it's looking more and more realistic for at least some users like myself to have totally solid-state PCs. Quiet PC nirvanna; just around the corner.

NONONONO

[imsabbel]

There is a HUGE difference between png/tiff vs jpeg and raw vs jpeg.
Raw isnt just lossless compression, but rather using the direct output of the image sensor. This preserves a higher dynamic range (like 12bit per pixel) and you can later set a white balance ect in your computer.
Just make a underexposed picture with jpeg and try to salvage anything with photoshop. All formerly dark areas will be a happy 8x8 macroblock land...

600 RAW images?

[Lxy]

What am I supposed to do with a number like that? I can't relate to it or determine how this would suit my needs. Put it into terms I recognize, like Libraries of Congress. How many Volkswagons fit in one of these? Is this still Slashdot?

Wouldn't it die very fast?

[vadim_t]

I've heard that FAT32 is very bad to have on Flash because it keeps updating the disk space counter almost with every write. If this effect happens on a card of this size it might not last for more than a month if you fill it often.

40x?

[hendrix69]

What's the deal with measuring speed as multiples of ancient cdroms? How long is this gonna go on? Am I supposed to walk around with a pocket calculator in order to figure out what the actally speed of merchandise is? Quick: how many MBps in 48x?
It's like measuring the power of a space shuttle's lunch rockets using horse power. "Oh, you mean if we tie down 1 million and a half horses to the shuttle we'd be able to get it off the ground? Impressive..."

Still not a little hard drive replacement

[DeathB]

I've seen two misstatements repeated over and over again in this discussion. Folks have been suggesting that flash cards like this might represent the future of hard drives. They've also been mentioning that it has a higher speed than the IBM microdrive.

While this is true in a camera, where you tend to erase an entire card and then fill it in a linear fasion, this isn't true when you use it as a hard drive. Flash memory has two things which make it unique, slow erasures, and limited numbers of cycles. Unlike a hard drive, where you can simply overwrite data, in flash memory you have to erase a region of it first. Usually you also have to erase a much larger region than a filesystem block (64k vs 4k). These erasures can be as painful as .5 seconds as well. Typical UNIX filesystems like ext2 or ffs, keep their data structures in fixed locations. Most writes are to metadata, and they will cause the metadata parts of a CF card to be erased and overwritten over and over again. Unlike a hard drive which can survive almost unlimited cycles like this, you will only get a few thousand in flash memory. Copying a set of files might burn out some cells in a single operation.

The log-structured filesystem (lfs) presents a partial solution to this, by writing data in blocks, deleting it in blocks, and writing to the end of a disk before starting over again. Unfortunatly, lfs becomes unefficient once fragmentation starts to set in, as a "cleaner" is necessary to group data back into blocks.

I still think one of these would be cool in my camera, but I want a 4G microdrive for my computer.

Adam

Re:Oh, oh idea!

[red_gnom]

I think, that an image in the raw format preserves information about alignment of RGB cells in every pixel of the camera. This is a sub-pixel data. It allows you to produce more accurate end picture after processing.
There are many configurations for camera sensors. For example:

GRGRGR
BGBGBG
GRGRGR

RGBRGB
RGBRGB
RGBRGB

R-G-B-R-G
-B-R-G-B-
R-G-B-R-G
-B-R-G-B-

Cameras which this device works

[sinjayde]

From the Lexar Media website [digitalfilm.com] / [lexarmedia.com]

It is important to note that cards greater than 2 GB can only be used in cameras that support the FAT32 file system. Please be sure to install the latest version of Image Rescue (version 1.1.5) that is bundled on the card on your computers before using the card in a camera.

Image Rescue can assist you in properly reformatting the cards to FAT32 if they are mistakenly used in a non-FAT32 compliant camera.

At this time the 4 GB card can be used with the following cameras that support FAT32 and have a CF Type II slot.

Cameras that accept CompactFlash Type II that are also FAT32-compatible:

Canon Powershot G3
Canon Powershot G5
Canon Powershot S45
Canon Powershot S50
Canon EOS 10D
Canon EOS-1Ds

Kodak DCS 720X (A CompactFlash-to-PC Card adapter is required with these models)
Kodak DCS 760 (A CompactFlash-to-PC Card adapter is required with these models)
Kodak DCS Pro Back (all models)
Kodak DCS Pro 14n

Olympus E-1

Hmm, you may want to keep that in mind before you consider this product.

Hard Drive Replacement?

[DonGar]

Larger compact flash cards are now big enough to act as replacements for hard-drives for small/special purpose PCs. For example, my firewall, even with all of it's logging only needs about 200M of storage.

I could use a CF card to build a small/slow PC with no moving parts (fanless also). That seems like it would be a lot more reliable.

However, how well do Compact Flash cards deal with continuous writing and rewriting? How long could a card handle the data being logging to disk from my firewall before it starting having errors?

How much of a problem would the slower write times be? In the case of the firewall, I would expect there to be enough ram to keep the slow CF read/write times from being a problem, but how much difference is there overall?

Wear-Leveling in CF Cards

[Rambo]

I've read quite a few comments from people speculating that a particular filesystem (fat32) will cause issues because all the wear is concentrated in the FAT sectors, etc. This just isn't the case because the card will do wear-leveling in hardware, including replacing bad blocks with good blocks from a spare pool. Other interfaces (Mem Stick/MMC/SD/SM) do not have this advantage, as CF has a built-in intelligent controller to manage this behavior. The others allow direct access to sectors, and thus it is possible to "burn" a particular sector by writing to it repeatedly.

Here's a link to a FAQ about a CF interface for the Apple II, which discusses the issue (or lack thereof): http://dreher.net/CFforAppleII/FAQ.html

Here's a link to a maker of CF controllers and a description of their features: http://www.mittoni.com/compactflash/article5.html