Slashdot Mirror


12GB CompactFlash Cards Coming Soon

Anonymous Photographer writes "As Digital Photography Review reports, Pretec will release a 12 Gigabyte CompactFlash card by the end of the year... for just $14,900. Of course, you could save $14,300 by purchasing three Creative Labs Nomad MuVo 4 GB MP3 players and removing the Hitachi 4 GB microdrives to get the same amount of CompactFlash storage. Heck, I'll do the CF removal for you, at the low price of only $10,000. Think of the money you'll save." And for those seeking a different sort of windfall, VL writes "With MuVo 2 shells going on the cheap now, now is as good a time as any to pick one up and installing your own Compact Flash card to get it running again."

254 comments

  1. Ummm by MikeXpop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except the ones in MP3 players are Compact Flash compatible hard drives, not flash drives.

    --
    Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    1. Re:Ummm by beckett · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      um, did you even read the article at all? you posted about minute after this story was posted.

    2. Re:Ummm by aussersterne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw, but the Hitachi Microdrive in a Muvo2 will run just fine in a Compact Flash digital camera and will provide you with 4GB of storage.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    3. Re:Ummm by MikeXpop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not yet. But for that comment I didn't need to, as I was talking about the blurb which I did read, not the article.

      1. The new 12GB CF card costs $14,000. Because of the high price, it must be a flash drive.
      2. The MP3 player the submitter talks about uses a CompactFlash compatible hard drive. I know this becuase I distinctly remember it from a past article on the iPod mini.
      3. The submitter talks smugly about something which is false. So I corrected it.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    4. Re:Ummm by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      From the submission:

      ...removing the Hitachi 4 GB microdrives
      from your post:
      The submitter talks smugly about something which is false.

      I must be an idiot. Am I missing something here?

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Ummm by loyalsonofrutgers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read/Write speed.

    6. Re:Ummm by dfghjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and power consumption.

    7. Re:Ummm by spazoid12 · · Score: 1

      Yes, those are important distinctions. What are they thinking?? Only $15,000 for something with those powerful amazing benefits? It's a bargain at twice that price.

    8. Re:Ummm by name773 · · Score: 2, Informative

      a bit hard to get... the grandparent poster was saying that taking those three 4gb drives would not be the same as the 12gb card, because the 12gb card is a cf card, not a cf compatible drive... slight difference, but still there.
      i think it's a bigger deal that you need three to do the same thing, but w/e

    9. Re:Ummm by spazoid12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that is a slight difference. So slight, who cares?

      So the guy skipped a step... you take the CF compatible drive and install it into a CF card. Not a big deal. That's the kind of literal-geek-talk that annoys people. Here's an example:

      Jim: My 302 is faster than your 351!
      Ned: No it's not! Your 302 isn't in a car!

      Blah blah blah

      As for the 3 cards versus 1 card? I suppose, somewhere, somebody wants to snap a single picture that is larger than 4GB. Lucky he can spend $15,000 to get that one picture.

      Even if the pictures he's recording are 1 byte over 4GB, that 12GB card would only afford him the ability to capture 2 at a time. That is awesome. I wonder if any CF-compatible camera even exists where this is a concern.

    10. Re:Ummm by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Ok, I was just mentioning that the submitter had said to reomve the the drives, and now I'm really confused, because I didn't see anything falsely stated. If something was falsely implied, then, I'm sorry for not understanding.

      --
      What?
    11. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what the fuck is this shit? where are the mods?

      Wasting their time down-modding you! (and later me!)

    12. Re:Ummm by EvanED · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "So the guy skipped a step... you take the CF compatible drive and install it into a CF card. Not a big deal."

      No, actually the difference is larger than that. The single 12 GB card is flash media; it's a solid state device. The three 4 GB microdrives are very small hard drives. There's the difference. The flash media would probably be more reliable as there are no moving parts to wear out/break, should read and write at a higher speed, and should consume less power.

    13. Re:Ummm by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The drives are not likely to wear out within a normal service life, or even an abnormal one. They are certainly more delicate than flash but they can handle a LOT of shock - and I'm pretty sure they can handle significantly more writes. This is why I always use the SD and never the internal flash on our digital camera - I want it to last a long time. I can get more SD, but I can't resolder onboard memory, at least, not and have it be worth it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Ummm by spazoid12 · · Score: 1

      That was a very anal-rententive response. Suddenly I'm very tired. I'd also like to kick the cat.

      Dude, explain it to your mom. She'll make you a treat while stroking your genius-ego.

    15. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have come a long way in the last few years but previous versions of the drives would be destroyed by something as little as a foot drop. Solid state flash's limit is only by the physical strenght of the card and pcb board inside.

    16. Re:Ummm by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And moving parts.

    17. Re:Ummm by phsdv · · Score: 1
      and air pressure

      micro drives will not work at high altitude....

    18. Re:Ummm by NathanBales · · Score: 1

      Not only is it more reliable, but it also probably consumes much less power and probably has much faster access times. A hard drive has a head that has to be moved which adds significantly to access time and power consumption, and a disk that needs to be spun, also consuming power. If the darn stuff were a magnitude or so cheaper it might help fill the memory gap. It would be cool to have 12 gigs of solid state memory for the OS and swapfile in a notebook computer. It would increase battery life, general perfomance, and decrease boot time (nearly instant hibernation).

    19. Re:Ummm by NathanBales · · Score: 1

      Actually, on second thought my further research indicates that this memory has a finate and actually rather short life span in terms of rewrites. It probably wouldn't be a great place for swapfiles. Could still be sutable for the os/apps and hybernation files though.

    20. Re:Ummm by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

      They won't? Why not?

    21. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The read/write heads are flying above the platters on air cushion. If there is no air pressure, the heads will touch the platters, eventually destroying the entire hard drive.

    22. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be cool to have 12 gigs of solid state memory for the OS and swapfile in a notebook computer. It would increase battery life, general perfomance, and decrease boot time (nearly instant hibernation).


      Please note that flash memory is actually *slower* than hard drives. Reads and writes are as fast as normal RAM, but the block erase operations take ages...
    23. Re:Ummm by bheading · · Score: 1

      Actually flash drives *do* wear out eventually. There is a limit to the number of times a sector can be rewritten, numbering in the thousands.

    24. Re:Ummm by Rattencremesuppe · · Score: 1

      right. Intel, for instance, specifies a minimum limit of 100.000 block rewrites for their StrataFlash. However, there are special flash filesystems (jffs2 for example) with wearleveling.

    25. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this was at least true for the fisrt IBM mirocrives. The problem was that the drive needs to have under-pressure to prevent dust to enter. At high altitude, the outside pressure is higer then the drive pressure, which could lead to fails.

    26. Re:Ummm by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      This one will give you 12GB.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  2. Who's gonna buy em? by Exiler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, I know there are a few niche applications for that much space in compact flash, but where's the real market for these? Aren't most pros still using film, making the ammount of people willing to spend that much money on a CF card even smaller?

    --
    Banaaaana!
    1. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I'd love these to come down in price. Flash is *nice*.

      Here I'm going to try to set up a router with no moving parts at all. VIA motherboard with no CPU or power supply fans, no floppies, no CD drives (after install). Just a 512MB flash card in a CF-IDE adapter, with a small Debian install on it.

      That should be the first computer I have to be completely silent.

    2. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Media photographers are going digital. When you're posting photos to a news paper or news website from the field it becomes a lot cheaper. The news photographers in Iraq use satellites to send the photos back. But 12gb? I don't know that's a lot. I'd shy away from it because then you can get lazy and not upload the pictures as often as you normally would and run the chance of losing them all.

      Keep in mind though, a few years ago 40gb of computer storage space seemed like too much. Storage has always had that. When new drives come out people say "who needs that?" but then later on it becomes "I need more!"

    3. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by xmas2003 · · Score: 5, Informative
      I'd suggest that many (perhaps most) pro's have converted to Digital and the trend is increasing. Digicam's (eespecially pro ones) can generate a LOT of data VERY fast - I "had" to go over to a friend who had a Canon Mark II - this is a $4,000 8MP digicam that will shoot 8 frames/second ... with a frame burst of 40 frames ... in RAW mode. Lets just say it was REALLY cool to hold that shutter button down!

      Check out this interesting article on Sports Illustrated digital workflow to see how the pros do it and how much data was generated ... with the last generation of digicams!

      Having said all that, that is one heck of a price-premium for this 12 GByte card, so I'd take it as just a bleading edge product, but you'll continue to see larger/faster (BTW, faster is REALLY important to the pro's because you want to be able to drain the digicam memory buffer) cards coming down the pipe for cheaper ... and they will be used! ;-)

      --
      Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    4. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      VIA motherboard with no CPU or power supply fans, ...

      English needs parentheses. Upon reading this, my first thought was "maybe it will be completely silent, but it won't be doing much without a CPU."
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    5. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Or maybe I should have written that in some other way. English is my third language, so I still make lots of mistakes. If you can think of a better way of saying it, I will try to remember it for next time.

    6. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "That should be the first computer I have to be completely silent."

      I've had silent computers for YEARS.

      VIC=20
      Commodore 64
      Commodore 128
      Mac Plus
      Palm IIIx

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    7. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      That sounds pretty silent, but not completely, excepting the Palm maybe. In this computer NOTHING will move. The others did have moving parts that made noise:

      VIC-20: Cassette tape
      Commodore: Floppy drive
      Mac Plus: Floppy drive, hard disk

      I started with a 386, which had a hard disk and power supply fan, so no computers of mine were completely silent.

    8. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VIC=20
      Commodore 64
      Commodore 128
      Mac Plus
      Palm IIIx
      ------------
      Silient? Only if you never used the floppy drive in the Mac Plus, and it didn't have a hard disk... :-)

    9. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, you could have said "no CPU fans or power supply fans," among many other choices of varying awkwardness.

      Truth be told, however, I probably would have stated it exactly as you did. I was just kidding; ambiguity is a fact of life in all languages, and your intent was clear enough once I considered the context.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    10. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "That sounds pretty silent, but not completely, excepting the Palm maybe. In this computer NOTHING will move. The others did have moving parts that made noise:

      Commodore: Floppy drive"

      I see your 1541/71/81 Commodore drive (and Dobbs knows, the 1541 could raise a racket when the R/W head was trying to find Track Zero!) and raise you the Commodore 1750 RAM Expansion Unit!

      One whole whopping HUGE megabyte of RAM disk. Once all the needed software was installed, you didn't need a floppy drive. Unless you shut the thing off and powered it up again.

      But, yes, you are correct about Commodore drives. Although, if you just wanted to play some games, sticking a cartridge in the Expansion Port DID result in a pretty quiet computer.

      Save for the game sounds of course.

