On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 08:19:28 -0500, Dale wrote: > >>> The SD standard says >33G should use exFAT, this is why many devices > >>> state they only support cards up to 32G. The really mean they only > >>> support FAT. My Dashcam is like this but it happily works with a > >>> 128G card, once I reformatted it with FAT. > >> Warning; that still does not change the fact that each individual > >> file cannot exceed 4G in size on regular FAT. > > That's right, but a device designed to work with only FAT should never > > try to save larger files. Any such devices I have used tend to split > > videos into chunks of 1GB or smaller. > > > > > > > So if I bought a 64GB card, I forced it to be formatted with FAT on say > my Linux box here, it would work in my trail cameras anyway? It makes > sense. It would seem it is more of a file system issue since accessing > a device shouldn't be affected my its capacity, well, maybe some > exceptions. My trail camera may only support FAT which is only found on > 32GB and smaller. I can get that.
It should work, but don't cry to me if it doesn't ;-) > To be honest, even tho I leave that thing out there sometimes for months > without checking it, and it takes a ton of pics, I don't recall it even > going over a couple GBs or so. Even the one that takes videos doesn't > store a lot of data. I don't think I'd buy that expensive a card but > still, interesting that it is a option. I'm thinking even my Canon > camera can handle this. That's a lot of pics tho. My dashcam really eats up the space. If I forget to turn it off at night, even a 128G card only holds abut 2 days of video. -- Neil Bothwick WinErr 00F: Unexplained error - Please tell us how this happened
pgpL0akG8gdIM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
