Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:08:50 +0800 From: Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] OT, SmartMedia size V speed ..
At 09:57 PM 16/03/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 05:50:25 +0000 >From: "Matthew Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [LIB] OT, SmartMedia size V speed .. > >>Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:44:23 +0800 >>From: Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: [LIB] OT, SmartMedia size V speed .. >> >>At 08:45 PM 16/03/2002 -0800, you wrote: >>>Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 04:36:51 +0000 >>>From: "Matthew Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Subject: Re: [LIB] OT, SmartMedia size V speed .. >>> >>>One reason CF cards are more expensive it would seem. >> >>Umm ... you lost me there ... > >As usual, that makes two of us Raymond... After your explanation of how buffers >work, I'm wondering myself. I thought CF cards had more built into them that made >them both more expensive, and more responsive. Don't recall having to wait to very >long for the pix to process in my Nikon... but maybe I haven't shot 5-6 pix in quick >succession lately. Well my point is, the fact that its CF shouldn't make any difference to the speed ... all that changes is the controller electronics move from the card to the camera. In fact you'd expect SM to be a bit faster because you could afford to have better controlling electronics in the camera than in the card as you're likely to have more cards than cameras. I think the difference in speed between the 2 SM cards might well just be the difference in the quality of chips used (2 cards from the same maker could contain chips made by very different companies). - Raymond --- /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ | | "Does fuzzy logic tickle?" | | ___ | "My HDD has no reverse. How do I backup?" | | /__/ +-------------------------------------------| | / \ a y b o t | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | HTTP://www.raybot.net | | ICQ: 31756092 | Need help? Visit #Windows98 on DALNet! | \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ ************************************************************** http://libretto.basiclink.com - Libretto mailing list http://libretto.basiclink.com/archive - Archives http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/portable/faq.html - FAQ -------TO UNSUBSCRIBE------- Reply to any of the list messages. The reply mail should be addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Then replace any text on the message's subject line: cmd:unsubscribe --------TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST------ Do above but with this on subject line: cmd:unsubscribe digest **************************************************************