      I suspect that we'll never see a truly silent modern computer until some manner of really efficiant passive cooling for the CPU and graphics card comes along.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    11. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Why, the system I have in mind is fairly modern. I've heard that the 1 GHz Eden CPU is not really on the same level as a 1 GHz Athlon, but I suppose it should still be enough for a decent amount of modern software. It's supposed to have some 3D and crypto acceleration as well.

      Now, I won't argue it won't compare very favorably to my dual Athlon on speed terms, but the Athlon has 9 fans (!) that make impossible to sleep near it and this one will have none.

    12. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by TLSPRWR · · Score: 1

      As digital cameras keep getting higher and higher resolution, the need for space is going to keep increasing. In a few years, ultra high res pictures (20-30+ MegaPixels?) may take 500mb per picture. Insane, yes. But hopefully they'll use some sort of compression. Regardless 12gb would only give you enough room for about 24 pictures if that were the case... Besides, don't most PDAs take Compact Flash cards? Think of all the mp3's/games/docs/photos/anything could fit on that for PDA use.

      Pretec's just thinking ahead... Way way ahead.

    13. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I'm not mistaken, it's the C5P core. This 3D acceleration that you speak of is in the chipset, and it's ordinary S3 ProSavage crap that you find in bottom-of-the-line P4 boards with VIA chipsets. However, the encryption stuff is awesome. It means this is one of the fastest CPUs to encrypt - it beats 3.4GHz P4s by miles.

    14. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Anybody who has made the effort to learn English, and use it to communicate, is forgiven for small gramatical lapses, in my book.

      I'd have said it similarly.

    15. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      How about no *internal* fans?

      Anyhow, your english is pretty damn good.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    16. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a friend who had a Canon Mark II

      Perhaps you mean the Canon EOS-1D Mark II?

    17. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      A few years ago, I bought my first PC (second hand, from a friend of a friend). It came with a 600meg hard drive, which was plenty - even with a couple of games installed, I had space to spare.

      Now, I have a 60 gig hard drive, and with UT2k4 ordered and on its way, I'm going to have to decide what to delete to make enough space for its 5.5gig install size. That's ignoring the 11gig or so of music I have.

      Hell, for that matter, I remember the 50meg Amiga hard drives; I never bought one because I simply didn't have a use for that much space. Or the whopping 3 meg RAM upgrade I did splash out for for my Amiga; I was swimming in RAM! I had more than I knew what to do with! Nowadays, I view 512meg as an absolute minimum.

      One final example: the laser was sat around in research labs for a decade or two before anyone thought of a practical use for it. Hands up who here doesn't have one? Thought so.

    18. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Poingggg · · Score: 1

      Just how about: "No CPU- or powersupply fans."
      A little dash can make a difference :-)

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    19. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by jafuser · · Score: 1
      From the linked article:
      When upsizing images, the department uses Photoshop's bicubic interpolation and uses a "stair-step" technique, increasing resolution in 110% increments.

      Maybe I'm ignorant, but isn't doing this in several steps result in less quality than if it were done in one step?

      If not, then why wouldn't the algorithm take this into consideration so that it could do the multiple steps itself instead of having the user do something unnecessarily repetitive?
      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    20. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by jooniqzb1tch · · Score: 1

      check out http://www.soekris.com/ - might be what you're looking for :)

    21. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 1
      Pretec's just thinking ahead... Way way ahead.


      To a time when inflation has goeetn so far out of hand that a loaf of bread is $1,000.00 and gas is $1,500.00 a gallon..... to a time when a $15,000.00 playtoy for your camera or mp3 player is a reasonable expendature.
      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    22. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      NINE FANS?

      What do you have in that case?

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    23. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Well, let's count. It's an Athlon 2000+ in a Lian Li case, with a GeForce FX 5600

      Two CPUs: 2 fans, logically
      Lian Li PC68: 2 intake fans in front, 1 fan on top, 1 fan behind
      Enermax 460W power supply: 1 intake fan, 1 exhaust fan
      GeForce: 1 fan

      Although the case fans add noise, they're pretty nice. They keep the hard disks cool because the intake fans blow right on them, and they have a filter that keeps most dust out.

    24. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, the Commodore REUs came in 128k, 256k and 512k flavors. No megabytes. The 1764 was the 256k version that came with a bigger power supply for the 64. The 1750 was the 512k version for the 128. Of course, they used the same board inside, so once you had a 1764 it was trivial to add the extra 256kx1 chips to get a whole 512k extra on the 64. Wee!

    25. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by wheany · · Score: 1

      It the camera has 30 megapixels, a raw, uncompressed, 24-bit image will take 90 megabytes. 180 megs, if 48 bits. 500 megs really sounds insane at that resolution.

      500 megs sounds realistic at around 100 megapixels. Or at a resolution of around 10240*7680 to 12800*9600.

    26. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      And here I am, occasionally contemplating the one fan in my PowerMac 5500/225, and thinking that I should replace it with something a bit quieter.

      I can see why you wouldn't that in the bedroom.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    27. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Well, mostly because it's my main computer, and my bedroom is the only room I have since I live with my parents. I have two other computers that run all the time, that's why I'm working on replacing them with something quiet.

      The server's going to be a challenge because it's going to need a hard disk, but I want to see if I can come up with some way of making a box like this firewall, that has a hard disk but uses the flash card as a kind of cache to get the disk to turn off at night.

      Besides, it's a technically interesting project :-)

    28. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by chriskenrick · · Score: 1

      A lot of pros are still using film, but any sort of time critical photography (sports/news reporting/etc) has gone all digital. And if you're using a digital SLR and shooting RAW, those CF cards don't last that many shots. Check out this article for an insight into Sports Illustrated's use of digital photography (they use multiple 512Mb or 1Gb cards per photographer).

    29. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Excellent article. Thanks for the link!

      -- SNS

    30. Re:Who's gonna buy em? by TLSPRWR · · Score: 1

      Math never was my strong suit.

  3. Speaking of Microdrives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Has anyone tried running a Microdrive as an IDE drive with a CF-to-IDE adapter? I'm trying to install an OS on a 4GB Microdrive right now for an embedded application, and it's taking forever. The drive's transfer rate seems to slow down to the kilobytes-per-second range, depending on how long it's been powered up.

    Do you need some special jumper or BIOS settings to use these devices as normal PC hard drives?

    1. Re:Speaking of Microdrives... by retrev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A big downside to microdrives...there is a huge difference in transfer rates at different places on the disc. The outer surfaces are much slower to seek to..a friend had an early IBM md (512 mb or so) for his camera and noticed this....as the disc fills it takes a really long time to write images.

    2. Re:Speaking of Microdrives... by gooru · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't bother unless you really need it for some sort of specialized application. I used to run Windows on a 1GB Microdrive on a SBC with a CF slot as IDE0. It was slow and failed pretty quickly. Microdrives really can't handle it. I honestly don't know about the newer 4GB ones, but I highly doubt that it'll last very long if you install an OS on it, especially if you have swap space on it.

    3. Re:Speaking of Microdrives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Interesting. Hitachi seems to officially support Windows (http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/mddwnld.htm ), but it's not clear if they expect you to be able to run the OS from the Microdrive, or if this package is just for add-on drives.

    4. Re:Speaking of Microdrives... by rtrimces · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I worked on a senior design project for IBM at Michigan Tech where we did exactly what you want. A final report of the project is avaliable if you want to read it. Not long ago a company called Aristos Logic Corp. (spinoff from Western Digital) asked me and another member of the team who worked on the IBM project to troubleshoot their design. I guess they took our project and made a network storage product that boots from a CF card :).

    5. Re:Speaking of Microdrives... by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

      It'll just be for add-on drives, allowing you to use the drives in a laptop with a PCMCIA-CF adaptor.

      Saying that, they are recognised by Windows(tm)(r)(c) out of the box, but I imagine the hitachi driver is more optimized for the particular drive type.

  4. Usage by Wiser87 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now you can bring your entire porn collection with you with just one card!

    1. Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor you, only 12 gig. I drag this around with me.

    2. Re:Usage by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now you can bring your entire porn collection with you with just one card!

      Hardly. I would need at least 13 pieces of 12G flash cards. For THAT money, I could buy a tiny bordello...

      --
      There you are, staring at me again.
    3. Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about your collection, sparky - but mine won't fit on a 12g card. Hell, it won't fit on a 200g drive either...

      my hand hurts.

  5. Price will come down. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Heh. You can laugh all you want about the price, but wait until some 19 megapixel camera appears that requires about a gig or so per photo, and there will be photographers waiting outsite the camera store an hour before opening so they can get their hands on one, and I mean quick.

    And even if that doesn't happen, I'm sure the price will come down a LOT in the coming months, so even if the thing costs about a grand or two, a lot of pros will buy this if it saves them time while on a shoot.

    And seriously, if you think this is expensive, I know a photographer who drives his junky van around to photo shoots with over $100,000 of professional equipment in the van, and that's only what he'll need on this shoot. In his shop, he probably has over a million dollars worth of photography equipment. This money doesn't grow on trees. It's what he's acquired throughout his professional career, by doing what he loves to do.

    Funniest thing: I asked him where he got the money for all this. He said: If you want to have this much worth of equipment, not just in photography but in anything, all you have to do is focus only on that area and find every way possible to become as good at it as you can, and then to improve the field in every creative way you can imagine.

    1. Re:Price will come down. by hardcode · · Score: 1

      Like this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/ valeo22-revisited.shtml 22 mega pixel back? a snip at 29000USD, comes with a free iPaq and 10Gb storage pack...

    2. Re:Price will come down. by hardcode · · Score: 1

      Lets try that again!

      22 mega pixel back

    3. Re:Price will come down. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...but wait until some 19 megapixel camera appears...

      19 megapixel...Bah!

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Price will come down. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      : If you want to have this much worth of equipment, not just in photography but in anything, all you have to do is focus only on that area and find every way possible to become as good at it as you can, and then to improve the field in every creative way you can imagine.

      Our many Slashdot trolls have the same work ethic.

    5. Re:Price will come down. by dfghjk · · Score: 3, Informative

      It'll be a long time before there's a 100x increase in file sizes in digital cameras. Kodak's 14MP cameras produce RAW images that are closer to 10MB each.

      Clearly this product is meant for photographers who don't pay for their own equipment.

    6. Re:Price will come down. by dmitriy · · Score: 1

      > 19 megapixel camera appears that requires about a gig or so per photo

      Hmm... 431 bits/bixel... That's on heck of color resolution...

    7. Re:Price will come down. by torinth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love geeks and gadget freaks. For the most part, you can be a great and successful professional photographer without relying on $100,000 of equipment. In fact, you can get away with about $4000 for a good camera, flash, lens, reflector, and some storage.

