In that case, changing to FAT32 will probably not have much of an effect on RAW files stored per card. I'll test it anyways to see how they stack up against each other.
rg
Mark Roberts wrote:
Robert Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, I knew that FAT16 wasted more space than FAT32 for lots of small files, and of course it had a much smaller limitation on max file/volume size. I thought that it also wasted space basically proportional to the size of the file, i.e. small files on the average wasted space that was proportionally small, but had a big impact when you had lots of them. So don't bigger (Mb) files waste on the average the same space as a percentage? I.e. if you allocate a file that *just* gets into the next sized cluster, isn't a large part wasted?
No, files don't waste space as a percentage - it's a fixed amount, rounding up to the next block. That's why it's so much more wasteful with small files than big ones. With 64k blocks, even a 1k file will occupy 64k. A 12.0001 megabyte file will occupy 12 megabytes plus 64k. Hardly significant.