      Of course, if you like gadgets, there's a world of stuff out there for you. It's all too easy to turn the art of photography into a geek's paradise of analysis, formulas, and techniques. But I guess that kind of flexibility is just the beauty of the medium.

    8. Re:Price will come down. by jmv · · Score: 1

      Don't know how you count by at 8-bit resolution 24 bpp, you end up with 42 MB per raw pic for a 14 MP camera.

    9. Re:Price will come down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.
      Try at least $4000 for ONE lens if you want to go pro. Realisticly you are going to need 2-4 lenses if you want to go pro.

      Then the camera is about $1500 to $5000

    10. Re:Price will come down. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I couldn't decide whether to mod you up or reply. Reply won. Sorry.

      $4000 seems a little low in some respects, especially if you want to be digital. However, the guy that replied to you stating that a single lens would be $4000 is a little off base. You don't have to have the fastest, most low dispersion lenses to start with. It all depends on the kind of photography you want to do. I have friends that shoot professionally, and believe it or not they sometimes use plastic toy cameras. Of course, this is the exception, but it does show that creative endeavors (commercial ones at that) don't have to cost a fortune. And, you can have all the gear in the catalog and stil be a crappy shooter.

      Tech is an answer to a technical problem, not a creative one.

      From what I've seen photographers can be (mostly) divided into those who love the gadgets and know how to compute the hyperfocal distance and those who have an idea of what kind of image they want to create. By far, those in the latter category produce the most interesting stuff.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    11. Re:Price will come down. by torinth · · Score: 1

      Trust me. I live with a successful and well-appreciated photographer making a better than decent living in Los Angeles. You don't need to fall for the gimmicks of manufacturer's if you want to go pro. You can, and it can potentially make up for lacking in composition or digital post, but you really don't need to.

    12. Re:Price will come down. by torinth · · Score: 1

      Dead on, and that's pretty much what I was saying.

      Like I replied in the other thread, I'm speaking from the experience of living with a very successful wedding and portrait photographer for the last three years. Her current workflow involves a D100 ($1500), an SB800 flash ($800), a few 1GB CF cards ($750), two lenses worth about $300, and a $70 reflector. Granted, the lenses only go to F/4, but it isn't that hard to pull off a good number of shots with that. And upgrading to a ~28-300mm lens with F/2.4 will only cost her around $500 or so when she wants to do that.

    13. Re:Price will come down. by PunchMonkey · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are compressed? (Using non-lossy algorithms of course)

      --
      I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
    14. Re:Price will come down. by jmv · · Score: 1

      In which case, it would be called "compressed", not "raw".

    15. Re:Price will come down. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Raw files are compressed, usually about 8:1 or so. It's lossless, and straight (raw) off the sensor.

      Some cameras only do compressed TIFF for raw which isn't as good at the 12-bit internal format that most pro cameras use.

    16. Re:Price will come down. by woodhouse · · Score: 1

      Heh. You can laugh all you want about the price, but wait until some 19 megapixel camera appears that requires about a gig or so per photo,

      19 megapixels is only 57 MB (assuming 8 bits per channel). You'd need ~323 megapixels per photo to fill a gig. Large numbers of photos seems like more likely use than copiously large photos somehow.

    17. Re:Price will come down. by GregWebb · · Score: 1

      They're cheap lenses...

      Wedding photography, by definition, isn't moving subjects, far away subjects or really low light all that often. She can therefore live without the really fast lenses and has no particular need for much above 100mm. Were I a pro I'd still rather have higher quality optics than them - I've got about that value of lenses as a starter outfit for an enthusiastic amateur!

      Pretty much any other pro sector will want better lenses than that, and more.

      --

      Greg

      (Inside a nuclear plant)
      Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

    18. Re:Price will come down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is correct. RAW is compressed. The data it contains is raw, the file itself is not.

      PS: Don't assume you know any arbitrary file format just becuase you can compile a linux kernel.

    19. Re:Price will come down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, F4 is about right (depending on the focal length), else you'll get next to no depth of field. You want to have *some* depth of field.

      I have some nice f2.8 lenses and frequently have to keep them up at f5 or higher to make sure I have everyone on focus.

    20. Re:Price will come down. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      They're cheap lenses...

      What sort of speed lens do you think Ansel Adams used?

      When I was at university a friend used to make really high end 'audiophile' stereo gear. The basic approach was to take an off the shelf Philips CD player or TEAC Tape drive, dismantle it and install it in a prettier box. That was all.

      In the process the price went up from #250 to #2500. The guys making the boxes knew that there was no way they could ever hope to compete with the R&D depts of the big manufacturers. But they could make a good living from selling 'design statements' to the gullible.

      Sure a newspaper sports photographer can make real use of a very high speed lens. And there are real customers for those really long Nikor lenses. But that is not what you need to start in the business. Very few people get to start as sports photographers, you have to start doing the less glamorous assignments.

      If the demand for the ultra fast lenses was all that great they would not cost a quarter as much. The number of profrssionals doing portrait and wedding photography is much much bigger than the number of newspaper photographers of any type.

      Oh and you can also be sure that every one of the guys wh buys one of those $5000+ lenses has a $800 or less equivalent. The fast lenses don't just cost a lot, they weigh a lot.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    21. Re:Price will come down. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Each pixel has 12 bits of data and lossless compression is used. Most cameras use monochromatic sensors and color filters. In this case the raw files do not contain full color pixels.

    22. Re:Price will come down. by torinth · · Score: 1

      I assume that by "any other pro sector" you mean sports photography.

      My whole point is that although her equipment is considered appropriate for an "enthusiastic amateur", it's plenty good for most anything a paid professional needs.

      She's a photojournalistic wedding photographer, which, by definition is moving subjects, many of which are often far away, and which sometimes are in pretty low light. Her equipment is perfectly sufficient for that, portraiture of all sorts (including glamour), nature photography, product/commercial photography, and even most news photojournalism. It might even be okay for some local sports coverage, but she hasn't had an opportunity to try it yet.

      It covers 90-95% of what a professional photographer would need to do. The manufacturer's though, are obsessed with selling for that small margin that covers 95-99% and charging $100,000 to do so. There's uses for that stuff, but chances are you won't actually be doing it.

      One of her favorite quotes from that whole analysis-fixated camp:

      "Of course you can do natural light photography! You just need to treat the sun like a big lamp!"

      That someone needs to say that, and relate the worlds biggest and best light source to some $2000 catalog item really captures the mentality of that school.

    23. Re:Price will come down. by Eivind · · Score: 1
      You're rigth that larger pixel-counts, and quicker shots require more storage. But your maths don't add up.

      If you've got 20million pixels, and use one byte for each of R,G,B for each pixel (i.e. RAW, completely uncompressed), then you need 60MB for a picture. Large, but not in the ballpark of the GB you claim.

      Even if some future camera is so color-accurate that it goes 16bit/channel, you're still only at 40MB/picture. And that the completely uncompressed version, even lossless compression could probably cut this in 2-4 with common pictures.

      Now, when you start holding the button down on that 20MP monster, and it does 8pictures/second for 5 seconds, then you've produced around A GB or two in 5 seconds. You'll need *minutes* to get that info into the compactflash though, even provided it can store that much.

  6. Microdrive vs. flash by aussersterne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thing is, even though microdrives are rugged (I have several and have never had a problem with them), they are still filled with moving parts.

    A lot of pro photographers are in really tough assignment areas (i.e. war zones, etc.) with digital gear like Nikon or Canon's professional offerings... These cameras can run $4-8k easily and are ruggedized, waterproof, dustproof, etc. If you're going to be hopping through ditches and onto freight trucks and getting your gear submerged in mud and water every five minutes, there might be a distinct advantage to storage with no moving parts...

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:Microdrive vs. flash by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Those photographers don't need the huge capacity though. They take moderate resolution images and generally shoot JPG. The current 2GB flash cards hold a lot of those images already.

    2. Re:Microdrive vs. flash by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you're going to be hopping through ditches and onto freight trucks and getting your gear submerged in mud and water every five minutes, there might be a distinct advantage to storage with no moving parts...

      On a side note, just think that Fox News bought a Hummer (a 1st generation one) to take into Iraq when they drove in there with the U.S. military. When the time came to ditch the equipment, they left that vehicle right there in the desert, and didn't give it a second thought. When you're in business, you have to make decisions, and those decisions can get quite expensive sometimes, but if the return on those decisions is several times that price, then it's a no-brainer.

      Sure, someone would easily pay the nearly $15,000 because this equipment solves some problem.

    3. Re:Microdrive vs. flash by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      If people keep using that argument (i.e. memory cards are more expensive than hard disks), then they will be. I'd bet that memory can be produced faster and in greater quantities than hard disks, but the memory prices will remain higher as long as the demand and volume produced remain low.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    4. Re:Microdrive vs. flash by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart_int ro.htm

      Bill Biggart and Bill Biggart's Microdrive had the World Trade Center fall on them. The Microdrive was recoverable. Bill wasn't. This little story allayed any fears I had about Microdrives.

    5. Re:Microdrive vs. flash by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I presume that he was not writing to the drive at the time. Microdrives are very hard to damage when their heads are parked, but much more liable to be damaged if they suffer from impact when the heads are near the platters.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Microdrive vs. flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "But when he opened the chamber that held the compact flash card, it was pristine."

      ???

  7. Speed factor? by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Considering relatively very slow write speed of current flash memories technology, 12G CF is simply not worth any price.

    And yes, I use CF cards with PDA, notebook and desktop machine.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
    1. Re:Speed factor? by Mikey-San · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're obviously not a professional photographer.

      It's a simple equation:

      value = capacity + speed + reliability

      Compared to mechanical storage (oh shit, head crash! there goes my latest $10,000 shoot), high-capacity CF is worth what, to non-pros, looks to be ridiculously high prices. CF might not be as fast as a 15,000-RPM SCSI drive, but Lexar's 2-gig CF cards write at 4.8 MB KB/sec. That ain't too damn bad when you can store two gigs of data on your roll. (Lexar sells larger sizes, but that's the one that came to mind.)

      You use CF cards with your PDA (doesn't need lots of storage space anyway), your notebook (you're not moving it around while it's trying to write to the drive, like you would with a camera a good deal of the time), and your desktop (doesn't move at all, doesn't follow you to photoshoots). You're not the market for this product.

      Next poster, please.

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    2. Re:Speed factor? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      Compared to mechanical storage (oh shit, head crash! there goes my latest $10,000 shoot), high-capacity CF is worth what, to non-pros, looks to be ridiculously high prices

      How often do heads crash? If it is rare, it would probably still be cheaper to use disk, and if you do have a crash on your $10k shoot, send the disk to a data recovery service. Sure, those are expensive, but I think even they are cheap compared to this huge flash drive.

    3. Re:Speed factor? by Da+Web+Guru · · Score: 1

      ...and if you do have a crash on your $10k shoot, send the disk to a data recovery service.

      Sure. Just tell your customer to push back their magazine release because the pictures from their $10k photo shoot will be delayed for a couple of weeks (or more) while your camera gets fixed...

      --

      --guru

  8. HOLY crAP!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    thats amazing!!!!

  9. Hitachi drives not a viable option for pro photo by johnthorensen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's a huge difference between Hitachi Microdrives and a quality CF card - speed! Professional Digital SLR cameras such as those made by Nikon and Canon are able to shoot very large frames at a pretty stiff frame rate. A professional photographer would quickly be frustrated at the time it takes to write such frames to a Microdrive, making them next to worthless.

    As for the 12GB capacity, I can also see these being used in the recent crop of micro-size digital video cameras.

    -JT

  10. Compact Flash speed by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Somewhat on topic...

    I have an old toshiba libretto that I'm running linux on. It is only capable of 64MB of ram, so obviously utilizes swap a bit, especially when running firefox.

    I've noticed that CF cards tend to be slower than the hard drive, so using CF as swap doesn't seem like it would help.

    Are there any memory type PCMCIA cards that can be used either as extra system memory or as swap space? The caveat, of course, is that it would have to be faster than the hard drive is with normal swap.

    1. Re:Compact Flash speed by BlueBiker · · Score: 1

      Speed may not be the only consideration. Some removable media formats [maybe SmartMedia?] are designed to provide data transport but aren't robust enough for high duty cycle writes which would be needed to function as swap space.

      Can't give you a solid example, but I remember reading warnings about certain kinds of media which could only be reliably written a few hundred or thousand times.

    2. Re:Compact Flash speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to swap to flash.. That would result in way too many writes and kill the card quite quickly.

    3. Re:Compact Flash speed by glenalec · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be more exact, NAND flash (used in most mass storage devices) can take around 100,000 rewrites. NOR flash (used in embedded systems needing true random access to memory) can take about 1,000,000. (I think I got that the right way around). Assuming one rewrite to a memory block per minute (we are being VERY generous here). How many weeks will your card work for?

      Flash cards usually use wear leveling to prolong their lives under heavy rewrite conditions, but even this can't keep up with a lot of page swapping.

      Magneto-resistive RAM (MRAM) is a new technology just avaliable at very low capacities (Motorola has 4Mbit - 512kbyte - chips out now) which claims virtually infinite re-write capability (and much better r/w speed, too. If they start making these at higher densities into CF/PCMCIA/card-format-of-the-week, you can probably make it work. I am, in fact, hoping to use this technology at the next generation (16Mbit) for a very similar purpose in a consumer device (which I am designing as a personal project -- hence I have the luxury of waiting around for technology to catch up with my needs! ;-).

      If you want a hardware project, get yourself a depopulated (ie, no chips) PCMCIA SRAM card designed to hold 4Mbit SRAMS of the same JEDEC pinout and solder on a bunch of MRAMS. They are electricaly compatible with SRAMS. You will need a very fine soldering iron, a very steady hand and a jewlwer's eyepiece for best soldering results. You would max out at 16MBytes, it think, which is the largest size PCMCIA SRAM can handle (limit on addressing pins). Beyond that capacity you are mucking around with simulating ATA devices, something I refuse to do. No waranty offered by the poster on this procedure ;-)

      --
      The man with no surname and a silly hat

      On the universe: It's bunk.
    4. Re:Compact Flash speed by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What about battery-backed DRAM? About a decade ago, I caried a Psion Series 3 around, which supported memory cards about the same size as a PCMCIA card (but proprietary). These came in two flavours, flash and RAM. The flash cards needed to be formatted to reclaim space (remember, this was back when flash was very young and 128K of it cost around $50). The RAM cards were cheaper and faster and contained a lithium cell which kept their contents while they were not plugged in. Do similar devices still exist?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Compact Flash speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A PCMCIA card that used regular SDRAM would be perfect for that.

      Since you use it for swap then it would not need to retain the memory after power is lost.

      Would be fast as hell too. As fast as the cardbus interface at least.

      And SDRAM is cheap. You could really load that sucker up.

    6. Re:Compact Flash speed by glenalec · · Score: 1

      Could well exist still. This sort of stuff is still used a lot in Teleco equipment (hence Motorola's interest in MRAM). Unlike the consumer PC industry where 2 years is out-of-date, Teleco equipment is needed to be around and supported for decades, so the parts may well be avaliable still. Though you may end up paying a Teleco equipment price.

      --
      The man with no surname and a silly hat

      On the universe: It's bunk.
    7. Re:Compact Flash speed by glenalec · · Score: 1

      Oh, also:

      If the card is only going to be used for swap, you don't need a battery-backed card. Just a plain old SRAM card would do fine. Again, you are limited to 16M on this type of card - I have never heard of an ATA-SRAM device, battery backed or otherwise. Flash was established and cheap enough by the time there was a need to break the 16M barrier.

      I can imagine being able to build something with bank-switching (ah, the days of a 64k address space) to get past the 16M addessing limitation of PCMCIA-memory, but I can also imagine the special driver needed and a big headache. :-/

      --
      The man with no surname and a silly hat

      On the universe: It's bunk.
  11. Bla Bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course, you could save $14,300 by purchasing three Creative Labs Nomad MuVo 4 GB MP3 players and removing the Hitachi 4 GB microdrives to get the same amount of CompactFlash storage.

    Or of course you could also save $9,320 by buying three of their 4GB CF cards.

    Obviously the 12GB card is not targetted at folks who don't mind swapping their CF cards.

    What's amazing is how they are able to continuously increase the physical density at a rate that exceeds (= faster) than Moore's law. It will be interesting to see what happens to reliability figures.

    1. Re:Bla Bla by Pidder · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What's amazing is how they are able to continuously increase the physical density at a rate that exceeds (= faster) than Moore's law. It will be interesting to see what happens to reliability figures.

      Since when has Moore's law anything to do with compact flash cards?

    2. Re:Bla Bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's Moore's law so it gets applied to Moore and Moore things. =P

    3. Re:Bla Bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm going to be doing a bit of scuba diving for an upcoming holiday soon. Bought myself a new digital camera with an underwater housing, and a 1 GB CF card. That should be more than enough. Whilst underwater, I can't change the CF card, so I need something that can hold all my photos until I get back to the boat to load them onto the laptop. But at the same time, the camera is limited in how many photos it can take on one charge... to about the number of raw images that can be stored on a 1 GB card (about 200).

      12 GB is unlikely to be necessary for anybody (on a single card, anyway) for quite some time. And that still holds, even though my camera is "only" five megapixels.

    4. Re:Bla Bla by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I don't know if this works on flash, but I think it's one transistor/bit for memory (plus overhead for other stuff). It's climbing MUCH faster than Moore's Law.

    5. Re:Bla Bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has Moore's law anything to do with compact flash cards?

      Since when did it not? Moore's law says that data density doubles every 18 months. Show us another/better definition.

      Hint: look at the first bundle of google returns on Moore's law and make your point again...

    6. Re:Bla Bla by Bastard+Operator+Fro · · Score: 1

      Moore's law actually states the number of transistors on a chip will double every 18 months, I recall. It actually doesn't reference speed.

      --
      Shaun Nelson - Bastard Operator (From Hell / For Hire)
  12. Who? by NIK282000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who needs photos bigger then 3-5 mega-pixles? Any bigger and they cant be displayed on a monitor at full res. no printer can match the resolution and the files are bloody HUGE. Transfering 1gig pictures from a memeory card at any speed would still take ages. Some times its nice to know the tech is out there, but it has no practicle use.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    1. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's just another way of saying that the technology isn't there yet. I hope the resolution of even the small screens of portable devices will have improved quite a bit before printers improve much more. I wish printers would go the way of the dodo, personally. It's not that I hate paper, it's just that I tend to accumulate far too much of it.

    2. Re:Who? by johnthorensen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who would ever need a view camera? Who would ever like to shoot photos that can be printed at mural size?

      Answer: Lots of folks. Not a ton mind you, but enough that the demand has already been proven on the film-technology side of the aisle.

      Not everyone is a sorority girl shooting party pics to be emailed or printed out at 3x5...

      -JT

    3. Re:Who? by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Funny

      Transfering 1gig pictures from a memeory card at any speed would still take ages.

      It most certainly would. I took an uncompressed picture with a friend's 5 megapixel cameral. The resulting picture took a full 30 seconds(!) just to put onto the card inside the camera. And it was only 14 megabytes. I think the "Flinstones" camera with the bird inside chiseling out the picture was faster.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Who? by Andy+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Who needs photos bigger then 3-5 mega-pixles?"

      Me please.

      "Any bigger and they cant be displayed on a monitor at full res. no printer can match the resolution and the files are bloody HUGE."

      Which is why you resample down and sharpen (or unsharp for printing). The current standard resolutions for pro work are 4Mpx, 8Mpx and 11Mpx. It is expected that we'll reach 14Mpx and then 22Mpx within the year. These file sizes are necessary for large, high quality magazine prints, billboards, posters, etc. Obviously they aren't intended for the consumer market.

      "Transfering 1gig pictures from a memeory card at any speed would still take ages."

      I just transferred 2*1Gb cards via a firewire card reader and it took maybe five minutes. I wouldn't mind waiting twice as long for files with twice the resolution.

      "Some times its nice to know the tech is out there, but it has no practicle use."

      For you, quite possibly it doesn't.

      But for me, and for many other people, it has a lot of use.

    5. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who needs photos bigger then 3-5 mega-pixles? (sic) ... no printer can match the resolution

      Wow, that's not even close to true. There are lots and lots of printers that exceed this resolution, even cheap models in the consumer market. Even crappy 720x720 printers available for under US$100 lay down about 41Mpx for an 8x10. A nice printer, like the Epson Stylus Pro 10600 will output over 2.5Gpx for a 44x55 print.

    6. Re:Who? by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people do. If it isn't immediately obvious what higher resolution is for then no amount of explaining it is going to help.

      Cameras don't produce "1gig pictures" either, nor would such a camera be the target market for this device. Anything that produced data at that rate would be using very different storage than CF.

      The purpose of such a large card is to enable shooting of an incredible number of images between card changes, probably in environments where card charges are difficult or "expensive". Uploading afterward will take the same amount of time for a given amount of data whether it comes from 1 card or 6 cards.

      I hope it's clear now that everything you've said is irrelevant.

    7. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These file sizes are necessary for large, high quality magazine prints, billboards, posters, etc.

      That's not actually true for billboards. Billboards (of the giant next-to-the-freeway advert type) are surprisingly low resolution, DPI wise. In fact most can be measured not with DPI but IPD (inches per dot) as the dots can be very huge and have negligible impact on perceived quality due to the large viewing distances that most are supposed to be viewed at.

    8. Re:Who? by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I appoligize for my previous post. I was wrong and you all proved so.

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    9. Re:Who? by n3k5 · · Score: 1
      Even crappy 720x720 printers available for under US$100 lay down about 41Mpx for an 8x10.
      This guy counted all of the little ink marks such a printer can make as individual 'pixels'; however, obviously you need quite a couple of such ink drops to represent a single pixel in the image printed. Inkjet printers are absolutely nowhere near a quality for which you'd have to invent the term 'gigapixels'.
      --
      but what do i know, i'm just a model.
    10. Re:Who? by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 3, Informative
      Billboards (of the giant next-to-the-freeway advert type) are surprisingly low resolution, DPI wise. In fact most can be measured not with DPI but IPD (inches per dot)

      Bull

      The average file for a bill board prints from 7-21 DPI, low resolution yes, but for an average 30 or 40 sheet billboard (think from 25-35ish feet wide) you will build your file for that at 1/2inch=1', or posibly even 1-1. So the general rule of thumb is at 1" to 1' you build at 300 dpi. So you are talking about a file that is 36" wide at 300 dpi or 10,800 pixels wide, or around 125-150 megabyte file.

      However, to make matters worse, they are now using much higher resolution ink jets to print many billboars, as they are starting to put billboards at viewing distance of as little as 3' (think airport walkways & subway stations). So while not wuite as large, you still need about 100 dpi for a 20' billboard, or about 24,000 and a file size of about 750 mb.

      There have been occasions where we have used digital photography for outdoor work, but it is either a case where we are comping together a photograph from multiple 11mp shots or blowing it up and it looks kinda soft.

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
    11. Re:Who? by baryon351 · · Score: 1

      Who needs photos bigger then 3-5 mega-pixles? Any bigger and they cant be displayed on a monitor at full res. no printer can match the resolution and the files are bloody HUGE

      A printer such as a Durst Lambda can print a 50" wide roll of continuous photographic paper more than 100ft long in a continuous sheet at 300DPI with RGB lasers. The continuous tone images come out almost indistinguishable from photographs - the print shops with these machines can have them running jobs almost 24/7. The demand is there, they make a mint for their operators, and they need high quality imagery to produce high quality prints.

      Some jobs printed on machines like those make mincemeat of 10 or 14 megapixel images.

      Not much use for Home Digicam Users, but for people doing the high end stuff, the need is there. Digital backs like a Creo Leaf Valeo 22MP could fit 8 photos in a gig, perhaps 100 in 12GB on a good day. Don't be surprised to see near 30MP in 2005.

    12. Re:Who? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I am fairly sure flash cards are assymetrical (read faster than write)

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    13. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are the first slashdot poster to ever be wrong?

      Get over it. Move on. Be happy. Being wrong isn't the disability it used to be.

      Good grief, I was wrong just the other hour. I didn't sulk about it! :-P

    14. Re:Who? by xiaix · · Score: 1

      The current standard resolutions for pro work are 4Mpx, 8Mpx and 11Mpx. It is expected that we'll reach 14Mpx and then 22Mpx within the year. These file sizes are necessary for large, high quality magazine prints, billboards, posters, etc.

      Actualy as far as magazines go, the images tend to be brought down to 300dpi before processing, and since linescreen is generally 133, 266 dpi is sufficient. Occasionaly I get things coming in at substantially higher resolutions, but anything over 3000 dpi gets rejected. I can't speak for the other media mentioned, but magazines certainly do not need 22Mpx images... or 11... 2700 * 3600 is quite sufficient for the print process as currently used within the magazine publishing industry.

      --

      Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?

    15. Re:Who? by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you're right but would you expect the situation to change in, say, the next 12 months?

      With the new 1D offering 8Mpx I wonder if resolution requirements for magazines will begin to rise sooner rather than later.

      I only do newspaper work currently so 4Mpx is enough for me, but I would expect some magazines to begin rejecting 4Mpx pictures soon, unless of course they are one-off newsworthy shots.

      I know that some picture agencies require 11Mpx minimum for advertising and feature shots, but still accept 4Mpx for editorial.

      In my opinion we have a lot to thank Nikon for! If their pj cams weren't still 4Mpx I'm sure the minimum requirements for many publications would have risen by now. The D2h came out, what, three months ago, only becoming widely available now, so I reckon we've got at least a year or so before news/editorial shot requirements go up.

      It's a tricky situation for Canon shooters. Personally I don't want to move 'up' to the 1D Mk II because I find its pictures to be noticeably lacking in sharpness. So I'm stuck with 4Mpx for now on my 1D.

      I was looking through some of the Press Association's recent event shots last week and it was obvious that some of their photogs had switched to the Mk II. The softness of some of the images was shocking.

      I hope Canon resolve this issue, either with hardware or firmware revisions. There are numerous other grumbles about the Mk II such as over-sensitive shutter buttons, blown reds, firmware bugs, incompatibility with Metz flashes. Canon have a fair bit of work to do on future versions of this camera or we're going to see Nikon reclaiming the pj crown sooner than expected.

    16. Re:Who? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      With higher resolution photos you can crop larger portions of the photo out, meaning composition isn't as important any more, and will glean a higher number of "good" photos.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  13. or... by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

    your image collection of Jolene Blalock, Liv Tyler, and Natalie Portman.

  14. Quite the opposite, really... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Virtually all professional news photographers use digital cameras. Being able to use a laptop and a mobile phone to create and send instant contact sheets to show your editor which photos he has to pick from is far more convenient than heading for the nearest development lab.

    I think you'll find that most pros (at least most of those who have to worry about things like deadlines) have embraced digital photography, and for reasons beyond picture quality. That's not to say that picture quality is an issue with the high-end cameras that these guys are using, only to reiterate that it's the convenience and flexibility that going digital affords them that are the overwhelming reasons why most pros have abandoned film cameras.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  15. Might as well save yourself the trouble... by leviathanap · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and go with this. That is, unless you just NEED a FlashDrive...

    --
    "Leisure is the mother of philosophy" - Thomas Hobbes
  16. video recorders by cipher+uk · · Score: 1

    this could be useful in mini digital video recorders. away with those 30 second clips some cheap digital cameras offer. 16gb would be great and you could get some good resolution down. all the amateur porn you could make on one camera and being able to transfer it to a pc quickly without much user-interaction would be a good bonus.

    its just a matter of dropping the price.

    1. Re:video recorders by leviathanap · · Score: 0

      ...I'm sure this was created with amateur porn in mind. *shakes head*

      --
      "Leisure is the mother of philosophy" - Thomas Hobbes
    2. Re:video recorders by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      12GB is roughly the same capacity as a 60 minute DV tape. Digital video lends itself quite well to tape storage, though, and the cost of using flash for that just can't be justified using the current numbers. Seems to me that 1.8" hard drives would be a better choice and would be more cost comparable to a tape plus the tape mechanism.

    3. Re:video recorders by EvanED · · Score: 1

      "away with those 30 second clips some cheap digital cameras offer"

      The limiting factor there really isn't the size of the CF card, it's the write speed of the CF card and the size of the camera's buffer. For instance, I have an old Olympus camera with an 8 MB card, enough to hold ~60 secords of video. However, I can only record in 15 second clips because it takes so long to transfer that to the card that the buffer fills.

    4. Re:video recorders by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      that is a difficult choice.... $20 for three DV tapes, or $14,000 for a 12 gig memory card.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:video recorders by glenalec · · Score: 1

      I bought a Fuji FinePix S602 explicitly because it can record 640x480 at 32fps (ie, pretty close to DVD size, rather than a moving postage stamp). It can also, given a reasonably fast flash card, keep recording until the card is full. 12MB gives me a very feature-basic camcorder, which is all I want. About 120 minutes recording. With the bonus that the video is not interlaced which is great for me since I only ever output to monitor. I don't have enough need for video to own a purpose-built camcorder, but a digicam that can make a passable effort at video suits me well.

      Not at that price, of course! Maybe in a few years. Currently I'm still using a 128M card, planning on upgrading to a 1G when the price drops a bit more. I seldom have need to shoot more than a few dozen seconds at a time between being near my computer ATM. I'd also have to check that the camera can go above a 1G card.

      If only I could hack it to record 512x256@48fps. I would have my perfect low-end video device. Well... close enough to it.

      --
      The man with no surname and a silly hat

      On the universe: It's bunk.
    6. Re:video recorders by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly! It's possible, though, to gang multiple smaller devices plus you save costs on the tape transport. Still I think it's crazy until the price gets much closer.

  17. pros and digital by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Aren't most pros still using film, making the ammount of people willing to spend that much money on a CF card even smaller?

    You are joking, right?

    Any pro who hasn't gone digital by now is pretty much out of business and never will be in business again. Customers vastly prefer digital in most cases. Pros who claim they're faster/better with film are outright lying to save their own skins; digital offers instant previewing of composition, exposure, and focus (btw, don't buy a digital camera without a histogram mode in the review function!) Even in the studio, medium format and large format digital backs (one such company is Leaf, another is Capture1) are getting more and more common, with astounding image quality. Given how much MF/LF film costs, studio photographers LOVE digital backs.

    When a 512MB card will hold 60+ 6+mp compressed RAW images (ie, straight from the CCD, no processing, far better than JPEG) and costs under $150, it pays for itself almost overnight...especially since you can't, with film, sit during a second or two's downtime and flip through what you've taken and blow away anything that's obviously not going to cut it. With film, you can't send the image across the world within minutes- with digital, it's pretty damn easy, as long as you have some internet connection (many photojournalist types have unlimited-transfer GSM phone accounts, just to be able to transfer images to the service bureau, although less time-sensitive stuff is done via fedex, either the CD-Rs or the memory cards themselves. Yes you can fedex film, but a)the photographer knows what's on it already, and b)within 10 seconds of it arriving via fedex you can be editing the images in photoshop- film, you've gotta wait at least an hour before you've got negatives).

    This 12GB card isn't for photographers, I can virtually guarantee- they won't buy it, ignoring the absurd pricing. Many don't use anything larger than 1GB cards, for the simple reason that they don't want to put all their eggs in one basket- if a card fails, gets lost, stepped on, or accidentally erased, well...I'd rather have that be 1/4 of my shoot than ALL of my shoot.

    1. Re:pros and digital by ennuiner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you need to define what you mean by "pro." Certainly most photojournalists and news photographers are using high-end digital SLRs, but there are plenty of portrait photographers (above the level of a Sears Portrait Studio) still working with film-based medium-format cameras. And art photographers, which you may not regard as "pros," work with a variety of cameras, from crude pinhole cameras to expensive single-plate box cameras. Moreover, much art photography still involves chemical processes in the darkroom.

      --
      Somebody please, tell this machine I'm not a machine.
    2. Re:pros and digital by Compuser · · Score: 1

      So then, how long till we see cameras with CF RAID?
      You are saying the demand is there...

    3. Re:pros and digital by Zocalo · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Already here - it's called the Leaf/Valeo (and yes, that is an iPAQ hanging off the side). It uses a 10GB CF magazine anyway, whether it's actually a RAID or not I've not been able to ascertain.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:pros and digital by mattkime · · Score: 1

      Customers vastly prefer digital in most cases. Pros who claim they're faster/better with film are outright lying to save their own skins; digital offers instant previewing of composition, exposure, and focus (btw, don't buy a digital camera without a histogram mode in the review function!)



      I think you're overstating the value of digital. The photographer needs to work with whatever he's most comfortable with. On most jobs, prints or transparencies need to be delivered anyway because its so difficult to set up a consistent digital workflow. Yeah, anything extremely time sensitive it done digital, but many many things aren't. Also, if you're going above 35mm, you're losing quality if you're going with a digital back over film.

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    5. Re:pros and digital by jfengel · · Score: 1

      On most jobs, prints or transparencies need to be delivered anyway because its so difficult to set up a consistent digital workflow.

      I wonder how long that will be true. Some service bureaus have already gone all-digital, and "camera ready" has really become "scanner ready".

    6. Re:pros and digital by mattkime · · Score: 1

      looooong time....

      you've obviously never dealt with color management. many top photographers don't even understand it. (thats where i come in)

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    7. Re:pros and digital by QuaZar666 · · Score: 1

      not that many any more. I have a good friend who takes still pictures and won't use anything but SLR camaras because of all of the post work he can do with the pictures

    8. Re:pros and digital by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      The fact that he mentions negatives when talking about film vs. digital shows that he doesn't understand how and why most pros outside of journalism still use film.

      Cris

    9. Re:pros and digital by Willard+B.+Trophy · · Score: 1
      > With film, you can't send the image across the world within minutes

      Actually, you can -- and have been able to since the 1920s. The RCA Photo Wire could send images transatlantically in six minutes.

      There were various techniques that press photographers used to get pictures out quickly, including high activity developers and decidedly dodgy methods of handling images which were still wet. The old photo-finish labs at racetracks had to have their negatives ready in a couple of minutes after the race ended, otherwise the punters would riot.

      So yeah, we might have a bit more bandwidth and colour, but I'l bet the average image spends a lot more time being futzed with in PhotoShop than it took to get a picture over the wire.

    10. Re:pros and digital by WNight · · Score: 1

      35mm digital (from the 1Ds and 14n) isn't quite as high resolution as MF but is lower grain which probably will end up producing a much better final image.

    11. Re:pros and digital by maximilln · · Score: 1

      We'll see how many 90s and 2k family albums stored on digital CD are still available in 50 years, as opposed to all this "inferior film" that we still have from the 1800s.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    12. Re:pros and digital by mattkime · · Score: 1

      when people compare it to medium format, they're comparing it to 6x4.5, which is the smallest format medium format offers. its still nowhere near 6x7, which is what most people mean when they say medium format.

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
  18. $27.00 bucks? - Not anymore I see a price increase by Graemee · · Score: 1

    While I doubt slashdot will effect Ebay's website, I bet the price will be $90.00 by Monday.

    Good time to sell them if you got them.
    hmmm.

    1) Buy MP3 player.
    2) ???? (strip for parts and sell on ebay)
    3) Profit?

  19. Space program by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the space program essentially used flash memory to store just about everything on the Mars missions, I imagine they're a prime candidate. They'd have to wait for cards that are radiation and durability tested, which may take years.

    Hard drives are a liability in space: one more gizmo that can fall apart from vibration, not to mention dust. Flash memory is far more reliable.

  20. CF will be Free After Rebates by masternerd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Good Write up, But as you mentioned that user can buy 3 Nomad Muvo by spending $600 (Or less). I noticed prices for $256 CF are around $20 (Posted today on http://www.dealsofamerica.com). Remember these CompactFlash Cards used to be around $100 just couple of years ago. I bought mine for $68 or so last year. So its good to have 12 GB CF, but as of now I dont see big utility. Pocket size MP3 players with 20GB Storage for $200 have virtually diminished the need for a common man to spend so much on this. I am not sure where it will be used (What I am sure if someone will use it thats why they are releasing it)..but its not for me..

  21. Much better idea: plug this into the iPod you already have. You get between 15 and 40 GB of storage for $110.

    --

    I write in my journal
    1. Re:Ugh. by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Is good, but is no good on the road.

      If your stuff gets stolen, you lose: the camera, the ipod, the tiny card, the tiny card reader, etc etc. Sure, I could claim insurance, but I've a deductible of $400, so I'd only get $200+ back on $700+ worth of stuff (Canadian dollars, not US).

      But the article is a good indication of where portable memory storage is headed, and I can't wait. Besides, if they come out with a 12 gig CF card, it won't be long before there will be devices who'll gobble all that space up.

    2. Re:Ugh. by jridley · · Score: 1

      Or for those without iPods and no urge to get one, get a Tripper, or an Image Bank, or any of a number of such products. The Tripper is $130 or so, and just put in whatever 2.5" hard drive you want, and have a battery powered image storage box that's also a USB 2.0 hard drive.

    3. Re:Ugh. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      You omitted the part where you can actually get the photos from the camera to the hard drive.

      Surely you're not suggesting that the photographer use a laptop?

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:Ugh. by jridley · · Score: 1

      Did you go and look at the product?

      These are hard drives with batteries and a flash card slot. You put the flash card in, you push a button, it copies the data from the flash card to the hard drive. No computer involved.

      These have been around for several years.

    5. Re:Ugh. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Did you go and look at the product?

      Absolutely not.

      These have been around for several years.

      They must suck. Because they're not at all popular.

      --

      I write in my journal
  22. Lordy thats alota pictures by ResQuad · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just got a Nikon D70. 12 Gigs, would do me for about 3,500+ pictures at max quality.

    Thats crazy number of pictures, hell, I have harddrives that are smaller than that CF card.

    1. Re:Lordy thats alota pictures by syousef · · Score: 1

      Depends on what kind of photography you do.

      I just got a D70 myself. I'm moving up from a point and shoot Olympus c-750. A day at the zoo would usually see me take around 1000 pictures. That's when I had a slow autofocus and could only shoot two frames then wait for about 4-5 seconds for the next two. I had a 512Mb card, and a 128mb card, and a cheap old laptop with a small hard drive.

      Now with the D70, I'm guessing I'll typically shoot more like 3000-5000 shots on a day trip. Only a handful of shots will turn out well. I'll keep some of the rest but I'd expect to get about 100 good shots, and I'll probably print a quarter of those. This is certainly a shooting style some of the pros use. I can't remember the article but a National Geographic photographer taking 3000 pictures (using film) comes to mind.

      Note: I'm not claiming I'm a pro but I'll be damned if I show friends, family and colleagues terrible photos. If you're going to go to some expense doing something do it well or do it in secret. Otherwise you just come across as incompetent and immature.

      Sammy

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  23. Re:$27.00 bucks? - Not anymore I see a price incre by masternerd · · Score: 1

    Well, I dont see much profit people will make out of taking out part of MP3 player that can be used as CFII or for camera's... If you see at ebay, prices for Hitachi CFII (As they call it) is hovering around $130 or so. And MP3 player without storage is selling for $57 or so at amazon.com by individual users. I dont see much gain people will make out of it. The only advantage is that if you use it for yourself, You are getting 4 GB Storage for $200 and you are getting MP3 player for free - that you can run with 512 MB CF (sandisk works fine).

  24. Holo cameras from Voyager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everybody thinks this is a waste of space. But just you wait until those Holo cameras the doc used on Voyager go on sale. Then we will see who thinks 12GB is too much. Same thing went for my 10GB Hard Drive I got several years ago....never thought I would need more space.

    The technology comes first, they we wait for it's applications. Same thing goes for that smelling device in an article earlier which seems pretty useless to most now.

    1. Re:Holo cameras from Voyager by burns210 · · Score: 1

      what is said, is that not only does everyone KNOW the reference to a prop used in a now cancelled sci-fi show, but that the comment was modded +5, Insightful.

      Slashdot just gives me warm geek fuzzies sometimes...

    2. Re:Holo cameras from Voyager by suss · · Score: 1

      Everybody thinks this is a waste of space. But just you wait until those Holo cameras the doc used on Voyager go on sale.

      You are aware that Voyager is a tv series, right?
      These holo-cameras don't actually exist, so it would be hard for them to be on sale... also, i'd be surprised if they'd use compactflash.

      PS There's a species 8472 behind you.

  25. Re:Hitachi drives not a viable option for pro phot by Andy+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh really? :-)

    I use a Canon 1D for sports photography (4Mb files @ 8fps in 16 shot bursts) so I require fast write times, and I use microdrives.

    Microdrive write times are fractionally slower than solid state storage but they are also half the price.

    Microdrives being more fragile than solid state cards is a much bigger issue than the write times. Some pros won't touch microdrives because of the perceived vulnerability to shock damage but for most practical purposes the write times aren't an issue.

    Also you should consider that some cameras don't write to storage at the fastest possible speeds. For example, my 1D can write 16*4Mb files in the same time that the new 1D Mk II can write 20*8Mb files to a card of the same speed. All this talk of write speeds is somewhat irrelevant when you realise that even some of the high-end cameras don't write at the maximum speed.

  26. Expensive today... by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But tomrrow it will be cheaper, and drive down the costs of smaller CF card..

    This is a good thing for all, even those that dont have the cash for a 12gb card...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Expensive today... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      But tomrrow it will be cheaper, and drive down the costs of smaller CF card..

      This is a good thing for all, even those that dont have the cash for a 12gb card...


      Meaning: another round of trickle-down electronics for everyone!

  27. Re:Hitachi drives not a viable option for pro phot by johnthorensen · · Score: 1

    It's true that as long as you are keeping shots within the buffer space of the camera (can be up to 40 shots or more), you're OK. Once you overflow that buffer though, you're subjected to the speed difference between solid-state and the Microdrive. There's also about a 4-second spin-up time for the Microdrive - that's a real pain in the ass when you want a quick look at the shots you just took.

    Also, one also shouldn't overlook some of the other potential drawbacks of Microdrives - such as incompatibility and heat generation. There are reports of earlier Microdrives creating so much heat that they melted the plastic in Nikon D1s. Granted, this isn't nearly as much of a problem in more recent revisions, but it's still a concern to some.

    Microdrives have also had compatibility problems with some Pro and Pro-sumer equipment. Nikon wouldn't recommend their use in the D1H for a long time due to some goofy problem that would cause the camera to hang.

    -JT

  28. flashier gigs by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with 6*2GB @$148ea = 12GB @$900?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  29. all CF cards are not the same by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ever wonder why pro photographers want "Sandisk highspeed" yeah it is becasue they want to be able to snap photos like crazy and not have to wait for the photo to be saved.

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:all CF cards are not the same by poopie · · Score: 1

      before you pro photographers spend lots of extra cash on CF cards, you may want to check the speed of the CF slot IN YOUR CAMERA.

      For example, I believe the Canon Digital Rebel's CF slot can only write or read at 1x or 2x. So buying a 40x card doesn't help you when you're taking pictures.

      It does however help you when you take the card out of the camera, and plug it into a usb2 card reader on your computer to get the 1.5gb+ of photos off...

    2. Re:all CF cards are not the same by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Just a thought, but how much does half a gig or so of DRAM cost? Not much compared to the price of a high-end digital camera. So why don't pro cameras include a huge buffer to allow the users to snap at high speed, fill up the buffer, and store on the CF card later? Pros may take a lot of pictures at once, but then they usually pause for a bit, during which time the camera could continue to flush the data from the cache.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:all CF cards are not the same by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      For example, I believe the Canon Digital Rebel's CF slot can only write or read at 1x or 2x. So buying a 40x card doesn't help you when you're taking pictures.

      Nikon's D70 can take as many pictures as the buffer can hold, and it's continually dumping data to the card. With SanDisk Ultra II's, you can fill the first 9 shots @ 3 fps., then get about 1.5 fps. until the card is full. If you try this with slow CF cards, you're looking at 1 frame / 2 secs. Fast CF cards do matter, when the camera's buffer is designed properly.

  30. Not any more )-: by leonbrooks · · Score: 5, Informative
    The newer MuVo comes in a blister pack instead of a tube and includes a sticker warning you that the drive will not work in cameras. The newer MuVo player's drive has had CF capability excised, but it works fine as an IDE hard drive. This means that many of the "unloaders" can use it, but a typical camera can't.

    I wonder which Creative marketing mor^H^H^Hgenius thought up this response? And how long before we see these?
    • camera firmware which can use the drives in IDE mode; and
    • Creative selling "spare" MuVo drives at 90% of the price of a player
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Not any more )-: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Creative selling "spare" MuVo drives at 90% of the price of a player

      Well, you could always buy a "spare" MuVo drive direct from Hitachi, at around 150% price of the player. That's why people are buying MuVo's and removing the HD. RTFA. Bosh.

    2. Re:Not any more )-: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am wondoring if it wouldn't be an easy mod to get full functionality out of the drive.(hmm anywone want to try a firmware switch) The other thing I wonder about is if the harddirve maker is the one who is forcing them to do this so they can sell the drives at a higher profit.

  31. You remind me of the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...sales guy at crcuit city way back in 1992 while my dad was buying me a computer for junior high school:

    "Will we ever run out of drive space?" my dad asked him.

    "Nah. No one will ever use an entire 170mb hard drive." quoth the sales guy.

    I specifically remerber overhearing that conversation while playing with MS Paint on Windows 3.1 on a display machine and now whenever some one says the same thing about the latest technology...

    I just chuckle.

  32. Re:$27.00 bucks? - Not anymore I see a price incre by Graemee · · Score: 1

    So if I'm saving money buy it for the HD rather then just buying the HD alone. Then wouldn't selling the empty husk be profit?

  33. Price of the microdrive alone? by pio!pio! · · Score: 0

    So instead of buying the mp3 player and removing the 4GB microdrive..why not just buy a 4GB microdrive? How much do they cost?

    1. Re:Price of the microdrive alone? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      More.

      There was a /. story about people buying them and taking them apart for the drive because it was cheaper...

  34. Ok, Once and for all by ResQuad · · Score: 1

    Why 12 gigs? Thats not for pro's!

    This is about as far from true as possible, everyone is thinking of sports events and such like that. What about the pro photographers that arent in such accessable areas. Nature Photography anyone? How about some animals? Longer trips into the wilderness?

    Now I am not agreeing that 12 gigs is needed for most anyone, but for thoes that go out on longer trips, out of cell ranger or where laptops are too heavy to cary with (backpacking, canoeing?), this is perfect. Its small, and will take alot of pictures.

    And as a complete amature photographer myself, I wouldnt mind having 12 gigs (not that I take that many photos, but... its handy) so I dont have to rely on having my laptop around for longer shoots or trips of my own.

    1. Re:Ok, Once and for all by Tweaker_Phreaker · · Score: 2

      And what sort of battery is going to last you long enough to take all those shots on your long outtings? Since you're going to have to be swapping batteries like crazy, why can't you swap CF cards too?

    2. Re:Ok, Once and for all by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you only have to swap batteries if you leave the backlit display on like a noob, turn it off and use the viewfinder, you will get a HUGE improvement in battery life (appx 180 photos on one set of batteries for me) when the preview display is on the camera has to run the display and the focus motors *Constantly* rather than for a few moments for each picture

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  35. CF HDD No longer Removable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Of course, you could save $14,300 by purchasing three Creative Labs Nomad MuVo 4 GB MP3 players and removing the Hitachi 4 GB microdrives to get the same amount of CompactFlash storage."

    Not any more. The did something to CF HDDs in there newer players. While they are removeable they are unusable in any other divice. I'm not sure why they woun't work, but they woun't. Also you can't replace the CF HDD in newer modles with another CF card.

    1. Re:CF HDD No longer Removable by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Another poster said that the drives still work in IDE mode.

  36. *sigh* by arhines · · Score: 1

    I've had it up to here ^ with the muvo2 hacking scene. I can understand people wanting to get 4gb drives for their cameras, but there are some of us who would like to find *intact* muvo2s for sale to (gasp) listen to music on. Most places are usually out of stock because so many people are tearing these apart to put the drives up on ebay. I've seen people on forums trying to sell fifty drive-less muvo2's. Ugh. Guess I'll have to buy an ipod mini.

    1. Re:*sigh* by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Don't feel bad about it; the ipod mini is worth the extra $50 anyway (IMHO).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boo hoo. cry me a river. it's called capitalism and if you're not fast enough bad luck.

  37. there are better devices by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Informative

    Image vaults are now available today for about $300. They contain a harddrive (often on the order of 30 gigs) and a cardreader. They're about the size of an mp3 player. Just plug your card in and dump the images. Some of them can even burn a CD.

    here are several reviews of many varieties

    --

    -

  38. Future Shock by Decaff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems only a few years ago I was using Psion Organisers with 16 kilobyte memory packs.

    OK, so it was nearly 20 years ago.

    In 20 years time, if technology continues at the same pace, what will we be doing with petabyte drives?

    1. Re:Future Shock by Coke+in+a+Can · · Score: 0

      Porno Porno Porno. ...must be new or something...

    2. Re:Future Shock by evilviper · · Score: 0
      In 20 years time, if technology continues at the same pace, what will we be doing with petabyte drives?

      Porn! 3D, holographic, photo-realistic, interactive porn!
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  39. Cycle of Technologie by ZHaDoom · · Score: 1

    It may be $14,000 now but in four years you'll be able to get it on ebay for $5

    --
    War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
  40. Compact Flash hard drives.... by standing_still · · Score: 0

    Finally Progress. Eventually I would like to see a 40 or 80GB compact flash drive (with similar or better performance to a SATA drive) replace standard hard drives. Standard hard drives may be larger, but they still fail more frequently than flash cards. If the performance were the same I would sacrifice size for reliability any day.

    1. Re:Compact Flash hard drives.... by Digital11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ain't gonna happen. Compact flash media has a limited number of times that it can be written. Using one as the main drive in a computer would chew it up. Just think about how often your HDD gets written to during normal computer usage. (mostly swapping/page files)

      --
      I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
  41. The latest MuVo2 Hitachi Microdrives DO NOT work. by larryg · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...as CF devices - they are ATA only disks as of this point folks.

    Not a rumor...I received two of the new-spec units on Friday.

    For those that didn't get one of the "tube-packed" models, you are S-O-L (that would include me, unfortunately).

    New-style packaging, with a close up of the Creative disclaimer on the back:

    http://www.digitalfields.com/movo2-cases.jpg
    http://www.digitalfields.com/muvo2-close.jpg

  42. Was wondering the same thing... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I think they would be happy to be selling the devices, who cares what they are used for! It's not like Creative has a music store they are making the real money on.

    Furthermore, what they have done is asked for a flood of returns. For a while people will order the sight-unseen, then when they receive the device if they are lucky they'll return it right away, or if they are unlucky or just hasty (I can see myself here) they would open the device, find it does not work, put the cad back and returned the openend device - even at a bit of a loss for restocking.

    So at best they are going to see a good bit of false sales, at worst they end up with a lot of used goods on thier hands that they can no longer sell as new, all of which have been opened!

    I still don't really understand why either Creative or Apple would care, as I said in teh first place - I guess Apple just didn't want to see too many mini iPod fishtank mods around.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Was wondering the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not that Creative doesn't want to sell more MuVos. It is just that Hitachi is probably threatening creative, because regularly, those hitachi microdrives cost two times more. So, hitachi obviously doesn't want it to happen - and since creative is getting those drives may be 90% of from hitachi, they have to do what hitachi says. This is called business not mathematics.

    2. Re:Was wondering the same thing... by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression most warrantys/returns policies had a section which states that the warranty is invalidated should the actual case be opened.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
  43. Great article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why hasn't slashdot reported on it? Oh wait... they did.

  44. A laptop with a CF card instead of a HD? by pepax · · Score: 1

    Why not? The price is surely going to come down in a year or two, and the low power consumption and speed would be great.

    1. Re:A laptop with a CF card instead of a HD? by jridley · · Score: 1

      You'd better have enough RAM that you don't need swap. You only get a limited number of writes with Flash memory. Your flash would be failing within a year on the swap areas, I'd bet.

  45. slashdot needs an edit post button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "4.8 MB KB/sec"

    should be

    "4.8 MB/sec"

    Oops.

  46. Hitachi Drives... by OneFix · · Score: 2, Informative

    Watch on these, I see from some other posts that the new units don't even have the CF drives in them...

    However, that's not what I was going to mention...

    Look at this image from one of the linked articles...

    The Hitachi drives are CF Type II, not Type I...Most consumer and even some "prosumer" digital cameras only take CF Type I cards. This is also the big difference between the 12GB CF card and the 4GB drives...

    The article isn't really clear, but from the picture in the article, it looks like it will be a CF Type I device....

  47. Limits of digital... by Nazmun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    size...

    Even a ten mp camera's picture isn't amazing if you really want to blow it up. An analogue camera's film stores MUCH more in terms of actual details. Digital camera's have come a LONG way and you can make some pretty big pictures (small-medium poster size with 10mp--which is just about the max) but if your making anything that is about the size of a large poster or bigger you have no choice but analogue.

    The only pro's that can effectively use digital are those that deal with newspaper or full magazine page pics. Even in that case it can be an issue if you want to concentrate the image on a just a segment of your photo and blow that up.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
    1. Re:Limits of digital... by GregWebb · · Score: 1

      How about 14?. Sure I've seen 22MP before as long as you accepted it being permanently tied to a PC.

      In any case, the number of pro photographers shooting to a target print size bigger than a broadsheet newspaper page isn't exactly huge, is it?

      --

      Greg

      (Inside a nuclear plant)
      Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

    2. Re:Limits of digital... by strider_starslayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      See the following site

      Cannon beats 35mm
      It puts 10 MP (specifically a cannon, which may be important, as lense and CCD design do have profound effects on the digital camera) as being the superior to 35mm film in every possible catagory, hence a 20 MP camera like this one fujifilm camera> would outperform a 70mm film in every possible catagory

      With the added benifits of digital (being able to review the pictures, delete unnessassary photoes, send photos without the need to scan over the internet, one step adding photoes to photo editing software, cheaper cost of prints, no development costs; no one who has enough money to buy a good digital camera should be using a non-digital; The only remanining reasons are cost (because you allready own 70mm photo equipment, which is not cheap to replace), inability, and lazyness; But the cost issue is mostly a misnomer- Even though a 20MP digital costs a lot; the savings from not having to make extera prints to make sure that the client likes it, or having to piss off clients with prints they don't like and the development costs on those prints (assuming you do photography professionally, but why else would you have a 20mp camera or 70mm film camera?) will pay for itself soon enough.

      The only people who should not have digital cameras RIGHT NOW, are, ironically, home users- who can get a good 35mm for $200, but would need to pay $700 for a good ~10MP digital camera, the difference of $500 would pay for a LOT of photo development!

      --
      -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
    3. Re:Limits of digital... by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      People like you and the article writer don't realize that it takes more than sheer number of pixels to beat 35mm...also, he's talking about a consumer scanner (4000dpi, that's what I got for $300 by Minolta, nice machine) vs. a drum scanner....see http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo _Talk803 for more or http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm for even more.

      So low-end consumers will get better quality from film and professionals will too. Mid-range consumers MAYBE can match film, since they can't afford a drum scanner (but that's what the local lab is for). Sorry, but digital's not quite there yet.

      Chris

    4. Re:Limits of digital... by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      If your making anything that is about the size of a large poster or bigger you have no choice but analogue

      Actually, that's not quite true. It is true for a single photo, but there are a number of ways to make super-resolution images from multiple images of the same scene. (And I don't mean just interlacing them -- do a Google search for "super resolution PDF".) For still images this works quite well. For slowly moving camera/scene it requires some registration (for which there are automated algorithms). For fast motion this approach isn't really an option. This approach can also be used to sharpen images without amplifying the noise (as does single image sharpening).

      In fact, I'd prefer this method over more megapixels because the signal-to-noise usually gets worse with more pixels (same light divided among more pixels).

    5. Re:Limits of digital... by tempmpi · · Score: 1
      It puts 10 MP (specifically a cannon, which may be important, as lense and CCD design do have profound effects on the digital camera) as being the superior to 35mm film in every possible catagory, hence a 20 MP camera like this one fujifilm camera> would outperform a 70mm film in every possible catagory

      You obviously can't calculate. 70mm film got four times the area of 35mm film so you would need a 40 MP camera to beat 70mm film by the same relative margin.
      --
      Jan
    6. Re:Limits of digital... by jridley · · Score: 1

      One thing that always gets missed in these discussions is that all these numbers only come in to play if the same exact photograph is taken with both cameras.

      In my personal experience, I do much better photography with digital than with film. The cost constraints of film are gone (very real to me, even if a pro can afford to shoot 20 rolls of film a day, I can't) so I take a lot more photos. By shooting more, I get more experience. I get instant feedback, so I can develop better technique faster by seeing what I'm doing wrong and correcting it a few minutes later.

      Before digital, I took snapshots. Now that I've got a digital SLR, I'm slowly gaining skill and doing more of what I would call photography.

      If a medium inherently enables better work for whatever reason, then it's superior, no matter what its technical merits.

    7. Re:Limits of digital... by strider_starslayer · · Score: 1

      you are correct- I had momentarily forgotten that megapixils are a measurement of area;
      That said, no need to throw insults.

      --
      -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
  48. Seems like by Sinful_Shirts · · Score: 1

    this could be useful for ditigal camrecorders

  49. good theory by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


    You're right. These are probably for embedded applications like space and defense (missle guidance systems, etc.). You could be right about dust, but I think if dust is an issue for a hard drive, there's bigger problems going on with the spacecraft.
  50. Who's gonna buy em?-Birth of Porn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When new drives come out people say "who needs that?" but then later on it becomes "I need more!""

    The same was said about sex. Now look were we are.

  51. $12,000 for 12 gigs? Pfffft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15 years from now, you'll be finding these drives
    in various conditions for a couple dollars at
    your local thrift shop. This reminds me of when
    10meg drives cost serveral thousand dollars a pop.

  52. When they first came out Microdrives where failing by dameatrius · · Score: 1

    left and right (and not from being dropped either).

  53. More upgrades for Portable Audio Players by wehe · · Score: 1

    Do you need instructions how to upgrade or repair your portable digital audio player? You may find solutions to take apart the Apple iPod, the Creative Nomad MuVo, the Archos JukeBox and other digital music players.

  54. I wonder about price by aussie_a · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I really wonder about the price of new technology.

    Does it really need to be so expensive to make a profit or are they relying on the fact people are accustomed to things costing so much?

    I don't expect an answer, but I really wonder sometimes.

  55. Re:Hitachi drives not a viable option for pro phot by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    "There's also about a 4-second spin-up time for the Microdrive - that's a real pain in the ass when you want a quick look at the shots you just took."

    I've never experienced that. I press the review button on my camera, the picture comes up on the screen. It has always seemed instantaneous to me, certainly not 4 seconds, not even 1 second.

  56. Me? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In a few years, once they've sold enough of them to cover their R&D expense and are able to sell them at a much lower price. An hour of DV footage is 9GB. A typical mini-DV tape stores an hour. One of these would fit over an hour of footage while still being smaller and taking less power than a tape. In addition, it would be random access, so I would be able to delete takes that were no good easily to reclaim free space. The biggest advantage would be copying the footage to my G7 (the computer I will probably have by the time these are cheap enough for mere mortals to afford), since I would be able to select the clips I want and copy them, or scrub through the footage easily before copying - something tape is not very good at.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  57. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creative updated their Hitachi drive, so now if you remove the drive and try to use it in your camera - it will not work

  58. obviously no real world experience by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Even a ten mp camera's picture isn't amazing if you really want to blow it up.[snip]you can make some pretty big pictures (small-medium poster size with 10mp--which is just about the max

    Funny. I did an 18x20 print (pro lab, not inkjet) for a friend of a cropped photo off a 6.3mp Canon 10D.

    It's gorgeous, and you're talking out of your ass, my friend.

    1. Re:obviously no real world experience by Nazmun · · Score: 1

      I consider that small-medium poster size. A big poster imo would be be much larger then your squarish image here. At least 5x the height. I hope your image would have still looked gorgeous.

      --
      Hmmm... Pie...
  59. Where is my $2 HD by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Where is my $2 2 gig HD I ask? My poor Granny is suffering without a computer cuz they don't come cheaper than $50.

    I know it's not really a matter of complexity but it really feels like someone is screwing the pooch on this one.

  60. Re:When they first came out Microdrives where fail by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
    Those who buy the first generation of a new experimental IBM drive technology clearly have not been paying attention to history.

    IBM has been a driving force in storage technology for as long as I can remember (even when they weren't making their own drives they were doing research which led to improvements) but their latest releases have also been flaky for about as long as I can remember. Most recently I had a whole batch of DFHS S2Ws (2.25GB UW scsi, those drives are like a plague upon the land, you can find them everywhere) and out of 13 of them that I have owned, all but 2 went bad. These drives were THE hot shit at IBM except for the 4GB version... Which I've never seen.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  61. powershot compatibility by scottytoodope · · Score: 1

    anyone tried these cards with the canon powershot s100-s500 series???

  62. Shazbot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand they have to make a profit but......who will buy that card for 14g's - Directors who just want to look cool and stupid at the same time?

  63. Failure Rate of the 4GB Hitachi Drives? by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 1

    Anyone know how long these last? I'd love to get one, but don't want to spend $200 on a dud.

    --
    sig.
  64. Re:Hitachi drives not a viable option for pro phot by johnthorensen · · Score: 1

    On the Nikons, this difference between CF and Microdrive is readily apparent.

  65. Re:The latest MuVo2 Hitachi Microdrives DO NOT wor by aminorex · · Score: 1

    So send them back.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  66. Speaking of "losing them all" by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    I would like to take this time to remind everyone to grab an ink pen and write "REWARD!!!" and your phone number on the label of your CF cards. I lost a card full of NYC pics less than 48 hours after laughing about the label on the card. "Who would label a memory card?"

  67. Thanks for the great tip. by larryg · · Score: 1

    I just might do that.

  68. Archos -- Re:there are better devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're about the size of an mp3 player

    One such device is an mp3 player, and mp3 recorder as well:
    Archos gmini 220

  69. Who needs 12gig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    640k is enough for everyone.

  70. Finally upgrading by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    Finally! Some new cameras worth looking at upgrading to! (I think you'll all agree its about time I replaced my old 2MP Sony Cybershot)...

    Any recommendations? I'm looking at Sony, Canon, or Nikon (pretty much... those are my 'preferred' brands...)

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  71. Re:The latest MuVo2 Hitachi Microdrives DO NOT wor by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be ironic if these pictures were taken with a camera, storing the images on one of those drives that "dont work".

    Its probably the similar technology that was used by certain MP3 players to format SmartMedia cards which couldn't be read by SmartMedia readers (PCMCIA adapters or digital cameras) ...and then, come to think of it, I wasn't able to format the card afterward, either. Grr.

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley